On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Richard P. richs...@gmail.com wrote:
Some argue that Wikipedia’s troubles represent a new phase for the
internet. Maybe, as some believe, the website has become part of the
establishment that it was supposed to change.
Were Twitter, Facebook, or Myspace
On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:
That is what Fox and the rest of the denier community wants you to
think, but it is not at all what the emails said. Unfortunately,
this isn't the right place to discuss it.
Fortunately Fox and the WSJ are soon to be walled off from reality
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Richard P. wrote:
Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls
sharply
I'm not surprised. Wikipedia has matured and really does need fewer
hands to maintain it. Meanwhile lots of new opportunities have
emerged. Some of the new venues have
Not sure this is off-topic but is this a sign of the times:
http://tinyurl.com/ygeo84p
From The Times
November 25, 2009
Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls sharply
It was one of the internet’s most ambitious, radical and ultimately
successful ideas.
Eight years ago
The recent news of the changing of climate data to fit what researches want
instead of fact is in some ways similar
That is what Fox and the rest of the denier community wants you to think, but
it is not at all what the emails said. Unfortunately, this isn't the right
place to discuss it.
OK as the resident theologian here on the list let me give you my
interpretation and knowledge on this issue.
Also a propos is the recent (widely attacked) speech by the Archbishop of
Canterbury Civil and Religious Law in England. He points out that in
order to expect tolerance from others it
If you Google it you get the answer in the first item of the Google list of
hits, without even having to go to the hit page. I'll bet some folks use it
for a password?
Fred Holmes
At 09:00 PM 2/18/2008, Robert Michael Abrams wrote:
There are ALREADY some 5,878,499,814,186.5 websites with
Should this be uniformly enforced Web wide? Should ICANN spawn ICANT?
It is not just the Moslems. Latest news...
WIKILEAKS.ORG DOWN AFTER EX-PARTE LEGAL ATTACK BY CAYMAN ISLANDS BANK
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks.org_under_injunction
It is not just the Moslems. Latest news...
And in today's news FireFox 3 Beta blocks sites that Google has
identified as sources of malware.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
**
www.microsoft.com?
On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
And in today's news FireFox 3 Beta blocks sites that Google has
identified as sources of malware.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules,
Since all belief in a deity is irrational, religion invites extremism. So,
I'm not sure hijacked is the right word.
Jeff Myers
-Original Message-
From: Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove
I seem to remember seeing at least one of those images in Wikipedia of
the Prophet in high school when we studied the worlds great religions.
I think it was in a series of film strips my teacher really liked to
use.
On Feb 16, 2008 8:01 PM, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wikipedia, the
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove
medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being
flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w
We also have the recent story of a Muslim woman, working as a
Islam (to my limited understanding) has a fundamental objection to graven
images and depictions of the Prophet seem to be the most egregious form
of this.
So does Judaism and Christianity:
Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
prohibits the construction or
I think that it is because the radicals of the Muslim religion make a
lot of noise, and that the press simply repeats this noise, that we hear
so much about it.
I don't know how moderate Muslims feel about these images.
I believe that people should not look at things they don't like.
[EMAIL
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but can't a fantasy be hijacked?
Jeff Myers wrote:
Since all belief in a deity is irrational, religion invites extremism. So,
I'm not sure hijacked is the right word.
*
**
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So does Judaism and Christianity:
Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
prohibits the construction or fashioning of idols in the likeness of
created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and
Hey everyone needs a target for Brick bats. :-)
Stewart
At 07:21 PM 2/18/2008, you wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So does Judaism and Christianity:
Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
prohibits the
At 08:57 AM 2/18/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't dispute your basic premise, however I think it's unfair to label
those who are offended by the public display of these images as
extremists. Islam (to my limited understanding) has a fundamental
objection to graven images and depictions
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:57:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine if Wikipedia were to display graphic images of sex acts on
its home page. This may sound ludicrous, but to some Muslims, a
graphic depiction of the Prophet is equally offensive.
That *does* sound ludicrous. What's so offensive
I don't know about offensive, but it does garner media interest.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/str?guid=20080218/47b910d0_3ca6_1552620080218420090843
Stewart
Make mine Red Rose
At 10:54 PM 2/18/2008, you wrote:
That *does* sound ludicrous. What's so offensive about sex acts? (-:
Hey! I'm
There's an interview with Mark Seigel on Book TV right now and again at
9 pm and mid-night. A refreshing view of the Muslim world.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy,
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove
medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being
flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w
The other year when the cartoon thing was an issue I asked one of our
users to take down the image. I dunno, it just seems Islam is in a
Very Bad Place right now, and, unlike the thousands of years when the
Christians were in it, now they can do real *planetary* damage.
On Feb 16, 2008 8:01 PM,
Good for themthey have more courage and conviction than most of
the media, who have been caving into these sort of religious demands.
Randall
On 2/16/08, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove
medieval artistic depictions
At 05:01 PM 2/16/2008, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval
artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with
complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w
26 matches
Mail list logo
