The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia.
You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out information is instead worthless, look at the page, "unverified", "disputed", etc and etc, oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is gone, no...wait, it's back....oh, nope its gone...oh, back again how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back and forth squalibling.....it's sad.....just sad..... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Gosse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah yes, the classic case of circular definitions. That is repeating the > defined term within the definition itself. This is the kind of writing that > my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big red > pencil. > > Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom > > _____ > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog > Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry > > OK, fwiw: > > I did not get past this gem: > > "There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the > content must be encyclopedic." > > Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their > weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one > currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky > talk....What did I miss? > > WtW > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
