I'm curious to know some of your thoughts on Wikipedia, and why you think they allow editing of allegedly fact-based information.


Bonus question:

If I loan out my copy of Tao Teh Ching and it isn't returned, am I going against the Tao if I wish to have it returned? Is nothing against the Tao?

Wiki is okay. I kinda rely on it for a few things.

I had to edit something on anime I watched. Only because it had a rumor that wasn't true. And something else. >.>

It's useful as a springboard to investigate things further and for high level definitions. I certainly wouldn't rely on it as being the gospel truth.

i think wikipedia is as reliable as anything on the internet.

I agree. Even if someone were to edit the entry for D.B. Cooper, indicating that he was in fact the lovable Waldo, for whom so many children search in picture books, it would be true to whoever chose to believe.


More bonus questions based on my recent experience ( On the matter of trustworthiness, not Wikipedia ) :

Is the FTC's "Do Not Call" list a "Call list"? Should FTC stand for "Frustrating Trusting Consumers"?

Why does the FDA allow corporations to list unspecified "Natural & Artificial Flavors" in food labels? Why did the representative to whom I spoke choose to forward my concerns to the "Cosmetics Dept."? To smooth things over? Curious...

Are government agencies and other sources of information / control there to help us recover from our need for them by deceiving us?

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.

I had this discussion on another forum once and THEY thought it was totally awesome...NOT. Oh course I didn't reveal WHY I knew but I told them I positively knew stuff wasn't "accurate". So, I was basically told it is a reliable source and to shut my mouth; which I did.

All I can say is my father is in Wiki...stuff is wrong... gets changed... then they add more stuff... stuff is wrong... I'm like ahhh HELL with it. So, based on my OWN personal experience...NO...Wiki is not always 100% accurate.

BTW, don't ask who he is becuase I won't tell you. The friends I have here that know is because I've readily told them; not becuase they've asked. It's really no big deal; just an old American football player. END.


As to the OP's second question????? No.

Everything is relative and nothing absolute except death. Same with Wikipedia. There are a whole lot of people trying to make a decent encyclopedia and a whole lot of people who have seen a documentary on PBS and reduce good articles to imbecility with their newly acquired "knowledge".

It is good to check the history of an article and see the recent changes made. If there are major changes recently better double check against another source.

Did anyone know that Wikipedia can be rearranged to symbolize our life progression?

Hint: 4 words in total

1. Yes. It is a list for residents who prefer NOT to be called. There's a loophole though. People will call and act as if they are a specific charity and ask for donations. What you don't realize is that this is a scam too. The business making the call under the guise of a charity probably donates 10% of your donation to the charity and keeps the rest. I think that's the limit they can keep. So if you donate say $20. The charity receives $2 and the other $18 goes to the company calling. Sucks, eh? Check into it. You must state clearly Take My Name Off This List (since they are within the loophole). Also if anyone calls on a weekend or after dinnertime they get the wrathe... lmao... sometimes I'll leave the phone off the hook and walk away; hey it's their dime

2. I believe yesterday I saw a program that was passing a law that all food MUST be labeled and labeled with accurate information... this includes and fast food joint too. Yes, you got the trouble-shooter. Paid to calm people who call to calm down. They have extensive training on how to do that.

3. Yes.

By date of Birth?

I realize that charities are scams... all of them. Corruption follows wherever money is involved. But everything we have here is a scam, so I'm splitting hairs for my own amusement. Anagram.

Ok wait you said

So what? Now I have to put it in an anagram? No you tell ME.

Puzzle



You don't have to do anything.



No.

I'm quite fond of that which is referred to as imbecility. Thank you for your feedback, QM.

Did you know that the prefix, ANA, means "upward" in Greek?

Or that the suffix, GRAM, means "something written"?

Do you remember reading anywhere that Caana means "Sky House"?

The series of questions below will not appear relevant, but they are relevant to the anagram (Something written above), the hidden meaning, of "Wikipedia".

I arrived at this subject due to an earlier chat session and my recollection of what Woody Harrelson's character, Roy (King) Munson (Son of Mouth), said to Randy Quaid's character, inspiring a response of, "You keep Miss Rebecca out of this!"

Do you enjoy bowling? Don't people tend to have a love-hate relationship with the sport?

Do you see a melting pot of people from different backgrounds who enjoy it, spanning the entire socio-economic strata?

Is the inclusion of the term "bowl" an accident? Could the sport not have been called rolling, or pinning, just as easily?

Rolling... Pins...? Hmm...

Bakers flatten dough with rolling pins to remove lumps (imperfections), right? Are you a baker? Are you an island unto yourself?

When one's ball lands in the gutter, it tends to be disappointing. Is the gutter still a part of the lane, though?

For how long are you satisfied by a strike? Is it the hope/dream of the strike that is more awe-inspiring? When all the pins have fallen, is your work done? People sit in their boats with the lures in the water for hours, do they not? It's the fishing, and the dream of catching, not the catching that's the most exciting. But that's just an opinion.

Were the pin setters once human? Are the gadgets ultimately operated by humans today? Are we bound by the patterns of the automated devices? Do we have the freedom to run down the oiled lane and power slide into the path of the device before the pins can be righted again? Yes we do, but might we also find our photos at control desks of bowling alleys across the nation at some point, much like the black book for gambling cheats?

Since we're still here, has anyone yet bowled a 300 game in the game of life?

"I wake, I die"? Had to swap the P for an E, though.

Wikipedia is somewhat reliable, although there is the occasional mistake. Most statements make reference to external sources, click them if you doubt anything.

Yeah the only other anagram I get is I wipe a kid.

I suppose it symbolizes a part of life...?

Very good, CE. But it goes deeper than that, and beyond the boundaries of the bathroom, not into the cavity you're addressing.

Very close, Raptor. But to where does one go from the sky? How do we describe jumping into a pool?

Why are "abuse victims" often "kicked" when they come out of the closet with their "suffering"?

This can be answered with 4 words.

2 words, actually.

Back to the film, Kingpin, for a moment. How was Roy (King) Munson (Son of Mouth) treated by the public? Did they laugh at him? Was he tortured by them? Was the life he'd been building essentially stolen from him? But who stole it? Did he want it stolen? Was he a better person for it?

"Groundhog Day" is another movie that follows this same theme, which many films have. "It's a Wonderful Life" is a repetition in Hollywood, which would come as no surprise to any adult or teenager who's been around the block. It becomes a question of what one considers life and what one considers to be a dream.

Bill Murray was in both films above. B.M. Good grief! I assume his birth name is William, but there's no grief that I can see in W.M.

When a person seeks a life partner or soul mate, is he/she forsaking the gem in himself/herself/us/I? GEM IN I?

For those of you who aren't ready to accept the concept of oneness and imagined divergence, you might rearrange the pronouns above into an anagram reading "I? Huh?" Those of you who are flabbergasted and wish to learn more might arrange the letters as: "Uh... Hi."

If you accept that we are one, and you wish to return to a whole person without fragmentation, is it helping you to use an aspect of yourself to fulfill physical desires and provide emotional support until "death" if you will have only yourself in oneness?

Does oneness seem desirable to you?

Would you want to return here with all of your memories from past existences, or none? Some memories only, via so-called dreams?

Have you considered that alleged schizophrenics are those receiving more memories from true self than they wish to tolerate?

Is bipolarity our true form with a wide array of emotions? Can disorder be order?

If I practice idolatry, do I dull a tree? The tree of life?

Does the dissatisfaction of dullness inspire sharpness?

Are there any people here who one could genuinely consider an icon. I C (See) NO ICON.

Is it the goal of a soul TRAIN to DERAIL?

If I were still convinced that each of us had a personal soul of his/her own, might I RANT?

Is oneness our REAL ID?

New puzzle, for those interested.

Note: "No, you tell me." is incorrect. My preemptive response is, "Walk away from the puzzle if you desire, or you tell you."

Where is Mixing Bowl, KS?

What does it symbolize?

Does oneness have any desires or requirements?

I think it is united multiplicity, there is no need for there to be sense in the contradictory nature of this, that is for the aristotalian logic of the "mind".


nn23

Excellent point, nn23. Since we are all at differing stages of progression, I was asking those who continue to view themselves as individuals if they can accept the idea of being whole, and alone. The question was for entertainment purposes, and to seek further inspiration in the interest of occupying my time remaining here.

Those who seek intimate partners would be apt to have a much different view than one such as myself, so I was curious.

There is no mind, as you already seem to be aware. That is also imagination, but I'm imagining my use of it without clinging to it nor the responses from other imaginary minds. I appreciate your feedback, but the affects of said feedback, to which one might feel susceptible, are imaginary.

imaginary is imaginary also, i know you know cause i know so you know...just liiike, imaginary of imaginary is imaginary and imaginary of imaginary of the imaginary is imaginary ad infinitum...and benieith all the layers is purity...but once you reach that, you see and are the purity of everything and it no longer matters, so yeah, seek away all lonesome imaginary beings i say, makes no difference to reality....so, there is no need to search for that which is already there...everyone and everything is everywhere, why search for whats already there...haha i know you know..again hahaha

But is there not some measure of impurity within the purity of Energy, Imagination, Emotion, Inspiration, and Oneness? (Which is to ask for your input on E I E I O?) Would this account for the natural, fallible state of emotion always striving for balance? I know you know the answer, because you are me, I am you, we are one, but this is for entertainment purposes in the event that you allow someone else to answer in your stead, which is what I'm hoping, but not requiring. Requirements suck, because they stink of control, not freedom.

I like wiki very much but there is another sight like it called WikiHow thats really good as well. Check it out.

WikiHow

Only if you percieve it to be so...perception is within the mind.

I love Wikipedia!