On 09/01/2012 03:31 PM, Invisible wrote:

> Interestingly, according to Wikipedia (which is inerrant),

To quote Wikipedia,

"The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, is about dinosaurs who 
shoot cream chesse out of their butts, meaning Genesis is mainly about 
perverted dinosaurs Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the]
beginning"), is 
the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[1]"

I was literally reading about the various books of the Bible, and came 
across this. Very random... I've never actually seen that before. (Then 
again, I usually don't read popular pages.)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/11/2012 6:23 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Doubt it. While Jewish names generally had meanings, they where not used
>>> as titles. Given the time period it would be like, as Invisible said,
>>> titling someone "John", and expecting anyone to not go, "Oh, I know him,
>>> doesn't he make sandles two streets down that way?" His *title* was
>>> Christ, or Messiah. Or at least, that is what they tacked on to what
>>> ever imaginary person, or poor corpse, had the luck of "founding" the
>>> things. lol
>>
>> He was a carpenter, not a shoemaker... ;)
>
> Wikipedia claims that "carpenter" is not a good translation. More like
> "odd job man".
Great a tinker. lol Oh my, you mean he was actually a gnome? Oh, wait, 
wrong fictional mythology...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/11/2012 6:26 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-01-10 22:33, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> On 1/10/2012 3:59 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> From where did he came, nothing is sure. Only the last 3 years of his
>>> life were dedicated to propaganda and sedition. It is also well-known
>>> that he frequented a whore (Marie Madeleine)... put that on the prudish
>>> and puritan Church. Coherency and consistency never make it inside
>>> dogma.
>>>
>> Actually, the whore thing is in dispute. As I said in another post, Mary
>> was such a common name at the time that it was used as a derogatory
>> statement when encountering Jewish women. If you go back to some of the
>> earliest translations, its fairly clear that there where in fact at
>> least "two" such Marys, one of them a follower, and the other some
>> random street whore, who decided to wash his feet. Even the chronology
>> makes no sense, if taken into account, with her being, seemingly
>> "unknown", wandering in off the street, and becoming so impressed she
>> had to wash his feet, **after** earlier parts of the same text, where
>> she is already mentioned as traveling with him (this makes no logical
>> sense, unless you get a later "edited" version, like the KJV, which
>> attempts, badly, to "fix" these little errors).
>>
>> The "Whore and follower, both" bit was created much later, as a means of
>> showing, even as they ignored it themselves, how much "purer" he was
>> than the rest of us (and, at least initially, to show how we needed to
>> be nice, even to bad people). By the time the puritans came along, it
>> was common to confuse them as the same person. The puritans themselves
>> are notable for taking the already distorted meaning of, "taking the
>> lords name in vein", and making it into cursing and using words that
>> involved bodily functions. The original meaning, BTW, was the use of
>> imprecatory prayer, to ask god to give them things, or curse others.
>> Hardly a surprise that "modern" Christians use prayer for almost bloody
>> nothing else. lol
>
> You mean like asking to win a football game?
>
Stupidest thing about it, when you get right down to it, is that most of 
them pray for something like, "We need to find a cheap baby bed, please 
god!", then go around physically from second hand store to second hand 
store, looking for one, then praise god for having magically placed one 
there. Want to impress me, ask him for a $20 baby bed, then only visit 
some high end store, that sells them with gold leaf applied, and "succeed".

The ones that pray, instead of going to a doctor, especially when their 
kid is sick.. are in my opinion, depraved, insane, **and** stupid. 
Sadly, while the argument has been made that someone intentionally 
killing their kid with a gun would be "immediately" assumed, even by 
other believers, to be insane, not, "actually hearing god", killing them 
"unintentionally", by believing completely insane things, and acting on 
them, via neglect and denial, will get the same nutcase remanded to 
someone's custody, put on probation, and left with how ever many other 
kids they have popped out, to do it all over again.

I am not sure why the hell this is, but apparently it has something to 
do with, "Not forcing people to abandon their faith, and respecting that 
they have a strong conviction about it.", or something. Which, again, 
makes no damn sense, if they where "insane" when using a shotgun, but 
"sane" when using prayer, and forced fasting, to try to cure frakking 
pneumonia. Something is badly wrong with **everyone's** priorities when 
this is considered an "important difference" imho.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-11 10:07, Invisible a écrit :
> On 09/01/2012 03:31 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, according to Wikipedia (which is inerrant),
>
> To quote Wikipedia,
>
> "The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, is about dinosaurs who
> shoot cream chesse out of their butts, meaning Genesis is mainly about
> perverted dinosaurs Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the]
beginning"), is
> the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[1]"
>
> I was literally reading about the various books of the Bible, and came
> across this. Very random... I've never actually seen that before. (Then
> again, I usually don't read popular pages.)

This type of "Ha-ha! I made a funny edit in a Wikipedia page" usually 
get reverted pretty quick, especially on popular pages.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> I was literally reading about the various books of the Bible, and came
>> across this. Very random... I've never actually seen that before. (Then
>> again, I usually don't read popular pages.)
>
> This type of "Ha-ha! I made a funny edit in a Wikipedia page" usually
> get reverted pretty quick, especially on popular pages.

Took approximately 10 minutes, in fact. Which makes it all the more 
surprising that I happened to hit the page within that 10-minute window.

Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person 
had made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible, 
you could slowly pollute large sections of Wikipedia with false data and 
nobody would notice for a very long time.

This is why Wikipedia will /never/ be inerrant. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Took approximately 10 minutes, in fact. Which makes it all the more
> surprising that I happened to hit the page within that 10-minute window.

It happens. I once tried to read the article on the first Halo game, and one
section, quite a large paragraph, consisted entirely of the phrase 'halo is gay'
in block capitals over and over again. Several minutes later, back to normal.

> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person
> had made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible,
> you could slowly pollute large sections of Wikipedia with false data and
> nobody would notice for a very long time.

Except that there's a large army of editors who get notified of every edit, and
likely catch even subtle changes relatively quickly.

Still funny when you happen to catch some vandalism in the act tho :)

And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

  If you want your IQ to drop, try conservapedia.org.

  Their slogan is an exquisite oxymoron: "Conservapedia, the trustworthy
encyclopedia." (In reality, if conservapedia claims something it's probably
wrong.)

  The difference between conservapedia and sites like uncyclopedia is that
the former is seriously made, and the owner honestly believes the crap he
writes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Took approximately 10 minutes, in fact. Which makes it all the more
>> surprising that I happened to hit the page within that 10-minute window.
>
> It happens. I once tried to read the article on the first Halo game, and one
> section, quite a large paragraph, consisted entirely of the phrase 'halo is gay'
> in block capitals over and over again. Several minutes later, back to normal.

Subtle. Real subtle.

Of course, one does not have to *utter* the words "Halo is gay". This 
fact is self-evident, uttered or not. ;-)

>> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person
>> had made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible,
>> you could slowly pollute large sections of Wikipedia with false data and
>> nobody would notice for a very long time.
>
> Except that there's a large army of editors who get notified of every edit, and
> likely catch even subtle changes relatively quickly.

You would have to be careful to not just indiscriminately edit dozens of 
unrelated articles changing dates and so forth. That would be a tad 
obvious. But if your edits were of low frequency, it's unlikely that 
anybody would bother to look up every single fact you changed to make 
sure it was correct.

OTOH, I gather that if you try to make /genuine/ corrections, your edits 
get automatically reverted, so... :-P

> Still funny when you happen to catch some vandalism in the act tho :)

Yeah, well... not so much.

> And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

My brain! Urrrgh!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Of course, one does not have to *utter* the words "Halo is gay". This
> fact is self-evident, uttered or not. ;-)

Oi, I quite enjoyed it :) Unless you meant that it has a lot of homoerotic
content. Or, archaically, that it's a really happy carefree game.

> My brain! Urrrgh!! >_<

Quite. I've not been brave enough to look at Warp's link yet, I might turn big
and green and smash things.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/01/2012 04:26 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Of course, one does not have to *utter* the words "Halo is gay". This
>> fact is self-evident, uttered or not. ;-)
>
> Oi, I quite enjoyed it :) Unless you meant that it has a lot of homoerotic
> content. Or, archaically, that it's a really happy carefree game.

The former is debatable, the latter is undeniably false. ;-)

>> My brain! Urrrgh!!>_<
>
> Quite. I've not been brave enough to look at Warp's link yet, I might turn big
> and green and smash things.

I tried. I got a domain name holding page.

Post a reply to this message