Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

Originally Posted by DATAGONK

While I laud you for using the doublespeak-esque term groupthink, could you explain more what you mean by it, MK? I'm not entirely clear on how you're using it.

Groupthink is a real thing that you'll see in psychology and management books. It's a phenomenon that occurs when someone doesn't want to speak up because they're afraid of the repercussions from the rest of the group. It's commonly cited as the cause of the Challenger disaster (the engineer specializing in the o-rings adamantly opposed the launch proceeding, but since he was pressured from his own company as well as those at NASA, he gave in to their demands even though it was against his better judgement).

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I like how you intersperse talking about how stupid something on the internet is with physical threats to people over the internet. Can I get a lol in here.

While I don't really like Wikipedia a whole lot due to the style that most people there write and the massive disparity of information between different kinds of topics, it is a very convenient souce. Frankly, I found it a lot easier to do a quick search on Wikipedia to figure out the color of the Titanium (III) Chloride salt than trek 10 minutes across campus to find the information in some book (I don't even know what book would have that kind of information when the CRC Chemistry handbook doesn't).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

You'd have a point if I was known for hanging people. Since I am not, I'm forced to point out that this part of your statement holds no water, what-so-ever.

So now in order for something to be a threat you need to have done it before? And, as acid pointed out, you kinda forgot the booting of ass in your post.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Certainly stands to reason. By this point, the snide nature of "e-threats" is responded with the equally snide nature of a dismissal.

So this means, like, I could send e-mails to people telling them I'm going to rape their children, shoot their wife, and burn their parents' house down and they shouldn't take it as some sort of threat? It must be nice living in your own little world.

Quote:

Lather, rinse, repeat - though it stands to reason that people who need to point out the obvious lame nature of internet threats could only be as lame as the threat it's self.

I wasn't pointing out the lameness of your threat, I was pointing out the seeming contradiction in calling something stupid on the internet while throwing in lame insults over the internet. But this required combining two slightly different trains of thought, so I guess I can see how one could get confused.

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I don't use wikipedia unless I really, really, REALLY have to. Other times I just search for sites using a helpful search engine that are more researched then wikipeadia is. Heck...some fan sites are more creditable then Wikipedia! Personally...I think they should get they're act together and make the site harder to edit like I said.

Sadly, most other websites aren't much more accurate than Wikipedia is (at least in my experience). I've actually found Wikipedia to be a decent starting place for research, using their links to external sites as places for more indepth reading (since often the include .edu or larger reliable websites).

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

I suppose it depends on the situation, sure. But are you saying you take my threats the same as you would from a criminal? Do you put me in the same niche as Charles Starkweather or something? Is internet talk the same level as a direct threat against one's loved ones?

Well, according to your world, the person doing the non-threating isn't a criminal (since, you know, they haven't done the act before), what reason would there be to take it seriously since it's done online?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Even acid said it cannot be quantified that any number of people - be it 1 or 13,000 - are qualified to post anything about any subject. I suggest you watch the Youtube link I posted earlier, as it demonstrates my point better than I have.

Doesn't the Colbert Report clip just verify that incorrect things on Wikipedia will be reverted to their correct form by one of the numerous wikinazis that live there (in case you hadn't heard, the page on Elephants was locked a little later to prevent vandalism)?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Reviving an old thread because I've been away for a long time.

They don't lock every subject because it's not being vandalized by people. What you're asking is kinda like wondering why we just don't close every thread here after it's made to prevent trolling.

Most amazing jew boots