harmful books

Post by jb » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:03 am

Well, because wikipedia is offensive to some people, and you know how we feel about that.

NeilThrun · Post by **NeilThrun** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:44 pm

jb wrote:Well, because [CENSORED] is offensive to some people, and you know how we feel about that.

What the fuck.

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:38 pm

I'd be curious to hear the rationale behind the offensiveness of wkipdia, JB. I just finished a course in computational biology that would've been much harder without it (and MathWorld). Surely it is offensive only so much as the internet itself is offensive (and I see that has yet to be bleeped out).

the Jazz · Post by **the Jazz** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:17 pm

Surely it is offensive only so much as the internet itself is offensive (and I see that has yet to be bleeped out).

Just wait. Today it's WIKIPEDIA, tomorrow it may be ABECEDARIAN.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:43 pm

jb wrote:Well, because [CENSORED] is offensive to some people.

abecedarian wrote:Surely it is offensive only so much as the internet itself is offensive.

It is [more] offensive to some people, and some of those people choose which words get censored on their website. As long as SF isn't some kind of federal bureau or something, I think this is the way it should be.

the Jazz · Post by **the Jazz** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:30 pm

If gynecomastia want to see some real down-and-dirty fortification action, stop by the Write Fight forum some time.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:44 pm

it's dirrrrrty fortification.

also that which shall not be named kicks ass. on big papers it gives you a good place to start. not a good source to use, but it gives you an idea of what you need to cover for a certain topic.

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:22 am

abecedarian wrote:I'd be curious to hear the rationale behind the offensiveness of wkipdia, JB.

You might need to piece it together.

(Also, go to the page in question, and click "history" at the top. I'd link to it but .. well .. you know.)

the Jazz · Post by **the Jazz** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:07 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:53 pm

the Jazz wrote:Just wait. Today it's WIKIPEDIA, tomorrow it may be ABECEDARIAN.

Heh.

Interesting history. I bow humbly to FM prerogative.

In my view the comedic value alone is worth it. It was like discovering an Easter Egg in a video game the first time I linked to something from wkpdia, and saw this [CENSORED].

Æpplês&vØdkã · Post by **Æpplês&vØdkã** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:47 pm

Leaf wrote:http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

I notice they avoided religious works.

There haven't been that many influential religious works in the past 200 years.

Anywho,

wikipedia!
wikipedia!
wikipedia!

a bebop a rebop · Post by **a bebop a rebop** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:35 pm

No one likes a show-off.

lucidia · Post by **lucidia** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:21 pm

i love how quickly this conversation degraded. WIKIPEDIA!

Post by jb » Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:11 pm

[CENSORED] [CENSORED] can suck my [CENSORED] [CENSORED].

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:59 pm

They should make

into a book. It would be impossible to edit, but hey, for the sake of this thread man.

harmful books

Re: harmful books