<OT> ubuntu bad press

[Basil Chupin]

On 31/08/11 02:02, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Basil Chupin wrote:
>
>> But then, I am more than disappointed in the Wikipedia which has now
>> been sanitised to completely remove any traces of the truth of what
>> happened to the Palestinians. If one only had the foresight at the
>> time then one would have saved a copy of what was posted at the time.
> It's a wiki, you can view the history.
>
>> What was posted there some years ago was that David Ben-Gurion, the
>> first prime minister of Israel, was a leader of a *terrorist* *group*
>> (the Zionists)
> It was a Zionist terrorist group, yes. Not all Zionists were, or indeed
> are, terrorists even by the loosest definitions of the word.
>
>> who conducted their terrorist activities against the British armed
>> forces in that region. No "ifs" or "buts" - but a specific statement
>> that the Zionists were *terrorists* (and so was Golda Meir).
> The two more popular terrorist groups are still well documented on
> Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
>
> They're still mentioned in the page on Ben Gurion and on Golda Meir.
>
>> All refrences to the Zionists being a terrorist organisation has now
>> been edited out.
> Haganah, the more moderate of the two, isn't branded a terrorist
> organisation, but it is mentioned that Irgun are perceived as a
> terrorist organisation.
>
>
> Anyway, I've no real intention of discussing that on here, I've only
> replied because I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia somewhat
> in a really common way.
>
> In order to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, information does not
> need to be *correct*, it needs to be *verifiable*. The point of
> Wikipedia is not to diseminate new and original research, or to push a
> new revolutionary viewpoint on something. It is supposed to be in
> agreement with the greatest number of works of reference, and only aim
> for correctness where those disagree. Even then, each commonly-held
> point of view should be included (since each is verifiable and it
> doesn't matter which is correct).
>
> Wikipedia's somewhat ambitios aim is to be a sum of current human
> knowledge, not the means for its advancement.
>
> If you feel that the general consensus that the term 'paramilitary' is
> apt for the Irgun and Haganah is incorrect, then you need to be
> convincing those sources from which Wikipedia seeks verification -
> other encyclopedias, historians etc.
>
>
> Yes, it doesn't help that Wikipedia has a culture that actively
> discourages contribution.


Thanks for your response.

I have always considered Wikipedia as not the Encyclopaedia Britannica 
but, al least years ago when I first started to use it, it did contain 
more "raw" information than it does now - as I mentioned. Now it is 
"sanitised" as far as I am concerned.

There is so much bullshit being spewed out by governments who were 
considered, at some time in the past, to be "believable, "solid" and 
"responsible", but now whatever is being disseminated by same is simply 
not believed but considered to be works of fiction.

Remember, for example, the public broadcast back in 1964 by President 
Lyndon Johnson (the one who flashed his genitals to the press corp here 
in Australia and told them he called 'it '"his baby elephant trunk" (or 
words to this effect)) and who told the world that American destroyers 
were attacked in international waters by the North Vietnamese in the 
Gulf of Tonkin and which was then used as an excuse to attack North Vietnam?

Well, that was all bullshit as it came out much later. The Americans 
deliberately went in into Vietnamese waters to provoke an attack - and 
it was in North Vietnamese territorial waters.

You remember the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese on 7 December 1941?

Well the Americans knew about it well before it happened but withheld 
the information so as to get the American population stirred up to get 
them to agree to get involved in WWII because at the time American 
population was isolationist and have had their gut-full after WWI.

You remember the bullshit which Colin Powell presented to the United 
Nations in 2003 about Iraq's Saddam Hussein having "weapons of mass 
destruction"? (Even Powell is now ashamed of what he did.)

Last Tuesday night there was a program called, "Top Secret America", 
produced in America, and aired on one of our independent TV channels.

This coming Tuesday (next week) the "expose" continues with another 
American program called, "9/11 - The Day that Challenged the World" 
which presents scientific evidence to contradict the bullshit put out by 
the government about the 9/11 attack on America by America's enemies.

BC

-- 
Bob Hope's wife: "Where would like to be buried when you die?"
Bob Hope       : "Why don't you surprise me!"