<OT> ubuntu bad press

[Ernest Doub]

I thought this was a discussion list for computer problems, specifically
those related to Ubuntu flavor Linux.
If it has now turned into foreign policy bullshit review please point me in
the correct direction and I will go away and let you all continue to talk
out of the evacuation end of your alimentary tract.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin at iinet.net.au> wrote:

> 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/Irgun>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Haganah<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!"
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>
>



-- 
***The heart of the wise inclines to the right,** but the heart of the fool
to the left  **
**Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)** **
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20110901/b1024db1/attachment.html>