Kony 2012

  • Thread starter DeletedUser17143
  • Start date

DeletedUser30834

Sigh..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Some people will believe anything when it is what they want to believe. Actually the problem is the presentation and I will point out why that's a problem later. Take a look at those links and I quoted a few things from some of them. Most of all, take a look at the peak oil link before this as it is the peak being talked about, not the peak of a specific reserve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHD4U2q_p4c

http://www.physorg.com/news80491301.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-23/...producer-surplus-oil-peter-beutel?_s=PM:WORLD

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E8D254Q20120202

"Globally, the world has about 7 million barrels a day too much capacity. Recent events whether Petroplus or otherwise have seen about a million barrels affected globally, so that's only 6 million barrels," Shell's chief financial officer, Simon Henry, said at a news conference. (that is about the entire production values of Saudi Arabia alone and this statement was made last February.

"Changing economics, technological advances and efforts such as recycling and substitution make the world's mineral resources virtually infinite, said Cheney, a UW professor emeritus of Earth and space sciences. For instance, oil deposits unreachable 40 years ago can be tapped today using improved technology, and oil once too costly to extract from tar sands, organic matter or coal is now worth manufacturing. Though some resources might be costlier now, they still are needed."

We are not pumping oil at the full capacity that we could as it stands right now. As I said, OPEC has throttled the tap, we already discussed new oil sources coming online in Uganda which isn't at capacity or even figured into the mix yet. The problem with peak oil is that it is artificial and ignores advancements in technology and efficiency in uses. It assumes that the state of technology surrounding extracting oil, refining it, and taking it to market will be stagnate forever and that our usage will not become more efficient ever or shift away from it. That is not the case at all. IF demand spiked tomorrow, they would pump more of it out of the ground the next day.

Most of this doom and gloom about running out of oil is spread by people with motivations. the green idiots religiously believe we are running out of oil in order to push their alternative energy agendas. The oil companies want access to reserves they are locked out of because of environmental or political reasons. Some politicians like high oil prices because it separates the poorer people and gives them a renewed chance to "reach out" to them. Some politicians who think taxing oil so people are excluded from using it will save the environment from global warming. Others think the beach houses they just purchased after spending more then 5 years warning that global warming was going to flood the coast line will have a higher resale value.

I would also caution a graph that starts during the oil embargo. It is almost as if it was manipulated for specific purpose- not that you had anything to do with that in and of itself. But it's not a stretch considering that BP oil wants to drill in areas the US has disallowed for political or environmental reasons..
 

DeletedUser16008

:rolleyes: ok whatever im not going to waste much time on this. As far as it running out if it gets too expensive for the average person to use or affects prices too much the effect will be the same. Increased poverty and starvation since everything revolves around it. That is what im trying to highlight. You obviously of an opinion everything can chug along as it always has. thats all i need to know. Im not a greenie nor a tree hugger but it dosnt take much common sense that wasting a finite resource faster than you have to is one heck of a dumb thing to do.

Yes if demand spiked they would pump more but thats not the point is it ? atm the US and developed countries are using the stuff like water.

wiki link "Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin after 2020" lol optimistic :rolleyes:

LOL ABC and CNN ???? are you kin kidding me ? I wouldnt associate them with any credibility, patsy press nothing more.

There is something called stockpiling, useful little thing that I'm not even going to go into the surplus argument because i cant be bothered to explain it to you

"Changing economics, technological advances and efforts such as recycling and substitution make the world's mineral resources virtually infinite, said Cheney"

bulldoodoo is all i'm going to say about that statement. The guys an idiot to say such a thing and should know better. He dosn't even know what a mineral is or hes not referring to oil on purpose and blowing smoke up the articles backside.

Neither coal nor oil are minerals. A substance must satisfy 5 criteria to be classified as a mineral, and these are:

1. It must be a solid
2. It must be inorganic
3. It must be naturally occurring
4. It must have a definite chemical composition
5. It must have a periodic (crystalline) arrangement of atoms

If you wish to live in an all consuming paradigm with faith in shills like this thats your business. The world isnt the US and the crap that continues to pour out of that place in order to justify everything and anything it does is unbelievable. Well old son, the sun is setting on the US as the major player, it is about as lothesome and hated as the British empire was a hundred years ago and it doesn't take much to realise why.

We shall see just how rosy things are in the next decade or two there, what really annoys me is people like you and the US are quite prepared to screw the rest of the world up along with it. As long as it is ok there youll listen to anything that confirms your view.

Thats what happens when you have a belief in fantasy and preachers, a disconnect with reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser30834

:rolleyes: ok whatever im not going to waste much time on this. As far as it running out if it gets too expensive for the average person to use or affects prices too much the effect will be the same. Increased poverty and starvation since everything revolves around it. That is what im trying to highlight. You obviously of an opinion everything can chug along as it always has. thats all i need to know. Im not a greenie nor a tree hugger but it dosnt take much common sense that wasting a finite resource faster than you have to is one heck of a dumb thing to do.
It is called using a finite resource, not wasting it. And yes, everything can chug along just fine because as the cost goes up, alternatives become attractive reducing demands. As demand goes down, prices go down and alternatives are forced to become more efficient and cost effective.

Yes if demand spiked they would pump more but thats not the point is it ? atm the US and developed countries are using the stuff like water.
well, yes. It is the point exactly. if we were at peak oil, they would not be able to pump more.

wiki link "Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin after 2020" lol optimistic :rolleyes:

LOL ABC and CNN ???? are you kin kidding me ? I wouldnt associate them with any credibility, patsy press nothing more.
Well, I guess when you outright reject the reporting of the news, it becomes quite simple to maintain and ideology. I mean you don't even have to reconcile your beliefs with their reports.

There is something called stockpiling, useful little thing that I'm not even going to go into the surplus argument because i cant be bothered to explain it to you
You shouldn't goes into it. we are talking about daily production values verses capabilities. Stockpiling would be included in that.

"Changing economics, technological advances and efforts such as recycling and substitution make the world's mineral resources virtually infinite, said Cheney"

bulldoodoo is all i'm going to say about that statement. The guys an idiot to say such a thing and should know better. He dosn't even know what a mineral is or hes not referring to oil on purpose and blowing smoke up the articles backside.

Neither coal nor oil are minerals. A substance must satisfy 5 criteria to be classified as a mineral, and these are:

1. It must be a solid
2. It must be inorganic
3. It must be naturally occurring
4. It must have a definite chemical composition
5. It must have a periodic (crystalline) arrangement of atoms
For all effective purposes, oil and coal is a mineral. You are being overly pedantic. Legally, oil and coal is covered by mineral rights. Demanding a strict interpretation of a scientific definition when talking economics and politics says more about you then him when yu are questioning his intelligence or motivations.

If you wish to live in an all consuming paradigm with faith in shills like this thats your business. The world isnt the US and the crap that continues to pour out of that place in order to justify everything and anything it does is unbelievable. Well old son, the sun is setting on the US as the major player, it is about as lothesome and hated as the British empire was a hundred years ago and it doesn't take much to realise why.

We shall see just how rosy things are in the next decade or two there, what really annoys me is people like you and the US are quite prepared to screw the rest of the world up along with it. As long as it is ok there youll listen to anything that confirms your view.

Thats what happens when you have a belief in fantasy and preachers, a disconnect with reality.
lol.. I never said you or other couldn't stop using oil. I do not understand why you seem so upset that we have more oil available then you think. There is absolutely no point in saVING it if the point is eventually to move to something else. If oil really was peaked, we would be well on our way to something else already. Pretending it is when it is not only shows the failures of the alternatives. The alternatives to oil for energy is already more costly then the inflated prices of oil so switching over to alternatives will have the same effect as your concerns right here "As far as it running out if it gets too expensive for the average person to use or affects prices too much the effect will be the same. Increased poverty and starvation since everything revolves around it."

Or are you somehow of the belief that the alternatives to oil, in all their lacking abilities and increased costs compared to using oil, would somehow not magically cause the same " Increased poverty and starvation" if implemented right now when oil is cheaper and more efficient/effective? If you want it implemented without causing the same, then make it cheaper, as reliable, and as effective and the world will move to the cheaper more practical sources of energy solutions. If your point was that you want people to consume less, to change their lifestyle and do without in order to satisfy some desire you have, well then just come right out and tell us you want to dictate the quality of life/lifestyles for everyone. We will still laugh, but you will hear some colorful messages in the process too.
 

DeletedUser16008

Peak oil is peak not secondary stage Duh! mate you need to read more informed sources instead of wikipedia and CNN and the stuff you tend to post to support your posts

Your "news" CNN ABC etc as you call it is controlled media nothing more... jesus you dont have a clue do you ? heres one of your favorite sites although it dosnt include the rest of the media world just tv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States

No stockpiling fluctuates, and how do you know its included in that ? You must have surplus its not wallmart .

No Oil and coal are NOT a mineral, don't give a rats what your laws say its NOT a mineral its ORGANIC the guy knows this hes a geologist and being such and stating it is a mineral just made me laugh.

More oil than I think ? oh please I explained the peak, what it is, gave finds, the amounts etc ... your just pulling tv shows and the like. Yeesh

Go and look at proper figures done by OPEC and a host of others as I have before you take what some pleb on a TV station tells you or a paid shill

Move on to what exactly ? What current technology is even close to supporting oil let alone replacing it ? currently there isnt one. But thats cool there will always be another technology just around the corner.... any idea how long to get something like that online ? any idea about ethanol and bio fuels and what they return in spent energy ?

lifestyle ?? your lifestyle in the US is so excessive you use about a quarter of the total world oil production.....grossly irresponsible.
2007
pie.jpg


or if you prefer 2009

United States 22.6%
China 9.9%
Japan 5.3%
India 3.6%
Russia 3.3%
Brazil 3%

No i would like people to just live with some care without consuming for the heck of it to keep your generally sumdumbass society in false boobs, cheap tat from wallmart and the multitude of other crap you consume on a massive and wasteful level.

Your like children with a box of sweets, you have no control because your fatass selfish father says its fine eat as much as you can no big deal. Because in general the american mass sheeple public, have no education, no care, and no clue about the world around them as long as they can stuff the next twinki down their neck and believe it when the mass media ads tells them its all ok twinkies are good for you they give you energy....

Im not going around in circles with your usual interpretation and fallacies.

Its peoples attitudes like yours that has me hoping theres a total economic meltdown of your indebted 15.5 Trillion economy. Because theres one heck of a wake up call needed and coming overthere,you won't learn until your made to I think. Heres to the end of the petrodollar, unless of course you go to war again to get what you want as usual.
 

DeletedUser

The rule of supply and demand will dictate the broad use of alternate fuels. When fossil fuels get low on supply or the demand gets higher than the ability to collect and process them, the costs will become prohibitively expensive and the alternatives will become the cheaper alternative rather than just the environmentally more sensitive choice.

Eventually every one will have to use alternative fuels. We really don't know for sure when that will be so it may not be a bad idea to start preparing for that eventuality, but don't cut your own throat in the rush. It will have to be a step by step change over like going from VHS to DVDs, it won't happen over night but it is happening already. As more and more power plants are replaced by cleaner renewable ones and new cars are going from gas to hybrid to all electric, the supply will not be strained as much and eventually it wont matter at all.

I personally won't be buying the first few waves of these technologies, I will wait a few generations for them to work the bugs out and decide whether its gonna be Blueray or HD-dvd so to speak.:up:
 

DeletedUser30834

Peak oil is peak not secondary stage Duh! mate you need to read more informed sources instead of wikipedia and CNN and the stuff you tend to post to support your posts

Your "news" CNN ABC etc as you call it is controlled media nothing more... jesus you dont have a clue do you ? heres one of your favorite sites although it dosnt include the rest of the media world just tv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States
Sigh.. I see you are out of anything constructive or pertinent to say. I cited more then CNN and ABC, but the focus on those two is interesting as you try to claim the enonsumptionstire point is incorrect even though they agree with the other links I posted..

No stockpiling fluctuates, and how do you know its included in that ? You must have surplus its not wallmart .
Becuae the numbers I cited are production capacity verses consumption. Stock piling would be included in consumption as there is no delineation for specific usages.

No Oil and coal are NOT a mineral, don't give a rats what your laws say its NOT a mineral its ORGANIC the guy knows this hes a geologist and being such and stating it is a mineral just made me laugh.
Then you will not give a rats ass about being wrong in your claims. The point of the matter is that it is logical to use the term when talking about it. IF you want to dismiss something automatically, then do not get offended when it is pointed out how wrong you are.

More oil than I think ? oh please I explained the peak, what it is, gave finds, the amounts etc ... your just pulling tv shows and the like. Yeesh

Go and look at proper figures done by OPEC and a host of others as I have before you take what some pleb on a TV station tells you or a paid shill [/qiote[ I have, and the numbers to not agree with you. Don't get too upset, it is your own workings.

Move on to what exactly ? What current technology is even close to supporting oil let alone replacing it ? currently there isnt one. But thats cool there will always be another technology just around the corner.... any idea how long to get something like that online ? any idea about ethanol and bio fuels and what they return in spent energy ?
My point exactly. There is not replacement for oil currently and there will not be until oil prices increase and the tech become competitive or a breakthough comes about and makes alternatives cheaper. Neither is going to happen with artifical manipulation of oil.

lifestyle ?? your lifestyle in the US is so excessive you use about a quarter of the total world oil production.....grossly irresponsible.
2007
pie.jpg


or if you prefer 2009

United States 22.6%
China 9.9%
Japan 5.3%
India 3.6%
Russia 3.3%
Brazil 3%

No i would like people to just live with some care without consuming for the heck of it to keep your generally sumdumbass society in false boobs, cheap tat from wallmart and the multitude of other crap you consume on a massive and wasteful level.

Your like children with a box of sweets, you have no control because your fatass selfish father says its fine eat as much as you can no big deal. Because in general the american mass sheeple public, have no education, no care, and no clue about the world around them as long as they can stuff the next twinki down their neck and believe it when the mass media ads tells them its all ok twinkies are good for you they give you energy....

Im not going around in circles with your usual interpretation and fallacies.

Its peoples attitudes like yours that has me hoping theres a total economic meltdown of your indebted 15.5 Trillion economy. Because theres one heck of a wake up call needed and coming overthere,you won't learn until your made to I think. Heres to the end of the petrodollar, unless of course you go to war again to get what you want as usual.
Who in the hell cares what the US's oil consumption is. Seriously, mind your own business. If you look at oil consumption per unit of GDP, you will see a lot different of a graph.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_tes_pergdp-oil-consumption-test-per-gdp

Maybe something you are not aware of, is that the county in itself does not purchase oil. It is the private enterprise within the country that purchased the oil and being in debt as a nation has little to no bearing on it outside of what the government uses.
 

DeletedUser16008

Who in the hell cares what the US's oil consumption is. Seriously, mind your own business. If you look at oil consumption per unit of GDP, you will see a lot different of a graph.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_tes_pergdp-oil-consumption-test-per-gdp

Maybe something you are not aware of, is that the county in itself does not purchase oil. It is the private enterprise within the country that purchased the oil and being in debt as a nation has little to no bearing on it outside of what the government uses.

lol it is everyones business seeing as your in everyone elses.

Your graph is related to GDP and takes no account of the top 5 users. No getting away with it, you use far far more than you should be and you just don't care.... and that more than anything else highlights the problem.

Seeing as the petrodollar forces everyone to trade in your currency and its used as a printing press to circulate your dollar it 100% has bearing on it. Lose that and pop goes the dollar as the world reserve currency ;) I for one am looking forward to the demise of biggest fiat currency the world has ever seen and all the rest along with it and guess what ? its also a certainty with your debt and inability to manage it. Just like 100% of all the rest in history. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser17143

Sumdumass, I know you have the right to your own opinions. And I respect that. Having said that, I do not see why you continue to argue your point by using facts from unreliable sources. Your arguments are completely based on fallacies and what you imagine to be true. I respect that you have your opinion, and I can see that it is not going to change. So I congratulate you on your ability to stand your ground. But although everyone is entitles to their own opinion, that doesn't mean that their opinion is ant more true than mine.

Every argument you have come up with has been completely ridiculous and more based on fallacies than fact. Unless you are prepared to come up with some rock hard foundations from which to hold a good argument from, I suggest you refrain from commenting. I can't forcibly stop you from sharing your opinion, and nor would I try to. I will however point out that you are being completely ridiculous and it is coming across that you are arguing with our facts just for the hell of it. Your arguments show no credibility, and your repeating use of Wikipedia is actually the most frustrating thing I have ever come across. If you don't have a vast knowledge of oil and the distribution and demand of oil, that's fine. But don't pretend you understand it just so you can argue. It doesn't make you look clever. In fact it does quite the opposite.
 

DeletedUser

Sumdumass, I know you have the right to your own opinions. And I respect that. Having said that, I do not see why you continue to argue your point by using facts from unreliable sources. Your arguments are completely based on fallacies and what you imagine to be true. I respect that you have your opinion, and I can see that it is not going to change. So I congratulate you on your ability to stand your ground. But although everyone is entitles to their own opinion, that doesn't mean that their opinion is ant more true than mine.

Every argument you have come up with has been completely ridiculous and more based on fallacies than fact. Unless you are prepared to come up with some rock hard foundations from which to hold a good argument from, I suggest you refrain from commenting. I can't forcibly stop you from sharing your opinion, and nor would I try to. I will however point out that you are being completely ridiculous and it is coming across that you are arguing with our facts just for the hell of it. Your arguments show no credibility, and your repeating use of Wikipedia is actually the most frustrating thing I have ever come across. If you don't have a vast knowledge of oil and the distribution and demand of oil, that's fine. But don't pretend you understand it just so you can argue. It doesn't make you look clever. In fact it does quite the opposite.
*bing*

I have been following this thread and refraining from commenting, partially because of what you just pointed out here yidboi (and it's something I pointed out in a different thread), but also because the topic is Kony 2012 and this discussion has gone so off-topic (a usual Sumdumass tactic) that is it no longer about Joseph Kony nor about the internet efforts to gain attention to Kony.
 

DeletedUser30834

Sumdumass, I know you have the right to your own opinions. And I respect that. Having said that, I do not see why you continue to argue your point by using facts from unreliable sources. Your arguments are completely based on fallacies and what you imagine to be true. I respect that you have your opinion, and I can see that it is not going to change. So I congratulate you on your ability to stand your ground. But although everyone is entitles to their own opinion, that doesn't mean that their opinion is ant more true than mine.

Every argument you have come up with has been completely ridiculous and more based on fallacies than fact. Unless you are prepared to come up with some rock hard foundations from which to hold a good argument from, I suggest you refrain from commenting. I can't forcibly stop you from sharing your opinion, and nor would I try to. I will however point out that you are being completely ridiculous and it is coming across that you are arguing with our facts just for the hell of it. Your arguments show no credibility, and your repeating use of Wikipedia is actually the most frustrating thing I have ever come across. If you don't have a vast knowledge of oil and the distribution and demand of oil, that's fine. But don't pretend you understand it just so you can argue. It doesn't make you look clever. In fact it does quite the opposite.
You cannot dismiss comments and references out of hand because of your personal ideology and then claim someone else is getting it wrong. At least I cited the sources of the stuff I repeated from elsewhere, where are your facts? Where are your facts that Wikipedia is unreliable? Hmm?? This is the third different thread you have contributed nothing to but laming wikipedia for some reason. Start a thread on Wikipedia's reliability if it is that important to you but shut up about it here and if something is referenced that is wrong, show your cites and move on.

The only thing ridiculous here is you ignoring facts instead of disputing them simply because they do not come from your favorite biased source. Well, we are not here to stroke your ideology and confirm your beliefs. If you would broaden your horizons and get out a bit more, your silly ideology would probably be a lot different and connected to the real world a little more.

*bing*

I have been following this thread and refraining from commenting, partially because of what you just pointed out here yidboi (and it's something I pointed out in a different thread), but also because the topic is Kony 2012 and this discussion has gone so off-topic (a usual Sumdumass tactic) that is it no longer about Joseph Kony nor about the internet efforts to gain attention to Kony.
You, like normal, are full of it. this topic has went where it did because the claim was made the the campain was a smoke screen to get to the oil. After I pointed out that the countries in control of the Uganada oil have more then enough capacity to deal with any threats on the oil themselves, they modified the "its about oil" statement to include how the world is running out when that simply is not true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser17143

Dispute the facts or shut up about the sources. You cannot dismiss comments and references out of hand because of your personal ideology and then claim someone else is getting it wrong. At least I cited the sources of the stuff I repeated from elsewhere, where are your facts? Where are your facts that Wikipedia is unreliable? Hmm?? Sources or shut the hell up. My gawd you are annoying This is the third different thread you have contributed nothing to but laming wikipedia for some reason. Start a thread on Wikipedia's reliability if it is that important to you but shut up about it here and if something is referenced that is wrong, show your cites and move on.

The only thing ridiculous here is you ignoring facts instead of disputing them simply because they do not come from your favorite biased source. Well, we are not here to stroke your ideology and confirm your beliefs. If you would broaden your horizons and get out a bit more, your silly ideology would probably be a lot different and connected to the real world a little more.

I am disputing the facts via pointing out that the sources you have used have zero credibility and thus shouldn't even be considered as a valid response to the discussion that has been ongoing. There is no need to be rude about it. I have tried my hardest not to be rude to you. I have pointed out that I understand your argument. It does however lack credibility due to the resources used to emphasize your point.

Wikipedias reliability does not matter so much to me that I will start a thread on it. If it matter so much to you than I will happily comment on a thread that you start and provide links to sources that prove how unreliable it is. If by some miracle you actually have any sort of education behind you, you will know that schools, colleges and universities will not accept work that references wikipedia as a source of information. Because it is so unreliable. I do not see any reason why that should be any different here. This is all I will say on the matter, as it has become apparent that as soon as you begin to lose an argument, you change the subject to something that you are equally under informed of.

Hellstromm is right, this thread has unfortunately gone off on a tangent. Fortunately, until now it had developed into a debate that still held a good level of value as a subject. But if you wish to talk only about my issues with your resources and if you insist on being outright rude, than I will have no further part on this topic. I wouldn't be surprised if the thread is closed soon anyway.
 

DeletedUser16008

. this topic has went where it did because the claim was made the the campain was a smoke screen to get to the oil. After I pointed out that the countries in control of the Uganada oil have more then enough capacity to deal with any threats on the oil themselves, they modified the "its about oil" statement to include how the world is running out when that simply is not true.

Im going to break with tradition and back sumdum up here, as with most topics there is not just the topic if its related its related and it sometimes means that topic evolves. As people arnt going to post a new thread every single time a topic starts to go off on a tangent its better left to first sometimes deal with a related part before returning to the main.

PS KONY is not even in Uganda and hasn't been for years, apparently.
 

DeletedUser17143

PS KONY is not even in Uganda and hasn't been for years, apparently.

This is true and it is something that Invisible Children have admitted to. However when they first begun he was still active and Uganda has become one of the pillars in the effort to find him. Unfortunately he has moved and changed his tactics so that his main efforts are now put towards not being found, rather than gaining influence. Which is why it is so important for the charity to help not only find him, but to use this time to build safer places for people to live in nothern Uganda so that should Kony return to the are, the people will feel a lot safer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reE5bB_HB04&feature=g-all-u&context=G2c555aaFAAAAAAAAOAA

This is one of the more recent Invisible Children videos. It is quite short. But it highlights what some of the other efforts the money donated is being used to help. It's not just to promote war in an effort to catch him. It is also about helping the affected deal with what has happened and implement plans to act as deterrents should it happen again.

I'm glad you got this thread back on track :)
 

DeletedUser17143

I did actually start this thread because it is something I'm not 100% on. I feel like the overall cause has my approval. But I'm not so sure about the way in which they aim to achieve that.

If you fancy a more light hearted approach to the skepticism surrounding it, you may enjoy Charlie Brookers take on it.

This video does contain strong language throughout. Don't watch it if you are easily offended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpuB11d0Gog&feature=endscreen&NR=1
 

DeletedUser16008

I did actually start this thread because it is something I'm not 100% on. I feel like the overall cause has my approval. But I'm not so sure about the way in which they aim to achieve that.

If you fancy a more light hearted approach to the skepticism surrounding it, you may enjoy Charlie Brookers take on it.

This video does contain strong language throughout. Don't watch it if you are easily offended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpuB11d0Gog&feature=endscreen&NR=1

lol well well well, I must confess i havn't had time or bothered about the company other than seeing it and thinking ooo thats a bit expensive and it smells a bit...

Im not going to look deeper ill let someone else do that but i will not be at all surprised if its not a tool to endere people and eventually get them coming around to thinking about good old you know who... just a hunch maybe but i have a sneaky suspicion its not just about Kony or the children.

If i see him ill kick his ass but i wont be buying any info packs or having anything to do with it further.
 

DeletedUser30834

I am disputing the facts via pointing out that the sources you have used have zero credibility and thus shouldn't even be considered as a valid response to the discussion that has been ongoing. There is no need to be rude about it. I have tried my hardest not to be rude to you. I have pointed out that I understand your argument. It does however lack credibility due to the resources used to emphasize your point.

Wikipedias reliability does not matter so much to me that I will start a thread on it. If it matter so much to you than I will happily comment on a thread that you start and provide links to sources that prove how unreliable it is. If by some miracle you actually have any sort of education behind you, you will know that schools, colleges and universities will not accept work that references wikipedia as a source of information. Because it is so unreliable. I do not see any reason why that should be any different here. This is all I will say on the matter, as it has become apparent that as soon as you begin to lose an argument, you change the subject to something that you are equally under informed of.
You are not disputing facts, you have not said one thing was wrong. All you have done is said you were going to ignore it because you do not like the source quoted. More sources then Wikipedia was given and I could restate the exact same things using the sources wikipedia used too. The entire purpose of using Wikipedia is because it popped up in a google search and was convenient.

As I said before, this is not a doctoral thesis or anything close. You are not in a superior position to me and you definitely are not my head mistress. My educations happened before Wikipedia was a concept at all and the extent of the internet was primarily gopher, prodigy shells, BBS gateways, lists/news servers, and netscape 1.X The computer itself didn't even come with a web browser and I now have watched capable of more processing power then my original desktops. The internet itself is not a reliable source as anyone can post anything on it and I have done so in the past just to cause a stir and get laughs (anyone remember the dolphin sex soft core erotica pages circa 1995, I talked one of the guys into creating it. Or how about the WWW prefix to web pages equaling 666 in Hebrew so the internet is inherently evil seeing how all page addressed started by paying homage to the devil with www.whatever.com that started multiplying circa 1998-99).

Wikipedia is not different except it cites the references it uses and records the changes made to it so anyone who wanted to check and determine the accuracy of the postings could. Wikipedia can be a valuable starting place for research because of this documentation. And the point of schools not allowing the usage of wikipedia is not because it can be wrong, it is because it can be updated and there was no way to say version 2001 volume 6 so when someone checked your reference and saw version 2002 volume 6, things were different. A print volume is just that, a fixed volume that can be retireved and the reference taken into context of the paper. When you cite the 2002 volume 6 of whatever encyclopedia, the content will always be the same whether right or wrong or changes in future or past editions. When you cite wikipedia, and the content has changed over time, even for legitimate reasons like a new study proved the old study incorrect or something, you are left with the current content and it appears as you either made the crap up or lack the ability to comprehend what you are reading. Schools do not assign papers to determine your knowledge of a subject, they are not concerned with the correctness of the content unless you are doing something specific for a project or research that requires it, they do it to see if you have the ability to find answers to questions, evaluate those answers, and understand the content. It's more of a cognitive exercise then an accuracy of content content. Your dismissal of post because of a source references is improper and outright intelectually lazy.
 

DeletedUser

Co-producer of Koney was caught by police wandering naked on the street.
 
Top