On 27/04/07, Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We don't devote time and resources into being "renaissance people".
Human intelligence is hardly limited in that regard. While I do not subscribe to the Colin Wilson theory, the vast majority of people contain so little information it is quite shameful, and the less you learn the harder it is to learn. These arguments about ethics show how truly shallow ethicists bother to think. Wikipedia is a daycare centre which has given out a nearly unlimited number of crayons and is now complaining about children drawing on the walls. It is also a fairly plain example of the cliche of the inmates running the asylum. To assign scholarly status and impute scholarly ethics on such a nonsensical rubbish pile is as silly as taking my arguments here as more than the ranting of a deranged keyboard jockey. What that purported professor did is no more unethical than crapping in somone else's toilet, and to claim other- wise is to elevate it to a king's throne. Once wikipedia (and its ilk) begin to systematically vet contributors for expertise and seriously review articles against fact we can nail them to the wall for political bias. -- -- _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"