You just chose to defend the value of copper over tinfoil missing my entire point wich was suggesting you consider gold.
--- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > wrote: > > > > A definition or article found in wikipedia is no more credible than > > anything Paul says in this thread, not that you couldn't find a more > > credible source with a definition suiting your stand. It would jsut > > be better if you used something that had some sort of standard of > > quality. > > > > Not true. At least the Wikipedia is a product of worldwide research > and opinion, not just one person's knowledge. An analogous situation > is Linux. The operating system has no real direction or control. It > is a project of developers worldwide of various skill levels and > knowledge. It could easily be more kludgey than Windows has ever > been, BUT, the contributors are motivated by the desire to make > something that is MORE useful. Similarly, the Wikipedia is a product > of a worldwide user base who a motivated by the desire to make > something MORE informative. As has been said before, just try to edit > some entries with blantantly incorrect facts and see how swiftly the > record is set straight. > > One of the main reasons many Wikipedia articles are more credible than > one persdon's opinion is also that the information is frequently > backed up with multiple sources. As was the information behind the > article I cited. > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
