Another Hit On The Wikipedia Pipe
I really can’t for the life of me imagine why someone would think that Joseph Farah is a homosexual — other than perhaps the “ride-me-daddy-stache” — but think it they did and said so on Wikipedia:
Joseph Francis Farah is an Evangelical Christian American journalist and noted homosexual of Lebanese and Syrian heritage.
According to Farah he is not gay and never has been gay even though he may in fact look gayer than Florida Governor Charlie Crist in a slinky leather-thong ensemble. And, of course, such a horrible inaccuracy on a web page really eats at Farah, himself a paragon of journalistic integrity. Who can forget the courage it took for Farah to reveal what the MSM would not — that Barack Obama once smoked crack cocaine in the back of a limo while Larry Sinclair was giving him a blow job.
So he lets Wikipedia have it:
Wikipedia is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known. … Too many people looking for easy and cheap sources of information turn to this wholly unreliable website run by political and social activists promoting their own agenda.
Oh my. I think the tea kettle cozy just called the doily lavender.
How low does Wikipedia go? … Librarians have deemed it more dangerous than crack cocaine.
In fact, they had to remove Wikipedia from a library in Hyde Park because Barack Obama kept coming in to look at Wikipedia pages while getting blown by gay derelicts. And it was only just a few months ago that they busted Tatum O’Neal for trying to buy a couple of Wikipedia entries on the lower East Side.
Heheh. He’s like a dog that looks in the mirror and starts barking because he doesn’t recognize his own reflection.
Did you see The General’s letter to Farah?
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/12/joseph-farah-denies-hes-homosexual.html
That is why for facts that are true in ways that regular facts are not true I turn to Conservatardopedia.
Clif—here’s a better link. Google Cache will disappear after a while, the Wikipedia revision history won’t (in theory).
“Joseph Francis Farah”
Dude. Is there a gayer name than that?! There is a consensus forming that Farah is gayer than a six dollar bill.
I’m a librarian, and I think Wikipedia is a damn good place to go for quick reference. Everything you see should be backed up by something else, of course, but that’s a good place to start, get a quick background on an issue or topic, and then go on to some real reference work.
Only a lazy ass librarian would ban such a site. Why not ban Google and Yahoo? Wikipedia is pretty much the same thing in paragraph form.
Information is information, search hits are search hits, and the intelligence needed to figure out a good from a bad piece of info is never going to be developed by completely avoiding such sites.
Perhaps his main problem is that he considers being called gay a “defamatory accusation” yet seems to think being called “an evangelical Christian American” is not.
From Farah’s link: “O’Connor works for Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School and says she has had worries about Wackypedia for ages. This was before it started banning entries of the names of famous people who its fake penis expert editors had not heard about.” Now that’s the kind of objective journalism porn-stached-totally-not-gay dudes can believe in!
That’s one way of putting this issue to bed.
So he let’s Wikipedia have it:
Clif: ix-nay on the ‘postrophe-ay please.
It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known!! It is slander-machine of Satanic proportion!!! It is worst thing ever in history of entire universe!!!1!!
It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known.
Step aside, Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Wikipedia has just taken your crown.
Farah’s just mad that wikipedia wasn’t still in bed with him when he woke up the next morning and hasn’t even called a week later!
God has forsaken us once again. I prayed and prayed that He would come out with a free online encyclopedia edited only by Him, but my prayers have gone unanswered. I feel I must pray harder.
I was going to make a joke here, but Farah’s righteous porn ‘stache warped my brain and I forgot it.
However, I will note that Nick Farrell – who wrote the article Farah linked to – must have a serious grudge against Wikipedia judging by the number of articles he’s written about it. Sounds like someone vandalized his own entry and he never quite got over it. He also keeps rambling on about “Everywhere Girl” and “fake penis experts” but I don’t have a clue what those mean.
I had a witty rejoinder, but WordPress and Farah’s righteous 70’s porn ‘stache eated it.
This Nick Farrell (who wrote the article Farah cited) is a real gem, though. He’s got some sort of grudge against Wikipedia and he absolutely won’t shut up about it. Apparently, his own page got vandalized, and there’s some stuff in there about “Everywhere Girl” and “fake penis experts” that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Well, there is Conservapedia, but their entry on Farah is a bit anemic.
That’s it in full but without the links and the footnote.
Pro Tip: When lambasting Wikipedia for being a purveyor of slander and lies that the world has ever known, refrain from using a source that refers to it as Wackypedia.
No no no! God is speaking through you, Brother El Cid. You must translate his word into Conservapedia content to enlighten all the masses. Perhaps you can then draw some funky cool cartoon tracts that all the hip kids will want to read to about the dangers of evolution and role-playing games. I feel his presence within you. (And that’s making me think wicked things.)
JFF,
Seriously, dude, just edit your entry and move on.
Oh wait…he is the WorldNetDaily guy?
Oh, see, in that case, he knows all about unreliable!
And crack cocaine and blow jobs in limos…
“let’s”?
I had a witty rejoinder, but WordPress and Farah’s righteous 70’s porn ‘stache eated it.
This Nick Farrell (who wrote the article Farah cited) is a real gem, though. He’s got some sort of grudge against Wikipedia and he absolutely won’t shut up about it. Apparently, his own page got vandalized, and there’s some stuff in there about “Everywhere Girl” and “fake penis experts” that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I finally decided to look up “Everywhere Girl,” since apparently her exclusion from Wikipedia (on the grounds that she’s not a significant enough figure to warrant it, apparently) is a big part of this. She’s a blogger who’s claim to fame is appearing on the covers of lots of textbooks. Seriously. She’s posted fifteen times in the last six months and gets less traffic than me. Gee, I can’t imagine why the Wiki editors didn’t think she was significant.
I’m still working on the “fake penis experts” thing. Do you think he’s referring to experts on male genitalia with forged credentials, or people who are knowledgeable in the field of artificial phalli? Food for thought.
He also uncannily resembles that happy gay guy from Family Guy. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
I like Wackypedia better. I imagine lots of sound effects, spontaneous dance numbers, and Gene Wilder riding around on a pony while being shot at by Nazis and the KKK.
What does it take to become a “noted” homosexual? Bring gayness to unforeseen heights? Fuck a lot of dudes? Grow exactly that mustache?
What’s with the other Wiki? Isn’t there a “conservapedia” out there somewhere? Or is that the “Wackypedia”? I’m so steeped right now in winguttiness that I’m losing all sense of surprise over these things…egads.
Technically known as a “dick-duster.”
Farah sez:
Don Quixote off to the windmills.
He’s under the impression that Wikipedia is three or four guys totally out to get him.
Or not under anyone’s control, really. Idiot.
My poor deluded liberal friends, naivety is a vice, not a virtue.
By not admitting it has a leftwing bias, wikipedia is engaged in a massive public disinformation campaign. What kind of a statement would this be on my part if I didn’t show evidence to back up my claims? So here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Utah,_2008
This is the wikipedia page for the 2008 presidential election in Utah. Now, McCain carried Utah by a very wide margin, 63%. Instead of simply stating that McCain won Utah by 63%, and showing the results of each county, wikipedia felt obliged to state that Obama did much better in Utah than John Kerry. And that this was the “best dem showing,” in a long time.
That is clearly leftwing bias, as that “information” is completely irrelevent to the article, which was about McCain winning in Utah and the county by county vote. By adding such irrelevent information in their article, wikipedia has betrayed the public trust by claiming to be a “neutral” online encyclopedia.
Sorry libs, you lose this round.
Conservatives 1.
Liberals 0.
WorldNetDaily? Isn’t that the site with the floor-humping man advertisement? The incredibly gay one?
Crusading Insult to Scots Everywhere:
Do you have the slightest conception of what Wikipedia is & how it works?
P. S.: People using vote information are usually interested in comparative facts & statistics, so any facts about how the 2008 vote compares to 2004 are hardly irrelevant, you inane drone.
My poor deluded conservative friends, naivety is a vice, not a virtue.
By not admitting it has a rightwing bias, wikipedia is engaged in a massive public disinformation campaign. What kind of a statement would this be on my part if I didn’t show evidence to back up my claims? So here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Alaska,_2008
“Although opinion polls taken from around April until late August showed Democrat Barack Obama within striking distance of this traditionally Republican state’s 3 electoral votes, John McCain took a double-digit lead when Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska was announced as his running mate and won the state by over 20 percentage points on election day.”
This is the wikipedia page for the 2008 presidential election in Alaska. Now, McCain carried Alaska by a very wide margin, 21%. Instead of simply stating that McCain won Alaska by 21%, and showing the results of each county, wikipedia felt obliged to state that McCain did much better in Alaska than Barack Obama. And that he took a double-digit lead when Governor Sarah Palin was announced as his running mate.
That is clearly rightwing bias, as that “information” is completely irrelevent to the article, which was about McCain winning in Alaska. By adding such irrelevent information in their article, wikipedia has betrayed the public trust by claiming to be a “neutral” online encyclopedia.
Sorry cons, you lose this round.
Conservatives 0.
Liberals 1.
Oh, forgot to add:
100+ IQs: 1
Loser: 0
Wikipedia clearly has a wingtard bias. In its entry about Utah, Wiki doesn’t even mention that Barack Obama trounced John McCain by winning actually politically relevant states, i.e. not fucking Utah. Moreover, how dare Wiki announce that Barack did better in Utah than any Dem in quite some time?! I mean, what’s the use of pointing out a drastic change in a historically reliable trend in an event of great historical importance?!
Some guy with teh math:
Wikipedia:
Ergo, McCain carried 34+63=95% to B-Rock “The Islamic Shock” Obama’s paltry 34%. That’s unbelievable!
No, I mean it really is.
This wins the Internets for today.
Well, to be fair, I have sat up the entirety of many a night reading goofy shit off Wikipedia and would totally marry it and call myself “Mrs. Matt T. Wikipedia” if I could. I have never smoked crack, though, so I guess I really can’t say which is worse. I seriously doubt crack has any insight into dark matter or early Christianity or the tv show “Maverick”.
Christ. How many of these fucking Crusades do I have to lead Scottish Contingents on?
What jon said. Smart librarians use Wikipedia in a conversation with their patrons on the nature of authority in information resources; stupid librarians use rancid old antidrug propaganda in a sad attempt to maintain their former monopoly on information resources via physical possession. (And, yes, The Commenter Usually Known As The Goddamn Batman is, in fact, a librarian.)
I use Wiki when Lexus gives me 3000 entries on a federal securities statute or something. I don’t rely on it, but Wiki points me in the right direction from time to time.
34% + 63% = 97%.
Just sayin’. Still, it’s pretty impressive that Utah had a 131% voter turnout. That’s better than Chicago!
By not admitting it has a leftwing bias, wikipedia is engaged in a massive public disinformation campaign.
Is it an institutional left-wing bias or is it just that there are many more liberals who use the Internet than there are yahoo-conservatives?
You’re outnumbered. And your days are numbered.
God forbid, or G-d f-rb-d, the nudniks–sorry; the idiots–ranting against Wikipedia should mention that most entries include links to primary or other secondary resources, both in print and elsewhere on the web.
But that’s the “Conservative” Way: Call for initiative and self-sufficiency, but not when it threatens to subvert your propaganda. Don’t tell students to start with Wiki but confirm elsewhere and document everything. Instead, point to a liberal conspiracy. What fools these morons be.
(And this is cherce: Re Farah: “…he speaks widely.”
Well, there’s your problem, then, innit?)
Sorry liberals, you lose again. None of you have even refuted my charges that wikipedia has a leftwing bias. Instead, you make absurd claims, like more liberals use the internet than conservatives, and the old talking point, “facts have a leftwing bias,” blah blah.
Face it liberals, you are merely reinforcing my claims that wikipedia does indeed have a liberal bias. I have here, another wikipedia article that proves my claims.
This one about the state of Oklahoma. Now anyone who studies the politics of the individual states would know that Oklahoma is one of the most conservative states in the county. In fact, Oklahoma gave John McCain the largest percentage win, of any state. Not a single county in Oklahoma went for Barack Obama. McCain carried Oklahoma by 66%, exactly the same margin that Bush carried the state in 2004!
However, on the section about national politics, wikipedia decides it is of great overiding importance, to point out, the highly dubious claim that Oklahoma has more registered Democrats than Republicans. Even if it does, which I doubt, but lets say it does. It sure doesn’t affect Oklahoma’s voting pattern. In fact, Oklahoma has one of the largest Republican trends of any state.
Why then would wikipedia ignore this obvious fact, and instead claim that Oklahoma has a high Democratic party affiliation, as if its a big deal? Because it obviously doesn’t determine Oklahoma’s voting pattern.
Here’s the biased article, and your asses handed to you by me, yet again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma#National_politics
I hear he’s really into water sports and his nickname in that community is “Farah Faucet”. However, I did not see that on Wikipedia and therefore can’t vouch for its accuracy.
Only a lazy ass librarian would ban such a site. Why not ban Google and Yahoo? Wikipedia is pretty much the same thing in paragraph form.
Fortunately for the lazy-assed librarians, the Talibangelicals can be counted on to agitate in favor of banning all such dubious sites, with their unxtian links to ATHEISTS! and B****T CANCER! and other doubleplusungood topics!!! If only their loving God could make it as easy to burn the Intertoobz as it is to burn copies of Satanic Harry Potter novels!
If he had a foot fetish, would he be a footnoted homosexual?
None of you have even refuted my charges that wikipedia has a leftwing bias.
Because it’s an insane charge to make, made by an insane living room gibbon. Sane people can’t stoop that low so we don’t bother.
Why then would wikipedia ignore this obvious fact, and instead claim that Oklahoma has a high Democratic party affiliation, as if its a big deal?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, because it’s a fact? Don’t you believe in facts?
No surprise there!
Remember when it was just Fox News employees editing Wiki articles to make Al Franken look bad. Now it’s all the evil liberals in the evil liberal world doing it, liberally.
Regardless of whether Oklahoma has more registered Demorcrats than Republicans, its irrelevent.
As I mentioned earlier, it has no effect on Oklahoma’s voting pattern, but wikipedia convieniently ignores this fact.
Why do you think that is?
Does it have anything to do with the left-leaning bias of wikipedia’s editors?
I think the articles speak for themselves.
If Oklahoma does indeed have more registered Democrats than Republicans, then the reason for it is a rather simple one I believe.
It obviously has nothing to do with support for liberal ideology, as Oklahoma’s voting pattern has proven time and again.
I think it has something to do with back in the day when the Democratic party was conservative, and the solid south was a Democratic stonghold. The people who had registered as Democrats back in that era, just never bothered to change their party affiliation, even though they now usually vote Republican.
If their is any truth in wikipedia’s claim, then I think the above is the reason.
Regardless of whether Oklahoma has more registered Demorcrats than Republicans, its irrelevent.
Not in a discussion of Oklahoma’s political demographic, son.
It’s a fact. That’s what Wikipedia strives for. Indeed, Wikipedia went out of its way to note that the state votes strongly Republican IN THE SAME DAMNED PARAGRAPH YOU LINKED TO!
Sorry bout your damn luck being on the wrong side of the facts, tho.
If their is any truth in wikipedia’s claim, then I think the above is the reason.
Wiki claims it, shithead, because that’s what the Oklahoma government reported.
Seriously, how retarded are you? I’m taking a survey…
Awww. Aren’t they precious?
Seriously, how retarded are you? I’m taking a survey…
He’s about a 12 1/4.
Still, it’s pretty impressive that Utah had a 131% voter turnout.
You should have seen the lines. 170% of us voted early, but it had dropped off by election day.
Leftwing bias is not unique to wikipedia. In order to elaborate on this, I have to give you some personal information about myself.
I like to travel, especially to different regions of America. I’m a patriot, and because of that, I like to explore my own country. And when you travel, a good thing to buy is a travel guide to the destination you plan on visiting.
And for the most part, I find the Lonely Planet travel guides to be very well informative, packed with good, relevent information about the areas I plan on traveling to.
There is however one big problem with Lonely Planet. The travel guides themselves have a leftwing bias. For example, the Lonely Planet travel guide to the United States, instead of presenting unbiased facts in the section about American culture and politics, presents the leftwing opinions of the authors as fact, and bashes President Bush every chance it gets.
In the article on American religion, the guide mentions how religious conservatives want to make their religious beliefs law, and then goes on to give the opinion that “this practice is unAmerican in the extreme.”
Instead of declaring that its travel guides have a leftwing bias, Lonely Planet pretends like its a normal travel guide presenting facts.
Yet another example of leftwing bias creeping into yet another form of media.
Perhaps the market will take care of the impudent fools marketing books to the vanishingly small percentage of people who dislike George W. Bush.
Well, instead of spouting off your damn fool head about it, why don’t you go do some research and find some primary and secondary sources to back up your claim? Then you can make a reasonable edit to Wikipedia with this newfound information and maintain the neutral point of view. That’s how Wikipedia fuckin’ works, mong.
Quit confusing me with “facts,” you naive and ridiculous liberal people. I have a bagpipe, you know, and I’m prepared to use it.
Wouldn’t it be neat if there was a list of sources relevant to Wikipedia articles, somewhere on the Internet?
I mean, Scotty boy would hardly have to do any work…
This “librul leftwing librul bias in Lonely Planet books!” argument is fan-fucking-tastic.
This “librul leftwing librul bias in Lonely Planet books!” argument is fan-fucking-tastic.
Heh, it sure is. I’d never really thought about it before, but Lonely Planet definitely has a liberal bias – the books encourage interacting with the locals wherever you go, and doing so respectfully, instead of screaming in English about how dumb the wogs are and being paralyzingly afraid of bacteria.
…That, and any travel book that implies that you should leave America at all, for any length of time and for any reason, is horribly liberal-biased.
LIEbrul Plante Guide is totally liberally biased. For instance, the Cape Town, South Africa Guide explains that there are persons of color in that country, and that they are in the majority no less! Moreover these alleged “persons” are alleged to be in positions of executive, legislative, and judicial authority!!
The lies. I swear to Christ. The lies.
A guide book targeted at drunk, doped up, promiscuous backpacking Australians has a left-wing bias!?!!?!?!?!? I’m shocked and horrified… horrified I say.
So I see you liberals actually agree with me that Lonely Planet has a leftwing bias. What I will ask you now is this.
Should Lonely Planet continue to pretend as if its travel guides are not biased, or should come out and admit it?
I mean, by having a leftwing, instead of a neutral point of view, or even better, presenting both view points, Lonely Planet risks alienating conservative consumers such as myself. And believe it or not, many conservatives do like to travel. In fact, I spent a month in Italy over the summer. I had a very good time. The food was the best I have ever eaten in my entire life. Especially the food in Sicily.
Yes my naive liberal friends, conservatives are not as un-cultured as you would like to believe.
I would humbly suggest that Lonely Planet can do whatever they damn well please. They seem to be alright targeting the non-crazy young adult demographic, so I’m sure you’ll understand if they don’t start pandering to the socks-and-sandals crowd.
I believe Lonely Planet should check to see if it has Prince Albert in a can.
Wikivandals FTW!
Farah could dispel the “more than a hint of mint” vibe around himself by:
a) editing the damn Wikipedia entry (although I think it’s lovely as-is),
b) changing his name (yeesh), &
c) shaving that thing perched under his nose off.
Yeah, I’m sure any reasonable, responsible American parent would be much less worried to see their progeny huffing on a crack-pipe than to catch them perusing that den of pure evil known as Wikipedia. It’s all about teh Family Values!
What a fascinating anecdote.
LIEbrul Plante Guide has done pretty well catering to folks who don’t “USA!!” t-shirts when visiting bustling world capitals. If the mouth-breathing segment of the population still buys the damn Guides, that’s probably just gravy to them. Companies advertise with LPG. Alot. Destinations work to get their names in the Guides. Alot. Does anyone think LPG gives a flying fuck about whining idiots?
In fact, I spent a month in Italy over the summer. I had a very good time. The food was the best I have ever eaten in my entire life. Especially the food in Sicily.
Are you made of wood, or is it just your writing?
Also, the Lonely Planet travel guide to Italy said, in its section on Italian history, that Italy legalizing abortion in the 1970s was one of many positive reforms that country initiated in that decade!
Whether legalizing abortion is “positive”, is a matter of opinion not fact. But Lonely Planet seemed obliged to present the opinion of legalizing abortion as positive, to be fact.
And further more, in several of the travel guides to European countries, the Lonely Planet travel guides declare that middle eastern immigration has a positive impact on those countries, instead of presenting the opposing view point that it is destructive to traditional European cultures. But of course Lonely Planet is in the habit of presenting opinion as fact.
Shorter Commander: Nothin’ like a kilt for unbiased access to my little brown pucker.
Should Lonely Planet continue to pretend as if its travel guides are not biased, or should come out and admit it?
They already admit that they are opinions and advice and not factual at all.
Commanderguy, you’re trolling is starting to fray.
Hmmm… A state that is strongly self-identifies as Democratic typically votes overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate. This bit of information is of absolutely no interest to anyone. Let’s focus on studying the phenomenon of Washington DC, with 90%+ Democratic voter registration, giving Obama 92.4% of the vote
Is the winner.
Sorry actor, no where in the link you provided me, did Lonely Planet admit to having a leftwing bias, or even to presenting opinion is fact.
The fact remains, that Lonely Planet will lose consumers because of its bias. I suggest, that Lonely Planet take the safer route, of presenting unbiased facts, and leaving the personal opinions of the authors out of it.
Its a travel guide for crying out loud, not a political newsletter. Its not just Lonely Planet either, though they are by far the worst offender. The Moon guide books also present leftwing opinion as fact. Though I give Moon credit, as the mention hunting opportunities under possible outdoor recreation, something Lonely Planet ignores even though many people around the world love to hunt. However the Moon guide to Wyoming mentioned in its entry on the Cody firearms museum, that the distribution of firearms is a major source of societies problems. Again, another leftwing opinion presented as fact.
It seems that no travel guides are willing to cater to conservatives, or at least be fair to the conservative viewpoint.
A guide book targeted at drunk, doped up, promiscuous backpacking Australians
Harsh, very harsh.
I for one would rather spend my time complaining about the pro-Yackety-Sax bias displayed by YouTube.
COTSCDTFC — if the LP guides are not to your liking, why don’t you choose different ones? Or, better yet, write new ones yourself?
It’s a free country, ya know.
So what’s the Conservapedia of the travel-guide genre? Frommers?
The fact also remains that Lonely Planet will gain consumers because of its bias. The marketplace is confuzzling!
As I mentioned earlier, there are no travel guides that I’ve come across that present the conservative viewpoint in a fair and impartial manner.
As for writing my own travel guides, I’m sure its possible, but I’m not a writer by trade. So I don’t know how good I’d do.
But this is America, anything is possible.
Unless, of course, you think it’s possible that rehashing the “why are all the clever people on the left?” argument for the eleventy-billionth time — in the comments section of a liberal satire blog, no less — might actually effect the sort of change you seek.
But just for fun — how would you present travel information on, say, Sicily, in a manner that you would deem politically correct — as opposed to the way in which this information was presented in your Lonely Planet guide?
This tool was featured in a hilarious daily show piece years ago. “The gaying of America”
Click on my name.
But of course Lonely Planet is in the habit of presenting opinion as fact.
WITH UR MUNNY.
Bwahaha, etc.
“It seems that no travel guides are willing to cater to conservatives, or at least be fair to the conservative viewpoint.”
You know you might be on to something. I’m going to start putting together a business plan for a guidebook publisher with a focus on not having fun and avoiding anything “ethnic”. I’ll give you a ring when it hits the presses.
I would just present the clear, unbiased facts. For example, I would describe the ancient Greek amphitheaters. I would present the truth Sicilian history and culture. And I most certainly would not claim, that muslim immigration is in any way positive.
In fact, when I was in Sicily over the summer, I was shocked at how many blacks I saw. Now just to clarify, I’m not racist. I have black friends. I’m just pro-western civilization. So I asked one of the locals about the blacks, and he told me that they’re refugees from Somalia, that the Itallian goverment pays them 40 euros a day, all at the taxpayers expense. These Somalians don’t work, and I learned, that they are the major source of crime on the island, as I was told by the locals.
So you see, I would present what I learned from the locals, which is fact. African and Middle Eastern immigration is destroying European culture, and is increasing crime and poverty in those once prosperous nations.
Harsh, very harsh.
I don’t know – it brightens my day to know that, everywhere on Earth, you can find drunk, doped up, promiscuous backpacking Australians. They’re way more fun than ugly Americans.
“It seems that no travel guides are willing to cater to conservatives, or at least be fair to the conservative viewpoint.”
Tell you what – write up your business plan for selling your books – let’s tentatively entitle them “Travel for Xenophobes” – and we’ll look into getting a loan to get you started.
Oops, Sorry about that, Navvy.
Dude. Is there a gayer name than that?
Yes.
in Sicily […] refugees from Somalia […] are the major source of crime on the island
Now that is genuinely funny. Not funny enough, however, to make up for adopting a persona as a tedious BPD jerkwad.
Well, there you go. There’s this thing called the “Internet,” where people just like you! can create “web pages” containing any kind of information they want. Some people have even created Internet travel guides. So can you!
And the bestest thing about the “Internet” is that you can write pretty much anything you want on your own “web page.” So if you want to create a page about Sicily replete with snide remarks about the sinister Armagedonn-ness of the euro, or the threat to the lily-white, ethnically pure Sicilian nation that is posed by dusky foreigners, or remarks concerning the relationship between the Camorro and the Kennedys (and by extension the entire Democrat [sic] Party, and by inference B. Hussein Soetoro Himself), or pretty much anything your little black heart desires, there’s absolutely nothing preventing you from doing so.
Enjoy!
Navvy, there is nothing wrong with anything ethnic. When I go to a foreign country, I make it a habit to eat what the locals eat. I had “spaghetti ai ricci”, when I was in Sicily, which is spaghetti with sea urchins. It was absolutely delicious.
In fact, one of my favorite programs on television, is “Bizzare Foods with Andrew Zimmern”, and like Andrew Zimmern, I’ll try anything at least once. I’ve even tried insects, grasshoppers are delicious. They tastle similar to crab.
In fact, one of the countries I’ve been looking foward to visiting for a long time, is Egypt. I’m am very much interested in Ancient Egypt, and would love to see the pyramids.
I support a multi-cultural world, not a multi-cultural country. I’m not racist, I just love my culture and my country. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Never go in against a Somali when death is on the line!
Bzzzt. Pasta was invented in China and brought to Italy by Arab traders, silly! And tomatoes originated in what is now called Latin America. What are you, some kind of multi-culti one-worlder?
I’m going to start putting together a business plan for a guidebook publisher with a focus on not having fun and avoiding anything “ethnic”. I’ll give you a ring when it hits the presses.
Didn’t Anne Tyler write a novel whose hero did something like that? “The Accidental Tourist,” IIRC. And it became a movie with William Hurt.
These Somalians don’t work, and I learned, that they are the major source of crime on the island [Sicily], as I was told by the locals.
What, the Mafia all took honest jobs?
Sorry actor, no where in the link you provided me, did Lonely Planet admit to having a leftwing bias, or even to presenting opinion is fact.
Which part of “advice” makes you think it’s NOT opinion, dickless? Or don’t you have a dictiona–
Oh. Forgot. Right winger…
It seems that no travel guides are willing to cater to conservatives, or at least be fair to the conservative viewpoint.
That’s because conservatives a) don’t travel normally and b) when they do, they talk loudly in restaurants so the rest of us dummied up some guides for you assholes.
Sorry LIEbrals, you lose again! What that gay dude has above his lip can hardly be called a mustache. Now what I sport, THAT’S a mustache!
So what’s the Conservapedia of the travel-guide genre? Frommers?
Rommel’s Guide to Travel and Tank Combat.
(go ahead, there’s an obvious joke here)
Any of you guys ever watch Bizzare Foods with Andrew Zimmern on the
Travel Channel. Even though I’m an “un-cultured” conservative, I love trying new kinds of food.
The other night I went out to dinner with my sister and my brother in law, we went to a Japanese resturant, I had 25 pieces of sashimi. It was really good. And I also enjoy Indian food.
Andrew Zimmern is actually going to be in Turkey, on todays episode. I’m looking foward to it.
OBTW, the Lonely Planet “web site” has a section called the “Thorn Tree,” which is an online “forum” where people just like you! can share information about destinations, travel tips, paranoid notions about the Great Liberal Travel Guidebook Conspiracy, and so on. Go on over there and take a look!
Rommel’s Guide to Travel and Tank Combat.
No way can you call The Return of the Pink Panzer conservative.
I don’t think there’s an origin story with conclusive evidence behind it.
“It seems that no travel guides are willing to cater to conservatives, or at least be fair to the conservative viewpoint.”
You know you might be on to something. I’m going to start putting together a business plan for a guidebook publisher with a focus on not having fun and avoiding anything “ethnic”. I’ll give you a ring when it hits the presses.
The covers could have pictures of the flag and the text can just read “USA! USA! USA!*”
*insert names of other countries to suit clientele.
He also keeps rambling on about […] “fake penis experts” but I don’t have a clue what those mean.
Let’s talk about circumcision and foreskin restoration.
Man, saying you’re not xenophobic because one time you went to Italy and ate pasta is … it’s something else. Something else entirely.
And then when we’re done, we can talk about 9/11, Prussian Blue, Ron Paul, and whether or not Prussian Blue restored Ron Paul’s foreskin on 9/11.
Andrew Zimmern is actually going to be in Turkey, on todays episode.
I’ve heard you’ve been in Turkey frequently.
Also duck, chicken and the occasional vole.
No way can you call The Return of the Pink Panzer conservative.
The Tom of Finland producers swore that would never see the light of day. I’ll have to go change my name again.
“The other night I went out to dinner with my sister and my brother in law, we went to a Japanese resturant, I had 25 pieces of sashimi.”
This is clearly the same person as the original saul. He had the same tendency to wander off into a wooden exposition of his latest meals, a “very playful kitten” he’s currently watching, etc. And the inclusion of family members is consistent with saul.
RB: As far as I know, it’s not disputed that noodles originated in China. Prehistoric Chinese noodles dating back something like 3,500 years have been found. Western noodles definitely don’t date back that far. Whether Western noodles were an independent invention or an import is a different story, last time I checked. Gnocchi sort of blurs the pasta/dumpling line and it’s definitely indigenous to Italy, predating Arab influence.
I think it’s unquestionable that modern Italian pasta was at least influenced by Arabs, though.
Prehistoric Chinese noodles dating back something like 3,500 years have been found.
You ate the same wonton soup I did, I see.
Conservapedia’s entry on “Tourism,” complete text.
I guess if the federal government is involved, it isn’t tourism.
Well, this is fun—
Not only does it read like a homeschooler’s essay, it gives us the turn of phrase “God-drenched” to marvel at.
The wonders of Conservapedia never cease.
Oooh, this seems like the motherlode to me.
it gives us the turn of phrase “God-drenched” to marvel at.
Well, Israel was the location of the adventus.
That’s all I meant, and yeah, no surprise that food around the Mediterranean has similarities.
Israel, both a quilt and a mosaic! Warm and cozy in the winter, yet smooth and cool in the summer!
God drenched is pretty goddamn good.
Uh…I admit to confusion here…
God drenched Jerusalem
Also known as “Trickle Down Judaism”.
A Man in a Skirt said:
Regardless of whether Oklahoma has more registered Demorcrats than Republicans, its irrelevent.
As I mentioned earlier, it has no effect on Oklahoma’s voting pattern, but wikipedia convieniently ignores this fact.
Why do you think that is?
Does it have anything to do with the left-leaning bias of wikipedia’s editors?
I think the articles speak for themselves.
I think Scotty McPlaiderton’s poor spelling, cherry-pickery, and general douchiness speak for themselves.
Clyde, can I buy you a beer?
By the way, wasn’t The Foreskin Restoration one of Robert Ludlum’s later offerings?
So Lonely Planet should stop with the left wing bias, and instead print the unbiased truth which is what some guy told you this one time? Oooooooo-kay…
So you see, I would present what I learned from the locals, which is fact. African and Middle Eastern immigration is destroying European culture, and is increasing crime and poverty in those once prosperous nations.
Right, cuz, you know, until the Somalis came, there was no mafia in Italy…
An entire generation of college graduates really, truly believes that if a given sequence of letters and numbers doesn’t generate any “hits” on Google, the thing or concept thus signified simply doesn’t exist.
This goes beyond wondering what a couple of Washington Post reporters were doing playing with their dicks during night court decades ago, when they should have been putting in their time more productively. It humanely slaughters the very idea of objective reality outside the official narrative of any given authority at any givent moment.
Redford was Naval Intelligence, but Hoffman was just some dude, BTW. Note to J-school kids, if you’re just some dude, don’t shop around an article about several hundred journalists who deposit CIA checks every month. You’re likely to go down in history as “that other guy, whosit, the schmuck.”
ZOMG even Conservapedia has liberal multi-culti bias! From their (very short) article on Sicily:
And who were these Fatimids and Kalbids? Conservapedia doesn’t say!!11!1 When it’s perfectly clear to anyone except a dhimwit libero-Muslimo-gayo-fascist that they were MOOOOOSLIMS. Evil conquering dusky MOOOOOSLIMS! Why is Conservapedia obscuring this fact???????
More left-wing bias!!! Per Dunce Scotus up there, Islam has never made ANY positive contribution to Sicily, or anywhere else, whatsoever.
An entire generation of college graduates really, truly believes that if a given sequence of letters and numbers doesn’t generate any “hits” on Google, the thing or concept thus signified simply doesn’t exist.
This goes beyond wondering what a couple of Washington Post reporters were doing playing with their dicks during night court decades ago, when they should have been putting in their time more productively. It humanely slaughters the very idea of objective reality outside the official narrative of any given authority at any givent moment.
Redford was Naval Intelligence, but Hoffman was just some dude, BTW. Note to J-school kids, if you’re just some dude, don’t shop around an article about several hundred journalists who deposit CIA checks every month. You’re likely to go down in history as “that other guy, whosit, the schmuck.”
Well played, parody troll. You almost had me up to that point.
You naive liberals may take our land and our women, but you cannot take our kilts!
“Not only does it read like a homeschooler’s essay, it gives us the turn of phrase “God-drenched” to marvel at.”
Reminds me of a joke: What’s white, up in the sky, and dripping?
My Kingdom Come
What’s white, up in the sky, and dripping?
I heard “what’s glowing white and shoots across the sky?” with the same answer.
What’s glowing white and shoots across the sky, but not as far?
The Second Coming of the Lord.
“So you see, I would present what I learned from the locals, which is fact. African and Middle Eastern immigration is destroying European culture, and is increasing crime and poverty in those once prosperous nations.”
Dear Scottish- I’m a second generation Arab American. My first cousin was killed flying his F-86 during the Korean War. Please go fuck yourself.
Oh, and BTW, your congressman Virgil “we should deport all people of middle eastern descent” Goode lost the recount today and went into the dustbin with your other buddy George “macaca” Allen. That’s here in Virginia, which, as wikipedia notes, was carried by a democrat this year for the first time since 1964.
I understand that the preponderance of Democratic registrations in Oklahoma goes back to the days of that progressive boogey-man Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose free-spending liberal nanny-state programs kept the remaining ‘Okies’ from starvation and delayed the state’s return to uninhabited grassland for another few decades. Just long enough for the inhabitants of those grateful subsistence farmers & welfare ranchers to forget their roots and turn to the Selfish Stoopids, in fact.
Also, I am amused when I remember the first-generation Italian-Americans of my youth explaining that the real problem with Italy was Sicilians, who were filthy illiterate nappy-haired subhuman thugs and peasants reducing elegant Classical trophes like ‘honor’ and ‘family’ to low criminal practices involving protection schemes and incest. While eating garbage, heavily flavored with garlic, because their palates were as dulled and insensitive as their lovemaking. Nice to know that the universal human practice of despising the next generation of immigrants in terms once used for your own forefathers is being so carefully… conserved.
Don’t be dissing Tatum. She just bought pizza on the Lower East Side.
I’m a librarian, and I think Wikipedia is a damn good place to go for quick reference. Everything you see should be backed up by something else, of course, but that’s a good place to start, get a quick background on an issue or topic, and then go on to some real reference work.
Jon’s quite right. I’m a librarian too, and I’ve actually done a systematic analysis of Wikipedia as part of my training. It’s really not all that bad. It’s not completely trustworthy – but the kicker is that neither are the mainstream encyclopaedias. It’s not that much more inaccurate and it covers way more.
Let’s see – ah. Here’s the conclusion from my analysis:
blockquote
The Wikipedia presents a unique approach to encyclopedias, working from a bottom-up Social Darwinism approach rather than resting on the top-down authority of its authors. As such, it has great strengths (namely the number of articles, the ability of users to correct mistakes, the uncopyrighted nature of articles, and the enhanced browsing capability of numerous hyperlinks) and great weaknesses (lack of authority and legitimacy, bias in emphasis, inconsistent documentation for articles). As time goes on, these weaknesses may be reduced through continual improvement.
It should serve as a valuable tool for any library with a good Internet connection on the simple grounds that it is (a) large and (b) free. However, users should be made aware of the shortcomings of the Wikipedia and specifically warned that they should see the Wikipedia as a tool for gaining an overview and for further research and not depend on it as the sole source for facts. A refusal by teachers to accept it as a sole reference in essays, for example, would reinforce this [2]
Actually, Wikipedia is copyrighted, it’s just that the license terms of the copyright are such that others may use and modify the content without prior permission and/or paying anything. The restriction is that you have to pass those same rights on, you cannot add restrictions to your derived work.
You liberals still have not dealt with the fact that leftwing bias is not unique to wikipedia. In order to elaborate on this, I have to give you some personal information about myself.
My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Seattle with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15-year-old New Orleans prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize; he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament… My childhood was typical: summers in New Jersey… luge lessons… In the spring, we’d make meat helmets… When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds — pretty standard, really. At the age of 12, I received my first scribe. At the age of 14, a Zoroastrian named Wilma ritualistically shaved my testicles — there really is nothing like a shorn scrotum — it’s breathtaking… I suggest you try it.
Wait, where was I? What was I speaking about?
Commander of the Scottish Contagious during the First Crusade said,
December 17, 2008 at 15:34
This reminds me of this.
“It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known.”
Is he talking about the bible?!?