OF course I have an ugly part of me. I'm ex-military. Everybody has an ugly part. They just don't know it yet. Your ugly part shows when you want to bad mouth this country. I'm not gonna apologize because you wearn't raised during the Kennedy Era. Maybe you wearn't affected by 9-11 Good for you Bitch, Good for you. I defy ANY mod to look at post 46-48 and then decide WHO was ugly. No wonder I'm being treated for depression and PTSD at the VA.
To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?
Sort:
We've known that for years, flags. 
ilikeflags wrote:
i have only beautiful parts
Your left arm looks good in that pic, and I didn't have to go to wiki or google to come to that conclusion.
johnmusacha wrote:
Trysts is German? She just shot up about 100 points in my book!
No, it's just RJC's warped sense of geography, in the past 24 hours South Africa was Liberia/Guinea, Chile was Brazil. and USA is Germany.
One thing that nobody has addressed is the legions of people that habitually insert prank edits, hoax articles, false information, and false sources into Wikipedia.
Except for the heavily-watched articles like George W. Bush, Wikipedia is not as good at catching this stuff as they claim.
Well thats why you use google instead of just wikipedia. Double check source material. And certainly dont assume the first thing you run across is the truth. I have been a skeptic for over 30 years...after awhile you start to see patterns in the BS.
blueemu wrote:
The utility of a search engine such as Google largely depends on your skill in choosing key-words to search for. Some people are pretty good at selecting just the right key-words to set up a productive search. I am, for example, since I've been working in IT since the '70s. Others don't have those skills, and would be better off asking questions on the forum.
This is it. Are most people aware that the topics on the first page of a google search are simply the most viewed based on the words entered?
As far as wiki, it often comes up in the first couple of pages. Take it for what it's worth, based on reading other sources in a search.
trysts wrote:
Timothy_P wrote:
wouldn't worry about political biases - just general ignorance/bias.
I'm not sure what you mean, Timothy?
If a political event occurs where facts are suppressed due to a government wanting to create their own narrative for the event, then wouldn't the government actively involve themselves in the editing of the article/page?
Well, they have tried it...
Ubik42 wrote:
Well thats why you use google instead of just wikipedia. Double check source material. And certainly dont assume the first thing you run across is the truth. I have been a skeptic for over 30 years...after awhile you start to see patterns in the BS.
Well, I don't do any research on the internet at all. Like I said in my first post, it's much better to ask a group of people.
johnmusacha wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
Well thats why you use google instead of just wikipedia. Double check source material. And certainly dont assume the first thing you run across is the truth. I have been a skeptic for over 30 years...after awhile you start to see patterns in the BS.
Well, I don't do any research on the internet at all. Like I said in my first post, it's much better to ask a group of people.
Answers that you get googling come from people.
For the most part, yes. However, by asking people you multiply that knowledge many times. Each person will bring his own reflections and experiences to the table.
johnmusacha wrote:
For the most part, yes. However, by asking people you multiply that knowledge many times. Each person will bring his own reflections and experiences to the table.
Examples of answers you get from googling that do not come from people?
And yes, you multiply your knowledge when you go to other sources, like googling. I don't understand why you are trying to make some sort of distinction between "googling" and "asking people"; its the same thing. You can google a wiki, which is written by people, you can google and get a link to a forum, which is written by people, you can google and find a good forum and ask the question, and answers will be written by people. You can go to the library and read a book written by people. The only thing you gain from not googling is losing a whole avenue of ways to ask people. You likely googled to find chess.com in the first place.
Suppose you are updating your iPhone and you get error #3194. You can go to a forum and ask a question. or you can google and get https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5740063?tstart=0
Where someone has asked a question, and had it answered in great detail. Ta da. You googled. You indirectly asked a question and got an answer. Distinctions are artificial.
I actually heard about Chess.com from a friend, who recommended the tactical trainer.
In any case, one can think of google like asking your "friend". This friend has a vast amount of information. However, this friend is also kind of a dimwit. Is he autistic? He seems to recommend Wikipedia for everything I ask him. I also heard this "friend" keeps tabs on what I ask him and reports that to some faraway place. I wonder what they do with that information.
So I'd rather just ask other people. The people I ask may in turn ask the wierd autistic spy guy with all the information, but that's their business.
just bing it ;)
Apr 2, 2014
0
#79
johnmusacha wrote:
I actually heard about Chess.com from a friend, who recommended the tactical trainer.
then you came and spread shit everywhere.
Oh, he'll just apologise again, trysts.
There's seems to be no cure once your age overtakes yoyr IQ.