boy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they target you >
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
Re: going to war
By: MRO to All on Thu Nov 09 2023 04:57 am
boy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they target you
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
Somebody on IRC posted an article which mentioned they are having trouble raising the number of recruits. I have not checked elsewhere for the veracity of this information, but it would stand to reason. Nowadays, if you join the army, you are no longer defending your country, but some corrupt bunch of politicians.
oboy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they target
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
Somebody on IRC posted an article which mentioned they are having trouble raising the number of recruits. I have not checked elsewhere for the veracity of this information, but it would stand to reason. Nowadays, if you join the army, you are no longer defending your country, but some corrupt bunch of politicians.
they are ditching the they/them commercials and doing all white male ones. need some real soldiers.
That source is correct. The number of volunteers among this most recent generation of 18+ year olds has dropped. The US armed forces are trying to alter their message in order to reach potential recruits in this new generation, like making it seem more LGBTQ+ friendly.
they are ditching the they/them commercials and doing all white male ones. need some real soldiers.
I had not heard that, but I wondered why they thought that approach would work to begin with.
@MSGID: <654FF7C4.129064.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
That source is correct. The number of volunteers among this most recent generation of 18+ year olds has dropped. The US armed forces are trying to alter their message in order to reach potential recruits in this new generation, like making it seem more LGBTQ+ friendly.
Are we still talking about army or some gang bang show?
@MSGID: <654FF7C4.129064.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
That source is correct. The number of volunteers among this most recent generation of 18+ year olds has dropped. The US armed forces are trying to alter their message in order to reach potential recruits in this new generation, like making it seem more LGBTQ+ friendly.
Are we still talking about army or some gang bang show?
The US Armed Forces. As mro pointed out, they may have already abandoned this message alteration. I never actually saw any such ads, just that they were consindering them in order to appeal to the newer, more "sensitive" generations.
MRO wrote to All <=-
boy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they
target young adults.
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Arelor wrote to MRO <=-
Re: going to war
By: MRO to All on Thu Nov 09 2023 04:57 am
boy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they target you
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
Somebody on IRC posted an article which mentioned they are having
trouble raising the number of recruits. I have not checked elsewhere
for the veracity of this information, but it would stand to reason. Nowadays, if you join the army, you are no longer defending your
country, but some corrupt bunch of politicians.
---
= Synchronet = Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
Dumas Walker wrote to ARELOR <=-veracity
boy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they targeto
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
Somebody on IRC posted an article which mentioned they are having trouble raising the number of recruits. I have not checked elsewhere for the
of this information, but it would stand to reason. Nowadays, if you join the army, you are no longer defending your country, but some corrupt bunch of politicians.
That source is correct. The number of volunteers among this most
recent generation of 18+ year olds has dropped. The US armed forces
are trying to alter their message in order to reach potential recruits
in this new generation, like making it seem more LGBTQ+ friendly.
* SLMR 2.1a * Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily...Emily...
MRO wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Re: going to war
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Sat Nov 11 2023 09:01 am
they are ditching the they/them commercials and doing all white male ones. need some real soldiers.
I had not heard that, but I wondered why they thought that approach would work to begin with.
well they relaxed their requirements a LOT. maybe those people aren't working out. I think they have a lot of people that went awol and just thought they were joining for free school. ---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Weatherman wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Our military doesn't need to be woke it needs to be kicking
ass.
It's hard to be a warrior when you're worried about hurting someone's tender little feelings
MRO wrote to All <=-
boy i am seeing a LOT of army and airforce ads online where they target young adults.
guess we are going to be involved in some wars.
---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
You would prefer our military attempt to recruit the elderly? I'm 64.
I've already done my hitch but if need be, I am willing.
One major problem the military is having is FINDING physically fit recruits. The military now even has a program wherein hopeful recruits engage in a physical fitness program to prepare them for basic military training. A boot camp boot camp, in other terms. Never would have thought such a thing even possible back when I first enlisted....
Assuming it can't be both?
Re: Re: going to war
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Weatherman on Mon Nov 13 2023 06:26 am
Assuming it can't be both?
Let's say that if your army has inner psychological conflicts then you are in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Assuming it can't be both?
Let's say that if your army has inner psychological conflicts then you
are in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Assuming it can't be both?
Let's say that if your army has inner psychological conflicts then you are in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
I don't think that any modern sensibilities will impact one's ability to defend oneself when someone's shooting at them.
I don't think that any modern sensibilities will impact one's ability to defend oneself when someone's shooting at them.
in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
Re: Re: going to war
By: Arelor to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Nov 13 2023 02:04 pm
in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
Does/did Allah actually use such language?
Does/did Allah actually use such language?
the bible and Qur'an are works created by man, despite them stating it was delivered by god in various ways. (but i wasn't there so i might be wrong)
Assuming it can't be both?
Let's say that if your army has inner psychological conflicts then you are in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
I don't think that any modern sensibilities will impact one's ability to defend oneself when someone's shooting at them.
most of that type out. What is left is people that, over time, can be molded into soldiers that anyone could be proud of. They are instilled with something called Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. These values and the constant barage of institutional thinking helps to turn those jelly-like minds into something like what you might want representing you overseas.
timers were when we joined. This is not a life for someone who has fragile emot
ons and fortunately initial training weeds most of that type out. What is left >s people that, over time, can be molded into soldiers that anyone could be prou
of. They are instilled with something called Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respe
t, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. These values and t
e constant barage of institutional thinking helps to turn those jelly-like mind
into something like what you might want representing you overseas.
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Xanth on Thu Nov 16 2023 12:40 pm
Oh no. 'woke' in quotes.
https://i.imgur.com/91sn32Q.jpeg
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Weatherman <=-
Weatherman wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Our military doesn't need to be woke it needs to be kicking
ass.
Assuming it can't be both?
It's hard to be a warrior when you're worried about hurting someone's tender little feelings
That feels like a bit of a stretch.
... The answers will be found in the logs.
MRO wrote to Weatherman <=-
Re: Re: going to war
By: Weatherman to Arelor on Mon Nov 13 2023 02:27 am
One major problem the military is having is FINDING physically fit recruits. The military now even has a program wherein hopeful recruits engage in a physical fitness program to prepare them for basic military training. A boot camp boot camp, in other terms. Never would have thought such a thing even possible back when I first enlisted....
according to the armed forces, that is not the major problem. https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/09/30/military-recru iting-desantis-woke-abortion-health-waiver-jobs-politifact/#:~:text=%E2% 80%9CThe%20residual%20effects%20of%20the,recruiting%20challenges%2C%E2%8 0%9D%20Schwegman%20said.
https://tinyurl.com/bddthx92
---
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Arelor <=-
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Assuming it can't be both?
Let's say that if your army has inner psychological conflicts then you
are in abad spot if the other side has no inner psychological conflict because Allah has commanded them to kill 'em all faggots.
I don't think that any modern sensibilities will impact one's ability
to defend oneself when someone's shooting at them.
... DESQview/386 - the only way to multitask!
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Nopants on Fri Nov 17 2023 09:22 am
You don't need purple hair to 'think', silly.
That passage pretty well supports what I said in that ONE major problem the military is having is finding physically fit recruits... since your article states that 77% of young Americans are unfit and that AMONG those disqualifying faults are health concerns like obesity and mental illness I restate my assertion.... Young Americans are increasingly unfit, physically and mentally, to serve this country.
... DESQview/386 - the only way to multitask!
Pointdexter, are you REALLY so sure of that? What about THIS guy?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-york-daily-news-journalist-firing-an- ar- 15-gave-me-ptsd
Also, it's damned hard to shoot back at someone when you haven't the basic knowledge of how to operate a firearm, or how to react under stress. These are skills that are learned through training and practice. If a person so afflicted with "modern sensibilities" that they are absolutely anti-gun,
MRO wrote to Weatherman <=-
I'm pretty sure I started shooting rifles when i was 11 years
old. Later on i used to go shooting with my friend and his dad
and i'd use his russian sniper rifle. I was a crack shot even
though my eyesight sucks.
Nopants wrote to MRO <=-
Oh no. 'woke' in quotes.
Weatherman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-york-daily-news-journalist-firing -an-ar-15-gave-me-ptsd
Also, it's damned hard to shoot back at someone when you haven't the
basic knowledge of how to operate a firearm, or how to react under
stress. These are skills that are learned through training and
practice. If a person so afflicted with "modern sensibilities" that
they are absolutely anti-gun, they will never have the skills and
training when the time comes to actually defend themselves.
Weatherman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
That feels like a bit of a stretch.
I find myself wondering just how long YOU served...
MRO wrote to Weatherman <=-
I'm pretty sure I started shooting rifles when i was 11 years
old. Later on i used to go shooting with my friend and his dad
and i'd use his russian sniper rifle. I was a crack shot even
though my eyesight sucks.
Nope. I call "bullshit". You're not a "crack shot" if your eyesight
sucks. Your lie there shows that you actually know NOTHING about
precision shooting, or even shooting in general.
What was the name/model of this "russian sniper rifle"? What caliber
was it? What kind of scope did it have?
MRO wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: going to war
By: Gamgee to MRO on Sat Nov 18 2023 09:11 am
MRO wrote to Weatherman <=-
I'm pretty sure I started shooting rifles when i was 11 years
old. Later on i used to go shooting with my friend and his dad
and i'd use his russian sniper rifle. I was a crack shot even
though my eyesight sucks.
Nope. I call "bullshit". You're not a "crack shot" if your eyesight
sucks. Your lie there shows that you actually know NOTHING about
precision shooting, or even shooting in general.
What was the name/model of this "russian sniper rifle"? What caliber
was it? What kind of scope did it have?
dunno dude, it was decades ago. and i was a little kid. maybe i
was just lucky or maybe i just had a knack.
it was at a shooting range in my home town.
i got no reason to lie.
MRO wrote to Weatherman <=-
By: Weatherman to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Nov 18 2023 01:44 am
Pointdexter, are you REALLY so sure of that? What about THIS guy?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-york-daily-news-journalist-firing-an- ar- 15-gave-me-ptsd
Also, it's damned hard to shoot back at someone when you haven't the basic knowledge of how to operate a firearm, or how to react under stress. These are skills that are learned through training and practice. If a person so afflicted with "modern sensibilities" that they are absolutely anti-gun,
that's hillarious that he's comparing a rifle with a bomb.
really sad. i hope he was lying about his experience.
I'm pretty sure I started shooting rifles when i was 11 years old.
Later on i used to go shooting with my friend and his dad and i'd use
his russian sniper rifle. I was a crack shot even though my eyesight sucks. ---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Weatherman <=-
Also, it's damned hard to shoot back at someone when you haven't the
basic knowledge of how to operate a firearm, or how to react under
stress. These are skills that are learned through training and
practice. If a person so afflicted with "modern sensibilities" that
they are absolutely anti-gun, they will never have the skills and
training when the time comes to actually defend themselves.
If we're fielding an army of untrained millenials, then I suppose your
argument has merit. We were talking about a modern army that
conducts the same training, practice and discipline as usual but
includes awareness of what some would consider "woke" and your
argument makes no sense.
Watch General Milley's testimony in June 2021.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Weatherman <=-
Weatherman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
That feels like a bit of a stretch.
I find myself wondering just how long YOU served...
Oh, come on - I've seen you on the boards for years. you're better at
this than that!
Nopants wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Nopants on Fri Nov 17 2023 09:22 am
You don't need purple hair to 'think', silly.
Gamgee wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Weatherman <=-
I'm pretty sure I started shooting rifles when i was 11 years
old. Later on i used to go shooting with my friend and his dad
and i'd use his russian sniper rifle. I was a crack shot even
though my eyesight sucks.
Nope. I call "bullshit". You're not a "crack shot" if your eyesight sucks. Your lie there shows that you actually know NOTHING about precision shooting, or even shooting in general.
What was the name/model of this "russian sniper rifle"? What caliber
was it? What kind of scope did it have?
... Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Nopants <=-
Nopants wrote to MRO <=-
Oh no. 'woke' in quotes.
I so enjoy seeing people who accuse others of wokeness trying to define "woke". Without a circular reference, that is.
dunno dude, it was decades ago. and i was a little kid. maybe i
was just lucky or maybe i just had a knack.
Or maybe you're just a lying bullshitter.
it was at a shooting range in my home town.
That's nice, and irrelevant.
i got no reason to lie.
And yet, you do anyway.
Russian sniper rifle immediately brings to mind the Mosin-Nagant. I've got two of those bad boys, one rifle length the other carbine length. That 7.62 x 54mm round sure is stout!
includes awareness of what some would consider "woke" and your
argument makes no sense.
Watch General Milley's testimony in June 2021.
Well now, I guess that's the question then, isn't it? Are today's troops REALLY undergoing the same training, practice and discipline as in earlier times? When I served our primary adversaries were political in nature, the Soviet Union and China being the top two. Our chief adversaries (based on
... Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Regarding the "Russian sniper rifle" my money is on a Mosin-Nagant chambered in 7.52x54mmR. It would be a prize indeed if it actually had an original Soviet long eye-relief scope on it, but I'd doubt it. There ARE kits available for mounting scopes in place of the rear sight of the Mosin-Nagant. I have one, but haven't mounted it yet. Now that I have two Mosin-Nagants I figure the time is right to do that.
Nope. I call "bullshit". You're not a "crack shot" if your eyesight
sucks. Your lie there shows that you actually know NOTHING about
precision shooting, or even shooting in general.
What was the name/model of this "russian sniper rifle"? What caliber
was it? What kind of scope did it have?
The practice of wokeism would mimic the act of factions like the Taliban and remove statues, paintings and images of Confederate military leaders rather than to use those images to educate people about the nature of the conflict an
those involved on both sides. The woke would demonize those who served in the
Confederacy rather than to recognize the fact that by far most soldiers of the
South did not own slaves, and many were actually opposed to slavery.
The woke would rather silence and remove opposing viewpoints rather than to accept that the opposing view may be based in and on its own validity. Rather
than accept the fact that the parents of a school aged daughter oppose the sharing of locker rooms and bathrooms with biological males who "identify as female" the woke would have the FBI target those parents as "domestic terrorists" and have those parents put on terrorist watch lists.
So I don't know, pondexter.. Do you see any circular references up there? I think I did a pretty decent job of describing exactly what wokeness mean to me
- and to those in my particular social circle. OOOPS!!! Damn. There's that dreaded circular reference! Shit man... I guess I failed on THAT one....
Re: Re: going to war
By: Weatherman to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Nov 19 2023 02:13 am
Alot of this definition is the context of our current political climate and in that situation exists both sides that are equaly fixed in their position. So yeah, your definition is circular in that it never intends to address the other side of the situation that DOES THE SAME SHIT.
Also, one side is not as good at creating marketing terms like "woke" and
let me know if you need help on learning to quote, or you can
ask you wife's boyfriend when you are done playing with your action figures,
You don't need purple hair to 'think', silly.
But having it doesn't help!
you should change your name to "noquote"
But having it doesn't help!
I could argue that it gives an otherwise marginalized person the confidence to express their ideas in an open forum so we can hear an alternative perspective other than fists at clouds.
MRO wrote to all <=-
yeah but you arent arguing or giving an alternative perspective.
you're just being a dork.
And i think you people deserve some fists in the clouds.
The practice of wokeism would mimic the act of factions like the Taliban and remove statues, paintings and images of Confederate
military leaders rather than to use those images to educate people about the nature of the conflict and those involved on both
sides. The woke would demonize those who served in the Confederacy rather than to recognize the fact that by far most soldiers
of the South did not own slaves, and many were actually opposed to slavery.
Nah, take all the bullshit down. A majority of that stuff went up in the Jim Crow era for intimidation. We have wikipedia, the history will be okay.
Nah, take all the bullshit down. A majority of that stuff went up in the Jim Cr
w era for intimidation. We have wikipedia, the history will be okay.
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after the end of the civil war for shitty reasons to keep our history.Nah, take all the bullshit down. A majority of that stuff went up in the Jim Crow era for intimidation. We have wikipedia, the history will be okay.
yeah wikipedia , the thing anybody can edit.
i've already seen truth erased from history via the internet numerous times.
yeah wikipedia , the thing anybody can edit.
i've already seen truth erased from history via the internet numerous times.
That was just an example.
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after the end of the civil war for shitty reasons to keep our history.
Nah, take all the bullshit down. A majority of that stuff went up in the Jim Cr
w era for intimidation. We have wikipedia, the history will be okay.
Wikipedia, where anyone can edit and spin anything however they want.
Where they had to lock down the editing of the "Recession" article because someone kept editing it to match the definition that the current White House prefered to make sure whatever situation we are in doesn't match the definition.
Yes, that is a very good idea. <rolls eyes>
match the definition.
Yes, that is a very good idea. <rolls eyes>
Just an example, use whatever you are comfortable with. To sum up wikipedia as an anyone can edit failure is telling though.
Your wikipedia example was poor. you suggest we track our history using a medium that is public and anyone can modify at any minute.
Then you say what i think you mean is we don't need statues?
Why do you care about statues? Why must they be tore down?
It's a selfish stupid, pointless thing to do that accomplishes nothing.
Erasing history and removing historical land marks does nothing but create more ignorance.
Re: Re: going to war
Then you say what i think you mean is we don't need statues?
Why do you care about statues? Why must they be tore down?
It's a selfish stupid, pointless thing to do that accomplishes nothing.
I wasn't hiding the fact we don't need confederate statues put up decades after the civil war was over. I was pretty clear in that.
If we're fielding an army of untrained millenials, then I suppose your
argument has merit. We were talking about a modern army that
conducts the same training, practice and discipline as usual but
includes awareness of what some would consider "woke" and your
argument makes no sense.
If we're fielding an army of untrained millenials, then I suppose your
argument has merit. We were talking about a modern army that
conducts the same training, practice and discipline as usual but
includes awareness of what some would consider "woke" and your
argument makes no sense.
Also, one side is not as good at creating marketing terms like "woke" and ha > people like yourself carry the water. Good game.
Also, one side is not as good at creating marketing terms like "woke" and ha > people like yourself carry the water. Good game.
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after theThe problem is not the statues or symbols themselves. I am not opposed to moving many monuments to ideologies we no longer endorse to a museum or something.
I think the Social Justice Crowd is notorious for their ability to crank out marketable terms in order to label both friends and enemies, if just because when you play Identitary Politics you need a way to separate people into Identitary Groups so you can profit from the division.
Nah, take all the bullshit down. A majority of that stuff went up in the Jim Cr
w era for intimidation. We have wikipedia, the history will be okay.
Wikipedia, where anyone can edit and spin anything however they want. Where they had to lock down the editing of the "Recession" article because someone kept editing it to match the definition that the current White Hous
prefered to make sure whatever situation we are in doesn't match the definition.
Yes, that is a very good idea. <rolls eyes>
Just an example, use whatever you are comfortable with. To sum up wikipedia as
n anyone can edit failure is telling though.
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after the en
of the civil war for shitty reasons to keep our history.
Also, one side is not as good at creating marketing terms like "woke" and ha >> people like yourself carry the water. Good game.
Also, if memory server well, Black LIves Matter were among the first to popularize the term, and Wikipedia seems to agree:
"The term woke gained further popularity in the 2010s. Over time, it became increasingly connected to matters beyond race such as gender and identities perceived as marginalized. During the 2014 Ferguson protests, the phrase was popularized by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. "
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were
not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area. They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
I have edited a few BBS related pages. MRO has admited to editing pages. Would *you* want either of our interpretations to be used as evidence that "history will be okay"?
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after the en
of the civil war for shitty reasons to keep our history.
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area. They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
Those people still have living relatives but, hey, it is again not cool to remember them, so let's not.
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area. They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war. We don't build statues for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are. That goes for any war we've been in...we don't have statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or
anyone else, and they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally fought for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, that's goofy.
esc wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were
not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area.
They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war.
We don't build statues for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are.
That goes for any war we've been in...we don't have
statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or anyone else, and they had
families.
Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally
fought for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have
statues of them, that's goofy.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Now you have trainees who will outright refuse to wear the gas mask for practice because it would ruin their hair style, which is exactly what
you get when you try to bring in people from the wrong demographic
group.
I wasn't hiding the fact we don't need confederate statues put up decades after the civil war was over. I was pretty clear in that.
you're not the one to decide if we need statues or not.
what do you care? did a statue rape you as a child?
anybody that wants historical statues is stupid.
suggesting wikipedia and youtube instead is stupid.
"Failure" is your word, not mine, which is why I have over-quoted here. Maybe your use of that word is telling?
I use wikipedia regularly. It is good for many things. The cronological timing of events would be one -- like did this album by this group come out before or after that one? For political and social reasons an event happened, you'd better take it with a grain of salt because anyone indeed can edit it.
I have edited a few BBS related pages. MRO has admited to editing pages. Would *you* want either of our interpretations to be used as evidence that "history will be okay"?
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war. We don't build statue
for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are. That goes for any w
we've been in...we don't have statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or anyone else, d they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally foug
for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, tha
s goofy.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be used in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
also bring back uncle ben and the land of lakes woman and aunt jamima.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Now you have trainees who will outright refuse to wear the gas mask for > Ar> practice because it would ruin their hair style, which is exactly what
you get when you try to bring in people from the wrong demographic group.
Citation?
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Now you have trainees who will outright refuse to wear the gas mask for practice because it would ruin their hair style, which is exactly what you get when you try to bring in people from the wrong demographic group.
Citation?
what do you care? did a statue rape you as a child?
anybody that wants historical statues is stupid.
suggesting wikipedia and youtube instead is stupid.
I didn't say any of this, you are a trip. I'll take the loss for not being able to communicate my point I guess.
Sure, you can click to see who has edited what and for what reasons. There's a full log. It's a great resource and I don't think southern generals will be erased because of statues. Anyone can create a website as well.
else, d they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally foug
for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, tha
s goofy.
The difference here is that the "enemy" deaths were also Americans. Also, your assumption that the soldiers were fighting for the right to own slaves is also false in most cases and shows a lack of understanding of what all was going on during that time.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be used in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
People don't like complicated information.
It's easier to believe it was a fight of good VS evil.
There were thousands of factors that divided our country.
Furthermore, nobody talks about indentured servitude which was just as
bad and went on longer than slavery.
That's not really what the civil war was about. that was a small part, but it was due to money as usual with rich white powerful people. also the northern states were not defending the southern states from bandits that were causing hell.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be used in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
Libraries are way more convienient and informative than statues, you are right.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
Libraries are way more convienient and informative than statues, you are right.
you really have a warped sense of thought, dude.
I suggest you visit virginia and experience the history of the various locations.
it might enlighten you.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Do you really want me to phone an officer from the Paratroopers Brigade
so he can post his experiences here? Because he would tell me to get
lost.
I suggest you visit virginia and experience the history of the various locations.
it might enlighten you.
I have. Haven't spent as much time in Virginia as I have in Georgia/Ten though. Very presumptuous.
Libraries are way more convienient and informative than statues, you are right.
If you're implying that this was first-hand information and not
published somewhere, I'd think that was awfully convenient, or should
have been cited that this was first-hand, non-confirmable information in
the first place.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be u in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
yeah and anybody can make 100 accounts. wikipedia is an online mmorpg. anybody that considers it a source of reliable information is sad.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias
and
written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because
written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who
wrote it are some how less flawed.
For every person looking to 'erase' history on wikipedia I would imagine there are 10 who proudly hang a confederate flag in their front yard watching those pages like a hawk ready to undo any tampering.
Fun experiment, go and try to edit any page of even moderate importance with something subtle that changes the narrative and see how long it stays up for.
yeah and anybody can make 100 accounts. wikipedia is an online mmorpg. anybody that considers it a source of reliable information is sad.
Scientific, historical and other societies have been digging into Wikipedia for almost 20 years now to test just how reliable it is and the answer usually comes back the same, it's 90x larger than Brittanica and more
https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and- rel iable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and > written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it' > on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who
wrote it are some how less flawed.
Scientific, historical and other societies have been digging into Wikipedia for almost 20 years now to test just how reliable it is and the answer usually comes back the same, it's 90x larger than Brittanica and more accurate, more up to date and less biased on average.
encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be corrected in real-time.
Re: Re: going to war
By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Mon Dec 04 2023 09:26 am
Yeah the articles on wikipedia regarding modern conflicts such as the Israeli-hamas conflict are fairly comprehensive, and have a large body of people actively working to update the article at all time of the day.
Re: Re: going to war
By: unc0nnected to MRO on Sun Dec 03 2023 10:03 pm
Scientific, historical and other societies have been digging into Wikipedia for almost 20 years now to test just how reliable it is and the answer usually comes back the same, it's 90x larger than Brittanica and more accurate, more up to date and less biased on average.
Refutation follows:
https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of more reliable sources.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or th
people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be co
rected in real-time.
Wikipedia is nice for finding general information about a subject (such as "What is X?") and finding listings (such as the titles of the songs on some albums). It is also nice for gathering some trivia.
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Dec 05 2023 08:37 am
problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of more reliable sources.
Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a
citation of another resource. Basically, Wikipedia's rules are that it's to be used as a reference based on other sources. I guess you could call that "plagarism" but I don't know if that's an accurate term.
problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of
more reliable sources.
Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post
original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a
man are you gullable.
furthermore you can post info without references. someone puts a 'citation needed' tag but you can delete that at at time when the person does not notice or care to police it.
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war. We don't build statues for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are. That goes for any war we've been in...we don't have statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or anyone else, and they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally fought for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, that's goofy.
are very bad at. Many kids (thanks to a distorted liberal education) can't even tell you what the capital of our country is or how many states we have. And to forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
You are wrong about many things here. First of all, the majority of people living in the south did not have slaves and had no interest in slavery. That's not what the war was about. It was more about wanting to have more control over local laws and taxes.
Also, people in the south were Americans and they had relatives living in the north. Many families had family members fighting on both sides. Some fought for the north and some fought for the south. They weren't anti-American, they were anti-government, just like many people living in the United States today and the only way they could see they would achieve equal control was to secede from the union.
Plus, you build statues to remember history - something that young people are very bad at. Many kids (thanks to a distorted liberal education) can't even tell you what the capital of our country is or how many states we have. And to forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
I have no idea what they teach kids in school these days. I don't remeber by kids having a history class or what history they were taught? Maybe they were teaching them my generations era 60's - 70's? I know they knew who JFK was and Martin Luther King. But civil war? No way. BTW. Even though the
forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
Re: Re: going to war
By: Alonzo to esc on Wed Dec 13 2023 11:11 am
forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
You know, we didn't have toilets for like a thousand years just because some idiots decided they wanted nothing to do with a particular civilization and completely burried all evidence of their toilet tech.
What would happen if, at the height of cancel culture, there was a rumor that the inventor of the toilet was a racist and a rapist? :D
people are also generally dumb. the civil war was very complicated. it's easier to teach that it was good guys vs bad guys and it was all about slavery.
The north fought to stop the emancipation. the south fought because they were being shafted by the govt and they were sick of it.
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Alonzo on Thu Dec 14 2023 08:11 am
people are also generally dumb. the civil war was very complicated.
it's easier to teach that it was good guys vs bad guys and it was all about slavery.
The north fought to stop the emancipation. the south fought because they were being shafted by the govt and they were sick of it.
lolz
What would happen if, at the height of cancel culture, there was a rumor that the inventor of the toilet was a racist and a rapist? :D
You know, we didn't have toilets for like a thousand years just because some idiots decided they wanted nothing to do with a particular civilization and completely burried all evidence of their toilet tech.
Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry
Potter even though Rowling is a transphobe, but they sure
as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
They would most certainly come up with a reason to still use them. Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry Potter even though Rowling is a transphobe, but they sure as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
It is a shame when having an opinion about <something> makes a
person labelled as a <something>phobe.
Re: going to war
By: Ogg to Kurisu on Fri Dec 15 2023 09:15 pm
It is a shame when having an opinion about <something> makes a
person labelled as a <something>phobe.
Quite the example of many peoples very black-or-white thinking. There can't be any nuance, it immediately has to be this extremely strong buzzword we've chosen and can't be anything else.
Ironically that serves my point just as well, because if they treat her opinion as being that level of severity, then the fact they, in this one case, separate art from the artist means they are using one hell of a double standard.
people are also generally dumb. the civil war was very complicated. it's easier to teach that it was good guys vs bad guys and it was all about slavery.
The north fought to stop the emancipation. the south fought because they were being shafted by the govt and they were sick of it.
lolz
They would most certainly come up with a reason to still use them. Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry Potter even though Rowling is transphobe, but they sure as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
Can't separate art from the artist until it's convenient for them to....
Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry
Potter even though Rowling is a transphobe, but they sure
as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
It is a shame when having an opinion about <something> makes a
person labelled as a <something>phobe.
You know, we didn't have toilets for like a thousand years just because some
What would happen if, at the height of cancel culture, there was a rumor that the inventor of the toilet was a racist and a rapist? :D
Refutation follows:
https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
Sysop: | altere |
---|---|
Location: | Houston, TX |
Users: | 66 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 03:59:27 |
Calls: | 613 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 7,638 |
Messages: | 292,642 |