StarGateWars Forums

Dubby_CompGamerGeek2 wrote:Wikipedia would have us believe that Prince Bernhard was not quite the initial founder, and that he fought for the allies, against the Germans...

in fact, according to Wikipedia, he's quite the decorated war hero... and quite popular for it...

Since I have found Wikipedia
to be more reliable and less slanderous than KMA,

KMA, would you care to give us your source?

hopefully something a little bit more credible than a conspiracy-theory website whose owner has too much time on their hands?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe

wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

Iƒrit wrote:

Dubby_CompGamerGeek2 wrote:Wikipedia would have us believe that Prince Bernhard was not quite the initial founder, and that he fought for the allies, against the Germans...

in fact, according to Wikipedia, he's quite the decorated war hero... and quite popular for it...

Since I have found Wikipedia
to be more reliable and less slanderous than KMA,

KMA, would you care to give us your source?

hopefully something a little bit more credible than a conspiracy-theory website whose owner has too much time on their hands?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe

wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

Hitchkok wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

EXCEPT: There's no such thing as peer review on Wikipedia. Just people yelling they're right. Sounds familiar.

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

EXCEPT: There's no such thing as peer review on Wikipedia. Just people yelling they're right. Sounds familiar.

WHERE: the reference comes in.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

EXCEPT: There's no such thing as peer review on Wikipedia. Just people yelling they're right. Sounds familiar.

WHERE: the reference comes in.

WHICH is not present in most articles. Or sketchy. Like.. referring to the Sun for references.

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

EXCEPT: There's no such thing as peer review on Wikipedia. Just people yelling they're right. Sounds familiar.

WHERE: the reference comes in.

WHICH is not present in most articles. Or sketchy. Like.. referring to the Sun for references.

AD hominem. just because wikipedia can't be trusted on ALL articles, doesn't mean it can't be trusted on any specific one. it's an article by article thing.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

EXCEPT: There's no such thing as peer review on Wikipedia. Just people yelling they're right. Sounds familiar.

WHERE: the reference comes in.

WHICH is not present in most articles. Or sketchy. Like.. referring to the Sun for references.

AD hominem. just because wikipedia can't be trusted on ALL articles, doesn't mean it can't be trusted on any specific one. it's an article by article thing.

Agreed. So we are agreed that Wikipedia itself is not 'a trustworthy source', but that some articles are correct.

Hitchkok wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:more than anything about this topic, i'm still wondering why Hitchkok is asking what we know (or think...whatever) about Bilderberg

Now, not whatever.
I specifically wrote know

yes i can read...thanks

i was trying to point out that what the reader may think s/he "knows" as something being fact or real is not often the case...case in point...the Bilderberg "Group"


but you've yet to answer my question

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:wikipedia is also available to edit by anyone....almost the same standards as american school texbook, its utter garabage IMO, but can find some decent info.

EXCEPT: it usually brings reference.

EXCEPT: There's no such thing as peer review on Wikipedia. Just people yelling they're right. Sounds familiar.

WHERE: the reference comes in.

WHICH is not present in most articles. Or sketchy. Like.. referring to the Sun for references.

AD hominem. just because wikipedia can't be trusted on ALL articles, doesn't mean it can't be trusted on any specific one. it's an article by article thing.

Agreed. So we are agreed that Wikipedia itself is not 'a trustworthy source', but that some articles are correct.

i can live with that.
and i will add that the method for ascertaining how refutable an article is, is EXACTLY the same used for academic articles.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:more than anything about this topic, i'm still wondering why Hitchkok is asking what we know (or think...whatever) about Bilderberg

Now, not whatever.
I specifically wrote know

yes i can read...thanks

i was trying to point out that what the reader may think s/he "knows" as something being fact or real is not often the case...case in point...the Bilderberg "Group"


but you've yet to answer my question

Oh have I? must have been a mistake.
You see, I've asked because i want to know.
Now, do I want to know about the Bilderberg club, or do I want to know about youre knowledge regarding said club?
And why do I want to know?
Is it to peek some kind of eccentric curiosity, or is it out of some different agenda?
And said hypothethical agenda, does it come in service of the Bilderberg agenda, or is it an opposing one?
And why do I hold said (hypothetical, mind you) agenda?
The truth, as I said, is very prosaic (albeit out there).

But let's keep things basic: what relevence is it to the discussion why have I asked?

your over complicating things and you know it

1 thing i hate are word games. i speak my mind, i mean what i say and say what i mean...yes, i know its a "cliché", but in this case its appropriate.

why am i asking why you are asking ( ) about the "group", i'm trying to understand what your motives are for asking about them...simple as that

wwell, as it bears no relevence to this thread, it is spam.
i will happily discuss it in a different thread.
you could name that thread "Hitchkok's motives for asking about the bilderberg club".

instead of wasting a whole thread for something which wont require a reply (from me at least, since i am only curious) how about you PM the reason to me?