George Gollin Wikipedia Article

[Virtual Bison]

Is there a reason why this article does not include George being named in the lawsuit? It is public information. And no matter how many times Tallmagic tries to sabatoge it, he cannot deny the truth.

[Albert Hidel]

Virtual Bison Wrote:Is there a reason why this article does not include George being named in the lawsuit? It is public information. And no matter how many times Tallmagic tries to sabatoge it, he cannot deny the truth.

Those Wikipedo types do all seem to have, shall we say, a certain affinity, don't they?
Here's one possible explanation:

Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia

Category:Pedophile Wikipedia Editors

I just discovered to my surprise - actually, horror - that Wikimedia Commons hosts illegal pedophilia. For shame.

The other issue is the fact that an irrelevant non-celebrity non-hacker like Gollum even has a Wikipedo page in the first place.  Notice that there is no Gollin page at Conservapedia.  

Except in his own mind, Gollin is less than irrelevant.  That is, after all, why he had to start proclaiming himself an "expert" in accreditation, because nobody who knew anything was taking him seriously as an "expert" in physics.

Although, if they manage to count all the dead Liberian babies for which he is responsible he might be worthy of mention here.

[ham]

It all depends on WHO does what, remember...
A bus full of militant troublemakers trying to inflame the passions of the masses to turn them into a potentially violent mob from town to town...
1 if the bus is full of politicking, angry Jews preaching to African masses, it's called civil right movement (see http://www.markrudd.com/?about-mark-rudd...ility.html ) and it is the next best thing since aspirin.
2 if the bus is full of right-wing old school militants preaching to whites (something by the way I'm not aware ever happened ), it'd be the next worst thing since fresh excrement and murder combined.
Both groups do the same exact thing.
Please explain to me how the perception of both so greatly varies.

[Armando Ramos]

ham Wrote:Please explain to me how the perception of both so greatly varies.

Not unlike the Open Carry rally on April 19, coincidentaly the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, the first armed conflicts of the Revolutionary War.  The socialist pile of dung Rachel Madcow reported the rally as occurring on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

(See, e.g., Ann Coulter comment.)

Madcow is typical of the statist "news" or "encyclopedia" distorters.  The five people who actually watch her show might be fooled, but real Americans know better.

Thanks to AlGore inventing the internet we now have almost instant opportunity to refute their lies.   Gollum and his Pervopedia buddies can try their best to keep the truth off their site, but they aren't fooling anyone either.   Those who really want the facts just run a search and judge for themselves what is or isn't important.  Which is why Gollum is in such a panic right now.

[ham]

Quote:but real Americans know better.

ARE YOU SO SURE?

[Virtual Bison]

My own opinon of Wikipedia is somewhat mixed. On one hand I did find a useful resourse for trying to find information on subjects. But my instructors warned me when I was in school not to rely only on Wikipedia but to check the linked sourses of invormation.

The real problem with Wikipedia is that it is a medium created and maintained by anyone who cares to spend the time working on it.

This Tallmagic guy seems to think of himself as some kind of authority. Yet he will be totally biased in how he edits. For instance, he will use The Cheyenne Herald (a higly opinionated and sometimes downright libelous publication written, edited and published by one individual) as an authority is articles about Kennedy-Western and others. In his latest edit, he mentions an opinion voiced by this editor that criminal charges should be brought. Yet if anyone dares to say anything controversial about his friend George Gollin than it will be reverted faster than you can say "hypocrit."

To be frank, I think that Wikipedia is really created and maintained by people who really have nothing better to do with their time. Some articles are decent and are totally dumb.

Incidently, how did that edit war between Tallmagic and Derrik Smart go?

[ham]

That's the epitome of free press.
In principle, it should be unbiased information that does not bend according to the potential consequences for anybody...in reality it is deviants, hacks and their paymasters running frantic edition wars to massage the truth.
The angle Wikipedia-pedophilia has already been exposed, but I am sure many angles exist, where an unholy pact between the nobodies exists to insure permanent cover up.
The many truly free articles (in matters nobody really cares about) serve as a fig leaf to keep the fiction going.