Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Do any of you use the Conservapedia?

Do any of you use the Conservapedia? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Well, other than the fact that it seems to be essentially a running blog of examples of when "not-Fox-News" media has made an on-air factual mistake or contradiction?
Is this a problem in your view? I mean, is there something wrong with watchdog organizations or is it only reprehensible when it offends your sensitivities?

I mean, the link gave me a page that started with a post showing that a CNN anchor apparently doesn't quite understand how a volcano works, or why they're present in Iceland. Well, knock me over with a stick. If I polled 150 million people in America they probably wouldn't be able to explain those concepts to me off the top of their head.
If you cite the link, I could likely point to the problem they're illustrating.

It's a news anchor. I expect them to look good and talk smoothly and give me what they think I need to know.
If they think you ought to know their personal views at the expense of substantive facts, they should be mocked regardless of how good they look or smoothly they talk.

How about This piece: Laura Ingraham Destroys Marc Lamont Hill on Obama, Immigration and Racism.
I read it. Wow. That's their definition of "destroyed"?
Sure, why not? I'm guessing it's a good thing you're not on any media marketing team. How would your catchy headline read; "Laura Ingraham and Marc Lamont Hill engage stimulating banter on the Obama's, Immigration, and Racism with perceived slight advantage Laura"?

What would their title be for this thread then? "Various members shove nuclear bomb up BadKosh's rear end in MacNN debate?"
Well... if for whatever reason you felt this discussion was important enough that you wanted hundreds of thousands of people to check it out, perhaps so.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is this a problem in your view? I mean, is there something wrong with watchdog organizations or is it only reprehensible when it offends your sensitivities?
Are you deliberately ignoring my previous post and/or argument?

To clarify, and/or re-state my previous post: what kind of a "watchdog organization" only watches industry companies they don't agree with, or have some sort of ideological riff with, or the like?

That's like... an oil industry watchdog organization from Britain only reporting on Exxon and Chevron, but completely ignoring BP.

If you cite the link, I could likely point to the problem they're illustrating.
It's BadKosh's link - the one you asked me to critique. Click it yourself.

If they think you ought to know their personal views at the expense of substantive facts, they should be mocked regardless of how good they look or smoothly they talk.
...and... Newsbusters.org and/or Fox News don't tell you "their personal views at the expense of substantive facts?"

The example I provided shows that Newsbusters.org, in fact, does indeed provide you with their personal view that a Conservative pundit "destroyed" a Liberal pundit, despite the "substantive fact" that after reading the transcript and watching the videos, I can't for the life of me figure out how they came to that conclusion.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that Fox news probably isn't guilty of any of these "offenses" listed by Newsbusters. Definitely not.
Sure, why not? I'm guessing it's a good thing you're not on any media marketing team. How would your catchy headline read; "Laura Ingraham and Marc Lamont Hill engage stimulating banter on the Obama's, Immigration, and Racism with perceived slight advantage Laura"?
So literally, one breath after saying that news providers who provide personal views at the expense of substantive facts, you seemingly state that it would be okay for a news organization to falsely sensationalize a news heading if they "felt this discussion was important enough that you wanted hundreds of thousands of people to check it out...."




...


My previous point remains.


It's quite remarkable, the twists you'll continue to perform in order to take a contrarian opinion.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Aug 1, 2010 at 01:05 PM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
To your topic, outlets like Conservapedia, whether effective or not, were conceived as a reaction to something else. In this case a check to Wikipedia where examples of its contributors' bias abound and a means of avoiding exhaustive combat with revisionists.
If this is a "check" on Wikipedia, big fail.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
LOL Verifiable fact? Its at best a judgement call. Have you read through the entire Conservapedia? I ' haven't. Did I browse through it for a few minutes? Yes. Did I read things that looked suspicious? Yes. My opinion is based on what I saw. Do I care what the originators intended it to be? No. I don't read minds. Assuming others intentions is still an opinion, NOT a fact.
curious, what did you find suspicious?
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Touchy much? BadKosh cited an article from newsbusters.org regarding a liberal bias in media and someone else found it laughable that a "conservative" source would be credible for such an article when nothing was challenged of the article's actual substance. The fact is, a liberal bias in the mainstream media is not only well-documented in terms of the political-affiliation of the majority of journalists themselves (they're rather open about it and in many cases downright activist), but perceived as such by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

To your topic, outlets like Conservapedia, whether effective or not, were conceived as a reaction to something else. In this case a check to Wikipedia where examples of its contributors' bias abound and a means of avoiding exhaustive combat with revisionists.
can't ANYONE post on wikipedia? why would you need to create a conservative version?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
can't ANYONE post on wikipedia? why would you need to create a conservative version?

Some would argue that the primary editors have a liberal bias. I haven't personally figured out whether this is actually true or whether the people that say this are kooks that conflate bias with factually incorrect information. I tend in the latter direction, because it would seem to me that the Wikipedia's success is dependent on the adoption by everybody regardless of political affiliation. Same goes with NPR in terms of donations.

For example of this conflation, the evolution stuff comes to mind. To me it is pretty much proven that evolution exists, but I'm sure that many Conservapedia dudes would disagree.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
can't ANYONE post on wikipedia? why would you need to create a conservative version?
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Heheh

Am I the only one that has a *really* ****ing difficult time getting past the first couple of sentences in some of these articles before deciding to not take this seriously? For instance, in this article:

Below is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact the atheist Jimmy Wales
Why not put ATHEIST in big red capital letters? Of course the fact that he is an atheist accounts for all sorts of things, you obviously need to believe in the Christian God to see facts for what they are (facts pertaining to everything ranging from politics to census information about a US city). I mean, at least disguise your rhetorical strategy a little bit, the strategy where you try to get readers to connect his being an atheist with his bias? Maybe something like this?

Below is a growing list of examples of atheist-based liberal bias, deceit, frivolous atheist gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia (home of many atheists). The atheist Jimmy Wales (who is an atheist) was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact (and harass) the atheist Jimmy Wales, or else maybe you too are an atheist like he?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 11:44 PM
 
"The liberal mobocracy"

Best line in the whole site.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Are you deliberately ignoring my previous post and/or argument?
No.

To clarify, and/or re-state my previous post: what kind of a "watchdog organization" only watches industry companies they don't agree with, or have some sort of ideological riff with, or the like?
Uh... one that was founded with the expressed intention of monitoring traditionally, liberally-biased news sources?

That's like... an oil industry watchdog organization from Britain only reporting on Exxon and Chevron, but completely ignoring BP.
No, of course it's nothing of the sort. Are BP, Exxon, and Chevron all founded with the expressed intention of reporting on one another? Are any of these outlets marketing a completely opposite commodity?

It's BadKosh's link - the one you asked me to critique. Click it yourself.
Newsbusters.org seems to be countering the notion that ignorance is exclusive to those serving right-of-center news outlets.

...and... Newsbusters.org and/or Fox News don't tell you "their personal views at the expense of substantive facts?"
Why are you running comparisons between Fox News and Newsbusters.org? Per their own 'About Us' link; in 2005, MRC launched NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting. Newsbusters does not claim to be a news outlet. Fox News does claim to be a news outlet and as a source of news itself, is pretty balanced and cerebral. Where people like you and others get confused is the fact that the Fox News channel also features conservative pundits as opposed to the other news outlets that feature liberal pundits.

The example I provided shows that Newsbusters.org, in fact, does indeed provide you with their personal view that a Conservative pundit "destroyed" a Liberal pundit, despite the "substantive fact" that after reading the transcript and watching the videos, I can't for the life of me figure out how they came to that conclusion.
I'll try this again - Newsbusters.org does not claim to be an outlet of news. It claims to be an analysis of liberal news bias. There's a difference. Of course it's about their opinion and their opinion is that the conservative pundit won the debate against the liberal pundit regarding the Obamas, illegal immigration, and racism. To market their opinion on their opinion outlet, they used the word "destroyed". I'm surprised you're really lost on this.

Point to the "fact" they got wrong for example. See what I'm sayin'?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that Fox news probably isn't guilty of any of these "offenses" listed by Newsbusters. Definitely not.
The most common complaint the left has of the right is that they are generally stupid and uneducated. My complaint of the left is that these traits are not exclusive to Fox News or any media outlet perceived as right-of-center. If you read my response to BadKosh again, you'll get it. Otherwise, I was really talking about something more pervasive than simply Conservapedia, Newsbusters.org, CNN, or Fox News anyway. Outlets like Conservapedia and Newsbusters.org were conceived out of the more pervasive issue of a general, liberal bias among the strong majority of journalists and broadcasters. Perhaps if a conservative media bias were perceived to be more prevalent, you'd have more watchdog/contrarian outlets calling them out.

So literally, one breath after saying that news providers who provide personal views at the expense of substantive facts, you seemingly state that it would be okay for a news organization to falsely sensationalize a news heading if they "felt this discussion was important enough that you wanted hundreds of thousands of people to check it out...."




...


My previous point remains.


It's quite remarkable, the twists you'll continue to perform in order to take a contrarian opinion.
Consider this a tutorial on the differences between blogs, journalism, and opinion editorials.

What I find even more fascinating is the amount of space you take up for feigned ignorance and ellipses.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Aug 2, 2010 at 07:41 AM. )
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:37 AM
 
I would watch 'news that was presented as verifiable facts, presented in chronological order without assumptions or personal opinions presented as facts. Without omissions.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Heheh
Am I the only one that has a *really* ****ing difficult time getting past the first couple of sentences in some of these articles before deciding to not take this seriously? For instance, in this article:
Why not put ATHEIST in big red capital letters? Of course the fact that he is an atheist accounts for all sorts of things, you obviously need to believe in the Christian God to see facts for what they are (facts pertaining to everything ranging from politics to census information about a US city). I mean, at least disguise your rhetorical strategy a little bit, the strategy where you try to get readers to connect his being an atheist with his bias? Maybe something like this?
... the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles contain information that you will not find at the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.

What they're saying is that readers will generally form an opinion of a world view, issue, figure, or phenomena based on the facts provided them. If the facts provided them that might caste the above in anything other than a favorable light are not included, the only perception will be a favorable one. They're simply illustrating the bias. They go on to list several more examples. I've given one in this thread.

Sometimes you have to read past the first couple of sentences, that's all.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:42 AM
 
I guess I don't understand what you're arguing, then.


As long as we're clear that, in your opinion, it's okay to use an activist conservative news source to show that other news outlets are biased towards the other side of the political spectrum.

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
If this is a "check" on Wikipedia, big fail.
So when I said "whether effective or not"; I'm guessing your opinion is "or not". Got it.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I guess I don't understand what you're arguing, then.


As long as we're clear that, in your opinion, it's okay to use an activist conservative news source to show that other news outlets are biased towards the other side of the political spectrum.

Are you saying that all complaints about Rush Limbaugh from the left for example, are mistaken because they're coming from the left and that the substance of such complaints are unimportant by virtue of the complainant's leaning?
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:55 AM
 
In part, yes.

You disagree?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
In part, yes.

You disagree?
Yup.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 08:27 AM
 
Notice I said "in part."

Nevertheless, it's my experience both from here and "real life" that when it comes to ideological positions, those firmly on either side will almost always disagree with those firmly on the other side.

Thus, to use a Canadian example: the Toronto Star's indictment of a "conservative matter" cannot be trusted.

And similarly, the National Post's indictment of a "liberal matter" cannot be trusted (although to be fair to NP - they have been working on a more balanced agenda from what I've read lately).

Honest assessments are based, in my view, on a balance. And starting from a stated ideology viewpoint means, to me, that it's almost impossible for you to achieve that balance.

The Pol Lounge bears witness.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:42 AM
 
Wouldn't a start be consistency? How about uniformly labeling politicians as "D" or "R or "I" instead of omitting it when they are Dems? I've seen this many times. People who aren't tuned in to the media bias will think what they are reading or viewing is true. This is why we here such BS as "there is no difference between parties" Or assuming the AZ law was something it clearly wasn't. Even the Obama Admin is guilty of speaking without knowing the facts. They've turned it into a continuing saga of stupidity.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Wouldn't a start be consistency? How about uniformly labeling politicians as "D" or "R or "I" instead of omitting it when they are Dems? I've seen this many times. People who aren't tuned in to the media bias will think what they are reading or viewing is true. This is why we here such BS as "there is no difference between parties" Or assuming the AZ law was something it clearly wasn't. Even the Obama Admin is guilty of speaking without knowing the facts. They've turned it into a continuing saga of stupidity.
Or maybe they should just use an "L" for LIBURAL!!!!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Wouldn't a start be consistency? How about uniformly labeling politicians as "D" or "R or "I" instead of omitting it when they are Dems?
Intershame.com - on Fox News
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What would their title be for this thread then? "Various members shove nuclear bomb up BadKosh's rear end in MacNN debate?"

greg
Ba hahahaha.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So when I said "whether effective or not"; I'm guessing your opinion is "or not". Got it.
No guessing about it.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
... the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles contain information that you will not find at the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.

What they're saying is that readers will generally form an opinion of a world view, issue, figure, or phenomena based on the facts provided them. If the facts provided them that might caste the above in anything other than a favorable light are not included, the only perception will be a favorable one. They're simply illustrating the bias. They go on to list several more examples. I've given one in this thread.

Sometimes you have to read past the first couple of sentences, that's all.

I probably don't understand what you are arguing either. How are they illustrating the bias rather than countering what they think is bias with bias of their own? Do you really think that people read sentences like that and just assume that they are illustrating bias and not trying to persuade you in their own way?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Notice I said "in part."
Fair enough. I think the bias first makes itself evident in the story it chooses to cover in the first place, then the article to support the story, then the facts that support the article. Getting beyond the first two; it's simply a matter of whether or not the "facts" can be corroborated to the satisfaction of the audience. When MSNBC reported on Rush Limbaugh's prescription drug fraud for example, it would be unreasonable to assume the story was fabricated simply because it is MSNBC. By the same token however, I may seek additional sources to pick up facts that may have been omitted from the original story, facts that may take the edge off the charge or give some explanation of what led Rush Limbaugh to that problem.

To the thread, there may be sources other than wikipedia to provide additional insight that might caste a figure or issue in a more or less favorable light; also corroborated factually. The two sources have their own bias, their own perspective, and they both present their own facts to support it. I really don't see what the big uproar is.
ebuddy
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:08 PM
 
It's not uproar, I'm not bothered by the fact that the Conservapedia exists, I just think the people that run it are intellectual lightweights, and many of the articles are moronic... That's all, really.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's not uproar, I'm not bothered by the fact that the Conservapedia exists, I just think the people that run it are intellectual lightweights, and many of the articles are moronic... That's all, really.
I agree it's an egregious overcompensation and for that reason, can't imagine it really taking off. This does suggest the founders are either intellectual lightweights as you say, simply belligerent, or both. Just goes to show there's room on the internet for all types.
ebuddy
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:56 PM
 
Well, it has taken off enough to be invited to the Colbert Report, which is something.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, it has taken off enough to be invited to the Colbert Report, which is something.
Which is parody....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 09:32 AM
 
I say we all go back to world book encyclopedias, updated every decade. Now they had integrity.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 09:45 AM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 09:50 AM
 
CNET News? That liberal rag?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
CNET News? That liberal rag?
I don't know, they've run pretty hard-hitting stuff:

Obama: Where are our Macs?

(Non-sarcastic nitpick: That headline is horrible.)

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Which is parody....

The Colbert Report is parody? NO WAY!!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 01:05 PM
 
It IS!! Just ask Chuck Noblet.
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 01:42 PM
 
Holy crap, I think that was the first humorous, non-politically-charged comment I've ever seen from BadKosh. Bravo, my good man!

EDIT: Since when has the 'NN automatically removed my double-space-after-each-sentence? Not cool.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 01:45 PM
 
Double-space? Get off the internet, neanderthal!
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:14 PM
 
There's been no need for a double-space after a period since the dawn of electronic typesetting.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:16 PM
 
Don't forget to indent your paragraphs, TheoCryst!
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:28 PM
 
Seriously? You guys don't double-space after a period?

I ask because I've lately run into a bunch of documents that also don't double-space. I think it's terrible. Is that not the norm any more?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:30 PM
 
Aside from papers I turned in in High School, no I don't believe it is.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:41 PM
 
Wiki - In the news again

FOXNews.com - Cosby Angry About Web Death Hoax

Pennsylvania--Philadelphia comedian and activist Bill Cosby is mad after Internet users spread the third death hoax about Cosby this year.

A hoax last February forced Cosby to first make a public statement that he is alive and doing well.

By the time of the third hoax on Monday, Cosby was not amused and he went on CNN’s “Larry King Show” to tell the pranksters to stop.

"I don't know. Maybe a psychiatrist will say I'm feeding [the rumor starter's] ego, but I just want to say to friends of that person: Just tell him to stop, because it isn't funny."
Cosby joins a long list of celebrities who have been killed off on Wikipedia or Twitter while they were alive.

Last week, Tom Cruise was the subject of such rumors.

Last New Year’s Eve, Rush Limbaugh had a minor accident in Hawaii hospital, but some Internet pranksters falsely killed off the talk-show host on Wikipedia.

The user-generated Wikipedia has been the butt of jokes over the years because pranksters have posted false information on the widely followed Web site before editors can pull down the information.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Seriously? You guys don't double-space after a period?

I ask because I've lately run into a bunch of documents that also don't double-space. I think it's terrible. Is that not the norm any more?

greg
I first learned how to type on a typewriter and double-spacing after a period was the rule. I've heard people argue that this is no longer necessary since the advent of proportionally spaced fonts. Call me a Luddite ... but I simply disagree. A single space after a period just looks wrong. The sentences seem way too crowded IMO. Though I suppose this may be a generational thing related to the device on which you learned to type.

OAW

PS: Every sentence in this post has a double space after the period. Imagine how it would look with only one!
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I first learned how to type on a typewriter and double-spacing after a period was the rule. I've heard people argue that this is no longer necessary since the advent of proportionally spaced fonts. Call me a Luddite ... but I simply disagree. A single space after a period just looks wrong. The sentences seem way too crowded IMO. Though I suppose this may be a generational thing related to the device on which you learned to type.
Ditto. I first learned to type on an Apple IIe.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:45 PM
 
I've never touched a typewriter, and I double-space.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
PS: Every sentence in this post has a double space after the period. Imagine how it would look with only one!
The same, as the forum removes excess spaces. Do your forum posts just look wrong?
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
before editors can pull down the information.
That says it all.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The same, as the forum removes excess spaces. Do your forum posts just look wrong?
Really? Well I suppose you learn something new everyday!

Interestingly enough ... though they seem to display nearly the same when I edit my posts the double space is definitely still there.

OAW
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Wiki - In the news again


Tip: the Wikipedia is a wiki. A wiki (in the context of the internet) is a thing, not the name of a particular information source. There are many different wikis all over the internet, and a variation of wiki software that drives these wikis as well.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Tip: the Wikipedia is a wiki. A wiki (in the context of the internet) is a thing, not the name of a particular information source. There are many different wikis all over the internet, and a variation of wiki software that drives these wikis as well.
Tip: Wiki can also be a nickname for Wikipedia. Stop being a pedant.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,