Extreme dullardy - good or bad? (PARODY WARNING)

Man_of_Stoat · July 31, 2005, 9:18pm

I say no :lol:

system · July 31, 2005, 9:22pm

Man of stoat, I agree, Dullardy is good

system · July 31, 2005, 9:26pm

Sorry my bad I mean to Vote No.

I vote NO.

Man_of_Stoat · July 31, 2005, 9:29pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Cuts · July 31, 2005, 10:21pm

May I vote no too ?

Cuts · July 31, 2005, 10:21pm

Or at least against.

system · July 31, 2005, 10:23pm

not many replies yet

Man_of_Stoat · July 31, 2005, 10:23pm

South_African_Milita · August 1, 2005, 1:31am

:? :? …yes…no…yes…no… NO!

Cuts · August 1, 2005, 8:54am

Yes ! But no… but yes, but…

Man_of_Stoat · August 1, 2005, 10:05am

I post on every topic whether I have anything worthwhile to add or not, anyone can do this

Man_of_Stoat · August 1, 2005, 11:21am

Wikipedia is a Web-based, multi-language, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It has editions in roughly 200 different languages (about 100 of which are active) and contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. Wikipedia is one of the most popular reference sites on the internet,[1] receiving around 60 million hits per day.

Wikipedia contains approximately 1.6 million articles. More than 600,000 of these are in English, more than 250,000 in German, and more than 100,000 each in Japanese and French. It began as a complement to the expert-written Nupedia on January 15, 2001. Having steadily risen in popularity,[2] it has spawned several sister projects, such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. It is edited by volunteers in wiki fashion, meaning articles are subject to change by nearly anyone. Wikipedia’s volunteers enforce a policy of “neutral point of view” whereby views presented by notable persons or literature are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth. Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia.

The status of Wikipedia as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias. Its articles have been cited by the mass media and academia and are available under the GNU Free Documentation License. Its German language edition has been distributed on compact discs, and many of its other editions are mirrored or have been forked by websites.

Cuts · August 1, 2005, 2:50pm

Man_of_Stoat:

Wikipedia is a Web-based, multi-language, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It has editions in roughly 200 different languages (about 100 of which are active) and contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. Wikipedia is one of the most popular reference sites on the internet,[1] receiving around 60 million hits per day.

Wikipedia contains approximately 1.6 million articles. More than 600,000 of these are in English, more than 250,000 in German, and more than 100,000 each in Japanese and French. It began as a complement to the expert-written Nupedia on January 15, 2001. Having steadily risen in popularity,[2] it has spawned several sister projects, such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. It is edited by volunteers in wiki fashion, meaning articles are subject to change by nearly anyone. Wikipedia’s volunteers enforce a policy of “neutral point of view” whereby views presented by notable persons or literature are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth. Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia.

The status of Wikipedia as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias. Its articles have been cited by the mass media and academia and are available under the GNU Free Documentation License. Its German language edition has been distributed on compact discs, and many of its other editions are mirrored or have been forked by websites.

Wicca is a recognised ‘witchcraft’ religion.

Iron_Yeoman · August 1, 2005, 3:04pm

Is there any other answer than no?

system · August 1, 2005, 4:48pm

Wiki is very valuable and taught me alot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

Firefly · August 2, 2005, 8:11am

I voted yes, I dont understand the question.

Man_of_Stoat · August 2, 2005, 8:21am

Welcome, firefly . :lol: :lol:

Man_of_Stoat · August 2, 2005, 12:08pm

I heard that the American Imperial National Guard were the best special forces in the world. Wot did u hear?

Man_of_Stoat · August 2, 2005, 12:21pm

Why won’t the USA let Durkadurkastan have its own army? Is it cos it would be too powerful?

Iron_Yeoman · August 2, 2005, 12:26pm

Obviously you aren’t aware that the DurkaDurkastanis are backed by the chinese-lichenstein-welsh conspiracy and the Americans are scared of starting a world wide pillow fight!! sheesh, get a clue!