belfastguzzi Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Dilbert, May 8 2009 yes, reasonably funny Link to comment
Guest ratchethack Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Dilbert, May 8 2009 Thanks, Skeeve. I'll be getting some good mileage outta that one. Link to comment
Guest ratchethack Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Dilbert, May 8 2009 Say Skeeve You've evidently pushed a few too many of Dave's buttons at the same time with your Dilbert funny. D'you figure Dave's found wot he somehow b'lieves is a defense of his favorite original source of "truth" on the Web -- Wikipedia, of course -- (that'd be relative truth in Dave's book, since of course by Dave's own account, absolute truth doesn't exist ), and posted it above? Ever notice that whenever Dave's buttons get pushed, somehow all of 'em seem to have "W" on 'em -- still -- even though (mercifully) Dubya has finally been put out to pasture somewhere in Texas for almost half a year now? . . . But conjuring up Dubya, Rupert Murdoch, AND throw McCain on the pile, in an apparent attempt at a defense of Wikipedia?!?! By wot horribly twisted distortion of illogic and disjointed, convoluted, Rube Goldberg plumber's nightmare of a connection pathway d'you imagine his post above possibly links to Wikipedia?? Wot d'you make o' the mentality here, Chief? Yet another case o' lit fuses in a full brace o' loose cannon on a rolling, pitching deck? Enquiring minds. . .(well, you know). . . Link to comment
badmotogoozer Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Oh dear... just CAN'T stop yourself, can you. Link to comment
Guest ratchethack Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Oh dear... just CAN'T stop yourself, can you. I confess. There are times when wild horses couldn't keep me away. . . Apparently, same with you -- eh? Link to comment
Admin Jaap Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 3 more posts in this useless thread and I will close it. Link to comment
dlaing Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The W I was targeting was Ratchet's favorite citation source of dubious credibility, WSJ not GWB. GWB just happened to be there.Here is what your buddy Rupert Murdoch (But it must be fake!) thinks of the parody that appears to have pushed your button... http://wsjparody.com/***WARNING F'ing bad language!*****If that does not work, try this link: Link to comment
Skeeve Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 The W I was targeting was Ratchet's favorite citation source of dubious credibility, WSJ not GWB. GWB just happened to be there. Here is what your buddy Rupert Murdoch (But it must be fake!) thinks of the parody that appears to have pushed your button... http://wsjparody.com/ ***WARNING F'ing bad language!***** If that does not work, try this link: It's definitely fake, and WSJ is a far better source than Wikipedia, altho' I'll admit I like using Wiki for getting a quick briefing [frequently all too brief] on a topic previously unknown to me. Wikipedia is a quick ref on a topic [and frequently flat out wrong, as I've had opportunity to correct for myself, so I know better than to use Wikipedia as a foundational source.] BTW, post #3: close'r down, Jaap! Link to comment
dlaing Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I have never seen Wikipedia be wrong. Politically incorrect, sure, but not wrong Wall Street Journal on the other hand is full of ____! Link to comment
dlaing Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Here is good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Err...ed_in_Wikipedia And of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_street_journal Where the word "bias" appears about 6 times. And right up the old Right Wing alley http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_wikipedia Ratchet's absolute truth, I am sure... Link to comment
Admin Jaap Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 That's 5 posts already... closed Link to comment
Recommended Posts