1/4 of gay men in San Fran. have HIV

This info comes from Reuters not some rightwing rag

click here to read the entire article

A Libertarian's take on Wikipedia

12 Easy Steps for Ruling Wikipedia
1. Make friends or multiple accounts
2. Use friends or multiple accounts to dominate selected articles. For most articles it requires only 2 editors to dominate. More heavily trafficked articles may require 3-4.
3. Delete all opposition
4. When opposition demands an explanation provide one reason at a time allowing the most possible deletes. Once explanations have exhausted themselves continue to delete.
5. When all else fails, blame them for not wanting to compromise and demand mediation or arbitration. Like tattle telling to a parent or a teacher the person who complains first gets the sympathy and thus usually wins.
6. It never fails to have friends who are administrators that way you can use them to block opposition or protect pages, with of course your own edit protected.
7. If opposition returns demand they cite sources...if sources already cited demand explanation of why sources are used. If this is done, demand more sources. Once more sources are given demand that these sources be moved to the exact location where the paragraph requires said citation. Once this is done complain about the citations as having some sort of POV or that there are too many sources.
8. When sources are removed delete the entire section on the grounds that it is original research and not well cited.
9. Make many minor edits or reverts that your opposition can't live with and get them to revert your petty edits. When they do tattle to your administrator friend so they are blocked.
10. When your opponent is blocked make as many changes as you can and contribute to the discussion page, that you have to this point ignored, so it appears as if your opposition is intolerant and uncompromising.
11. Continue the processes until you have worn down your opposition and they quit their futile attempts to bring balance back to wikipedia.
12. When dealing with stuborn opponents misrepresent things they've stated, pretend your feelings have been hurt and you've been attacked, copy and paste only half the story, then get lazy admins who won't bother actually reading the thousands of pages of disputes between you and your opponent and hope they side with you when you get arbitration against a person whose been attempting to prevent you from vandalizing and edit waring the whole time. Remember rat on them first and you'll win, afterall, who has the time to really investigate this silly BS anyway? Hopefully by now you'll have them blocked, and you'll be free to censor and misinform the public as you please...that is afterall the purpose of Wikipedia.
[edit]
Observation
Wikipedia is run and edited by alot of logically inconsistant editors, it really isnt worth your time participating, unless you enjoy it.

Wikipedia should not be treated as a good source of information for any reason.

I encourage everyone to avoid it as a learning tool wherever possible. It is just far too easy to insert or delete anything you like, regardless of factuality or not. It is way to easy for editors and administrators to bend and break rules in favor of their own prefrences...and they do, including blocking editors whith whom they have content disputes.

Be prepared for revert wars when your competeting editor stops providing discussion because they dont have legitimate complaints, they just hate what you have to say (even if what you say is cited by Nobel Prize winning economists).

Often your opponent will get admins to block you for reverting "Wars" that they clearly start by deleting whole sections without discussion or without even bothering to properly edited the disputed material. They, likely because they tattled, rarely get blocked. I've confirmed 2 editors who have CLEARLY gotten away with this while administrators refused to block them...without so much as a remark why.

I've been criticized for citing nobel prize winning economists and had the cited material deleted as "propoganda" and was later blocked for returning it back to the page.

I've also been blocked for making editorial changes to address complaints made by my opposition (they delete, I ask why, they supply a reason, I make a change based on their reason, they delete anyway, I ask why, they supply a new reason, I make an edit for that new reason, and they delete anyway: repeat process until I'm blocked for 3rr...total bs!) However when other users, my opposition, has made multiple edits to a page on the same section they were not block as that 3rr rule was suddenly changed to not include the exact same reason why I was blocked not too long before. Again, no logical consistancy among admins or editors.

I'm betting these threads don't get anymore posts

and very few other threads are made about these topics

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=144400

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=144167&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Tom Delay resigns

The Hammer has been Whipped.


A Delay time line


fake but well done movie trailer

I wish this was fake

Urban Legend

often refered to by wingnuts

Vets for peace/IVAW

This video contains a "interesting" encounter with a Bushling

Weeks after I post it...

the Bushlings get the news.

Unless I'm reading this wrong

Colin Powell opposed invading Iraq without the U.N.