.edu FTW

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

That has to be the most entertaining description of a beard I've ever read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BAD

have fun

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse&oldid=69563221

___________________
Alcoholic Alliance
The Ecstasy (MDMA) Bible Thread 2.0

quote:

Originally posted by Masonious you win again dude - and nice move shoving the whole i figured out how to order pizza thing in my face. i tried that 4 and a half months ago and woke up with a Taiwanese transvestite but to Ygrene it's just, "anoother day in the life, noooo biggieee".

Last edited by Fast Turtle on Jan-09-2007 at 03:14

Britannica hates on Wikipedia

quote:

Britannica begs to differ on Wikipedia's accuracy 3/23/2006 10:57:26 AM, by John Timmer Wikipedia has the potential to bring unprecedented detail and accuracy to its articles, given that it can be peer reviewed by an entire world's worth of experts. But there is a gap between that potential and reality. Ars has covered a variety of potential and actual issues with Wikipedia in the past, ranging from hoax pages to manipulation of entries for political ends. Do these problems represent exceptions or systematic flaws in the material there? A potential indication of the quality of Wikipedia came when the respected scientific journal Nature submitted articles from both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica to experts in the appropriate fields for evaluations. The results of the evaluation were very positive from a Wikipedia perspective: However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature - the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science - suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule. The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica's, about three. Based on Nature's description (in Word format) of how the evaluation was performed, everything seems largely above board. Potential bias may creep in from Nature's news staff considering the reviews from the perspective of a "typical encyclopedia user," but the evaluations themselves are included to allow readers to get a sense of how big a problem that is. All appears to be reasonable. But the Encyclopedia Britannica went through those evaluations and, based on their analysis, is now suggesting that such appearances are deceiving. And they make that suggestion in language that, for the generally sedate publishing world, is rather sharp: Nature's research was invalid. As we demonstrate below, almost everything about the journal's investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading. Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit. Accusations include Nature having used articles from publications other than the encyclopedia and, in one case, material that wasn't even produced by Britannica. Nature claimed that they matched the size of entries by deleting references only, but Britannica's response indicated that many submissions were either fragmentary excerpts or subjected to extensive editing. Nature's chosen evaluators also get criticized for getting facts wrong in their evaluations, and being unable to recognize simplifications that are reasonable for a publication targeted at a general audience. Britannica is basing all of this criticism on the excerpts from the reviews provided in the Word document linked above, but are calling for Nature to release all the material involved in the article for public evaluation. This may help clarify some issues, but in the end, much of the finger pointing comes down to a "he said/she said" matter of how to interpret the seriousness of a given error. There is really no objective way to determine whether an editorial decision represents an appropriate simplification or a glaring omission. Nature's response, however, has the potential to be interesting for reasons that go well beyond this controversy. In a very real sense, they and Britannica are kindred publications, facing increased pressure to maintain subscription-based publication in the face of open-access journals. How hard they press an issue that is seen as an embarrassment for their potential allies may be very telling.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Fast Turtle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BAD have fun edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...&oldid=69563221

LOL

Alternative rock

Alternative rock is the name given to one stone when you're looking at another stone. The term was coined by photographer Edwin Blastocyst when looking at one stone and speaking about another, oddly enough.

The quote from Edwin Blastocyst needs to be verified.

___________________
NOBODY DOES THIS ANYMORE

Mushroom tattoo

"The term mushroom tattoo is used to represent the action of hitting or slapping another person with your penis, usually in the face. The resulting action of the penis to the face is the imprint of the "wanghead" which resembles that of a mushroom. It can be used as a verb, adjective or noun. Here, it is seen as a noun, "That crazy nigga was all up in my grill, so i gave his ass a mushroom tattoo." Also as a verb, "Yo, if that playa' hata' don't quit frontin', I'm gonna' mushroom tattoo that nigga' in the face." It is used here as an adjective, "Ben was being a hoe, so i had no choice but to smack him in the face with my penis, leaving the unmistakable mushroom tattoo imprint." The phrase mushroom tattoo derives its name from Greek origins. It comes from the words mushromus which means penis and tato which means to strike. In a sense, mushroom tattoo literally means "penis striking". It is a great art and is continued on a normal basis in todays society."

Harrier (dog)

"Harriers are well-known for their skill at playing Frisbee, owing to their unique Vertical Take-Off and Landing capability."

Speed of light

"The speed of light is approximately 3 miles an hour, to the highest accuracy of modern measuring devices. The first scientest to attempt to calculate the speed of light was Isaac Asimov in 1998 in his famed "Jogger With A Stopwatch" experiment. In that experiment Asimov stood facing away from a standard, 40 watt, light bulb, simultaneously started a stopwatch and flipped a switch activating the light, and then jogged away from the light while looking over his shoulder. He initially started by moving at slow velocities, walking paces, and steadily increased his speed, eventually maxing out at 3mph. Unable to jog faster than 3mph, Asimov simultaneously proved that the speed of light is 3mph and that it is physically impossible for anything in the universe to travel faster than it."



These are great.

From Wikipedia:

"This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any
This is one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia. Here is the original explanation:

We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace. So, here it is! [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sorta give the encyclopedia some lively color. But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page. ;-) ] -- BryceHarrington"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudos

(to you wikipedia)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Harrier (dog) "Harriers are well-known for their skill at playing Frisbee, owing to their unique Vertical Take-Off and Landing capability."

___________________
NOBODY DOES THIS ANYMORE