On Aug 19, 11:14 am, JB <mblackja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > el...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > SNIP!
> > This article evidences what allowing less than intellectually credible
> > reporting leads to. Wikipedia has no system of accountability for its
> > so-called encyclopedic information gathering, and allows many usenet
> > abusers to contribute to its information database (such as
> > sheri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AKA Tony Sidaway). Jimmy Wales is the owner of this
> > site.
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10337376/
> > 'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for Dec. 2nd
> > CARLSON: Here's a story that proves the old adage you can't
> > believe everything you read, to which we add, especially online.
> > Retired journalist John Siegenthaler was shocked to read his biography
> > posted on Wikipedia.com. That's the online encyclopedia that is
> > edited by its own readers.
> > The bio included the following quote, "For a brief time, he was
> > thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations
> > of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
> > Completely untrue, says John Siegenthaler. He has yet to find out who
> > posted the entry.
> > John Siegenthaler Sr. is a longtime editor and publisher of the
> > "National Tennessean" as well as the founder of the Freedom Forum
> > First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.
> > Mr. Siegenthaler, thanks a lot for coming on.
> > JOHN SIEGENTHALER, EDITOR/PUBLISHER, "NATIONAL TENNESSEAN": Thanks
> > a lot for having me.
> > CARLSON: So who did this? And if you still don't know, tell us what
> > you did to try and find out?
> > SIEGENTHALER: Well, I don't know who did it, and I want to find out.
> > And I've tried to go to Wikipedia, where it appeared first in May.
> > I didn't find out about it until late September. But I'd like very
> > much to know. Wikipedia doesn't know.
> > It apparently was a customer of Bell South. Bell South says under the
> > law, privacy provisions prevent them from telling me who it is.
> > The only recourse I have is to file some John or Jane Doe lawsuit and
> > then let whoever did it have the opportunity to quash the subpoena.
> > It's a very, very tough ordeal to break through the-through the
> > protection that is now encasing online and Internet communications.
> > CARLSON: But Wikipedia strikes me as a little different, because it
> > is, or it presents itself, anyway, as a reference book that people can
> > go to for facts.
> > SIEGENTHALER: Yes, it does. And it calls itself reliable and
> > accountable. Now there is a statement on the web site that it's not
> > responsible for error. But beyond that, its founder, Jimmy Wales,
with
> > whom I talked, has said on a number of occasions that they correct
> > error in a number of minutes.
> > And my-and my story, my biography-my biography, in quotes-my
> > biography was up for four months before they brought it down.
> > And I learned yesterday from a note he put on his web site that dozens
> > of mirror web sites have picked it up. Now, I knew about two,
> > Answers.com and Reference.com, and they've taken it down, but I
> > don't know where else it is. And you know, it's disturbing.
> > CARLSON: You were in journalism for decades. Are you aware of any
> > instances where's Wikipedia has been used as a source for a news
> > story?
> > SIEGENTHALER: No, I have been told-I had been told before this
> > incident, I had been told by journalists, historians, school teachers
> > that they used it. School teachers tell me their students use it.
> > And my only point in all this is, you know, I'd like to unmask and
> > confront whoever-whoever wrote it. But my only point is that
> > Wikipedia's claims of accountability and credibility are simply not
> > valid. And that you can read anything on there and never know whether
> > it's fact or fiction.
> > CARLSON: Did you have any idea why someone would want to write
> > something like that about you? I know that you worked for Robert
> > Kennedy and were his friend and were a pallbearer at his funeral. Had
> > you ever been accused of anything like this before? Was this a rumor
> > that was out there? Was it totally out of the blue?
> > SIEGENTHALER: No, it was totally out of the blue. Nobody has ever
had
> > the-that slight thought never occurred to anybody I ever knew. I
> > mean, it's out of the whole cloth, and which makes it all the more
> > puzzling. The whole idea that I lived in the Soviet Union for 13
> > years. I mean, who would say that? Who would say that, you know?
> > Maybe I should start calling myself Ivan and my wife Natasha. But no,
> > I didn't have the slightest idea.
> > CARLSON: So over the top. You lived in the Soviet Union.
> > Well, I hope you find out who did it. And I hope when you do you'll
> > come back and tell us who it is. John Siegenthaler, thanks a lot for
> > coming on.
> > SIEGENTHALER: Thank you so much, Tucker.
> > "The ancient Romans had a tradition: whenever one of their engineers
> > constructed an arch, as the capstone was hoisted into place, the
> > engineer assumed accountability for his work in the most profound way
> > possible: he stood under the arch. "
> > Michael Armstrong
> <sigh> You DO realise, of course, that any "Readings" you give have a
> 2.000 year distention, right? If they have ANY benifit at ALL - they'd
No, it has nothing to do with me, you are not taking into account that
you have no knowledge about astrology and then make statements that
evidence that fact.
I have answered this lame argument long ago. Even Ptolemy knew of this
centuries ago.
http://tinyurl.com/yv5x4d
"=2E..Ptolemy's astrology is just as applicable to modern and improved
astronomy as it was to his own."
The objection which has been urged against astrology, that the
signs
are continually moving from their positions, cannot invalidate this
conclusion.
That objection has, in fact, no real existence; for Ptolemy seems to
have been aware of this motion of the signs, and has fully provided
for it in the 25th Chapter of the 1st Book of the Tetrabiblos. From
that chapter it is clear that the respective influences he ascribes
to
the twelve signs (or divisions of the zodiac) were considered by him
as appurtenant to the places they occupied, and not to the stars of
which they were composed. He has expressly and repeatedly
declared that the point of the vernal equinox is ever the beginning
of
the zodiac, and that the 30 degrees following it ever retain the same
virtue as that which he has in this work attributed to Aries,
although the stars forming Aries may have quitted those degrees: the
next 30 degrees are still be accounted as Taurus, and so of the rest.
There is abundant proof throughout the Tetrabiblos, that Ptolemy
considered the virtues of the constellations of the zodiac distinctly
from those of the spaces they occupied. "
> be accurate 2.000 years ago, not now. Precession and all that. All, I
> mean ALL of your meanderings are predicated on falsehoods. Choke on it.-
None of them are predicated on any such thing, but then you tell us
much of your own shortcomings. I do not make unreasoned arguments
based on foolish myth about stellar positions, I make them based on
the logical referential system that spawned me--and you. The light of
the sun. http://www.edmondwollmann.com
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
=A9 2007 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
|
