PDA

View Full Version : What's Up With Wikipedia?



ospringfan112113
12-30-2009, 10:10 PM
Ok,Has enyone noticed that Wikipedia barley ever has eny straight facts on the website?They just let enyone type what they want on it,and to prove it,last year or so I went on there and wrote a several paragraph summery of the after-life of the flouting head we know as Robert Mitchum.:D.I seriously did...

Does enyone agree that Wikipedia should post straight up facts with a reliable source?

Ryder1234
12-30-2009, 10:14 PM
This is common knowledge... that's why you can't cite wiki for anything in school, and you'd be pretty dumb to use it otherwise.

ospringfan112113
12-30-2009, 10:28 PM
The funny thing is I had to do a science project for school where I have to read a stack of papers that had facts about Egypt,then I had to write a report about it.But when the teacher gave me and my friends the stack of papers I noticed that it said that it was printed from Wikipedia and I started to laugh so hard.:D

Ryder1234
12-30-2009, 10:30 PM
Hah, you should have copy'n'pasted from Wikipedia, then you would have had a semi valid argument about why you used it :P

IamSam
12-30-2009, 10:38 PM
Wikipedia is the first place I go to catch plagiarists.

randman21
12-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Back before Wikipedia was widely known, it wasn't so bad. I wrote a paper about Tourette Syndrome in my first year of college. As I had no idea what Wikipedia was at the time, I used it a lot and got a pretty decent grade.

ospringfan112113
12-30-2009, 10:44 PM
Hah, you should have copy'n'pasted from Wikipedia, then you would have had a semi valid argument about why you used it :PI was gonna!:D But I decided not to cuz I had a bunch of work to do that day and by the time I was done and I was home I was tierd and did'nt feel much like it enymore and the computer was being repaired that day enyway so I could'nt get on.

Jojan
12-31-2009, 04:16 AM
This is common knowledge... that's why you can't cite wiki for anything in school, and you'd be pretty dumb to use it otherwise.

My lecturer said that it was alright to use Wikipedia. I did, but I didn't only use Wikipedia. I got the second highest grade possible on that report.

holland25
12-31-2009, 05:21 AM
That's because fat men with big boobs are very appreciated.

Omni
12-31-2009, 06:32 AM
It's pretty accepted that wikipedia can be a double-edged sword. As long as you check up on the sources for facts you think may be in question, or are important enough to get right, then it's just fine.

wheelchairman
12-31-2009, 06:35 AM
Wikipedia is fine, just check the references for the article you are reading at the bottom, this is true of any source, wikipedia is just more accessible.

Paint_It_Black
12-31-2009, 07:48 AM
Wikipedia is fine, just check the references for the article you are reading at the bottom, this is true of any source, wikipedia is just more accessible.

This.

I get really tired of all the wikipedia hating. It's a great place to start researching anything. You shouldn't believe everything you read there instantly and without question but that goes for everything in the world ever. Check the references. How hard is that?

I really hate it when people make a big deal out of how anyone can edit it. Especially when they add a retarded story about how they vandalized what is probably the world's greatest collection of information either for fun or to make a "point" of some sort. The fact that anyone can contribute is what makes wikipedia great. Yes, it can be a vulnerability, but it is far more of a strength.

Wikipedia is just fucking awesome as a concept. A huge repository of information, available for all, written by all. I personally feel it's one of the greatest things mankind has ever created. A shining example of the internet being used for non-porn related purposes. The internet in general opens up a world of information. But like Per mentioned, wikipedia is so accessible. I often feel like I'm the only person in complete awe of the amazing things we have these days. Why does everyone act like it's nothing special? I'm talking now about all the technological wonders that surround us. It all seems so...taken for granted.

Sorry. Slightly drunk.

The Talking Pie
12-31-2009, 09:10 AM
Ok,Has enyone noticed that Wikipedia barley ever has eny straight facts on the website?

[citation needed]

Alison
12-31-2009, 10:14 AM
We're not supposed to use Wikipedia for uni...but it's great if you're doing an essay and need somewhere to start from. And you can always just look up the references at the bottom of the page.

jacknife737
12-31-2009, 12:26 PM
I love wikipedia. You come across so much useless/interesting info, it's fantastic. A great way to kill an hour is just clicking away at random articles.

As far as school-related stuff is concerned, it's a useful tool to get a basic idea about an event/concept, ect of something that I knew next to nothing about. You just have to use common sense: if it sounds outlandish/is non-sourced than don't take it as fact. You should never use it as a source (but, anyone outside of high school shouldn't be using any sort of encyclopedia anyways for an academic paper).

ospringfan112113
12-31-2009, 01:07 PM
This.

I get really tired of all the wikipedia hating. It's a great place to start researching anything. You shouldn't believe everything you read there instantly and without question but that goes for everything in the world ever. Check the references. How hard is that?

I really hate it when people make a big deal out of how anyone can edit it. Especially when they add a retarded story about how they vandalized what is probably the world's greatest collection of information either for fun or to make a "point" of some sort. The fact that anyone can contribute is what makes wikipedia great. Yes, it can be a vulnerability, but it is far more of a strength.

Wikipedia is just fucking awesome as a concept. A huge repository of information, available for all, written by all. I personally feel it's one of the greatest things mankind has ever created. A shining example of the internet being used for non-porn related purposes. The internet in general opens up a world of information. But like Per mentioned, wikipedia is so accessible. I often feel like I'm the only person in complete awe of the amazing things we have these days. Why does everyone act like it's nothing special? I'm talking now about all the technological wonders that surround us. It all seems so...taken for granted.

Sorry. Slightly drunk.Well you know what I hate?,People who complain about what other people think! I mean if you do'nt like this thread why are you commenting it?,why are you even reading it? Get over it dude.

0r4ng3
12-31-2009, 01:10 PM
That post didn't give me the impression that he didn't like this thread, or that he was directly criticizing the way you think. People are allowed to disagree with you. No need to get hostile.

ospringfan112113
12-31-2009, 01:17 PM
That post didn't give me the impression that he didn't like this thread, or that he was directly criticizing the way you think. People are allowed to disagree with you. No need to get hostile.Well im not being hostil,I'm not angry and I know he was'nt being criticel, I'm just saying if he does'nt like the thread what's the point of posting on it? I respect that hes speaking his mind about disagreeing with me, But it's like you do'nt have to read it.

WebDudette
12-31-2009, 01:18 PM
Well you know what I hate?,People who complain about what other people think! I mean if you do'nt like this thread why are you commenting it?,why are you even reading it? Get over it dude.

Well you know what I hate? People who complain about websites. I mean if you don't like the website, why are you commenting about it? Why are you even reading it? Get over it, faggot.

All that aside, I agree with PiB.

IamSam
12-31-2009, 01:20 PM
For fucks sake World Book is just as bad as Wikipedia. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge on a subject can write a World Book entry.

ospringfan112113
12-31-2009, 01:23 PM
Well you know what I hate? People who complain about websites. I mean if you don't like the website, why are you commenting about it? Why are you even reading it? Get over it, faggot.

All that aside, I agree with PiB.Well I do'nt hate the website and I'm not complaining about it, I'm just saying that sometimes what's on there is'nt true and I just wanted to know if enyone else noticed and if enyone agrees that they should get a more relible source instead of just letting enyone write what they want on it. You know something? you seem a little more hostile about this then I seem.

WebDudette
12-31-2009, 01:37 PM
So you want to know if people agree with you, but you don't want anyone to disagree with you?

In any case, wikipedia is amazing. It is an amazing wealth of information that is constantly growing and it is presented in a simple, easy to follow, easily accessible way. Of course, not everything is correct, but misinformation has a tendency to get corrected pretty quickly, and you should be taking any information with a grain of salt.

ospringfan112113
12-31-2009, 01:42 PM
So you want to know if people agree with you, but you don't want anyone to disagree with you?

In any case, wikipedia is amazing. It is an amazing wealth of information that is constantly growing and it is presented in a simple, easy to follow, easily accessible way. Of course, not everything is correct, but misinformation has a tendency to get corrected pretty quickly, and you should be taking any information with a grain of salt.No I do'nt mind if people disagree with me,Actully I respect them for speaking their mind.All I'm asking is does enyone agree that Wikipedia should not let enyone just write what they want on it so people do'nt have to look at the refrences as much.That's all!

The Talking Pie
12-31-2009, 02:05 PM
If Wikipedia enforced such a policy, it would be only a fraction of the size that it is now. Most people are experts in some field or other, so what's the small drop-in-the-ocean of misinformation, really? Anyway, there's a complete revision history and legions of people who have nothing better to do than revert vandalism.

ospringfan112113
12-31-2009, 02:10 PM
If Wikipedia enforced such a policy, it would be only a fraction of the size that it is now. Most people are experts in some field or other, so what's the small drop-in-the-ocean of misinformation, really? Anyway, there's a complete revision history and legions of people who have nothing better to do than revert vandalism.If I had nothing do to but revert vandalism on the internet all day I'd kill myself already...

XYlophonetreeZ
12-31-2009, 02:53 PM
WCM and PIB are right on. Of course the information isn't 100% accurate. Given the way it works, that's impossible. But it's mostly accurate and it's quicker and easier to use than any other singular information source in the history of the world. In the amount of time it takes you to look something up on Wikipedia, you can learn more factual information than you do at a library or even something like Google Scholar. For this reason, I use it for recreational learning all the time. That said, citing it as a source for academic work is idiotic. That doesn't mean you can't use Wikipedia for academic work though. Actually, it was almost always the first place I looked when I wrote papers in college. I could learn enough to know what I would be writing about from the article. And, Wikipedia is actually pretty good about listing its sources at the bottom. Just look up the sources! And then actually read the sources and use them! Some academic papers don't have straightforward titles and aren't necessarily easy to search, which is why it's more efficient to check Wikipedia first. Just don't be an idiot about it.

ospringfan112113
12-31-2009, 03:08 PM
WCM and PIB are right on. Of course the information isn't 100% accurate. Given the way it works, that's impossible. But it's mostly accurate and it's quicker and easier to use than any other singular information source in the history of the world. In the amount of time it takes you to look something up on Wikipedia, you can learn more factual information than you do at a library or even something like Google Scholar. For this reason, I use it for recreational learning all the time. That said, citing it as a source for academic work is idiotic. That doesn't mean you can't use Wikipedia for academic work though. Actually, it was almost always the first place I looked when I wrote papers in college. I could learn enough to know what I would be writing about from the article. And, Wikipedia is actually pretty good about listing its sources at the bottom. Just look up the sources! And then actually read the sources and use them! Some academic papers don't have straightforward titles and aren't necessarily easy to search, which is why it's more efficient to check Wikipedia first. Just don't be an idiot about it.Well yea that's true, I just wish idiots write fictinal stuff for fun too,it's kinda lame.

Omni
12-31-2009, 05:45 PM
Wikipedia is just fucking awesome as a concept. A huge repository of information, available for all, written by all. I personally feel it's one of the greatest things mankind has ever created. A shining example of the internet being used for non-porn related purposes. The internet in general opens up a world of information. But like Per mentioned, wikipedia is so accessible. I often feel like I'm the only person in complete awe of the amazing things we have these days. Why does everyone act like it's nothing special? I'm talking now about all the technological wonders that surround us. It all seems so...taken for granted.

Sorry. Slightly drunk.


I'm aware at pretty much all times just how incredible Wikipedia is. Whenever I don't have Internet, the only thing I miss is Wikipedia. For the past four or so years now, whenever I've wondered about anything, it's never more than a homepage away. Sure, porn and addictive games are fun ways to utilize the Internet, but Wikipedia is easily, hands down, the best feature the Internet has to offer.

Paint_It_Black
01-01-2010, 12:31 AM
Wikipedia is easily, hands down, the best feature the Internet has to offer.

I no longer feel so alone. Want to cuddle and make my night complete?


I'm just saying that sometimes what's on there is'nt true

Everyone knows that. And since everyone knows that it makes it pretty safe. The education you receive in school is actually far more dangerous.


if enyone agrees that they should get a more relible source instead of just letting enyone write what they want on it.

It wouldn't exist then. That's the entire basis of what wikipedia is. That's like saying "I like this square but wouldn't it be better if it was a circle?"

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 12:41 AM
I no longer feel so alone. Want to cuddle and make my night complete?



Everyone knows that. And since everyone knows that it makes it pretty safe. The education you receive in school is actually far more dangerous.



It wouldn't exist then. That's the entire basis of what wikipedia is. That's like saying "I like this square but wouldn't it be better if it was a circle?"Ok, So how is it like saying a square would be better as a circle?And writing enything you want on the website (even false info like slander,or writing posible true/false rumers are false/true)The basis of the website?Hey, I love Wikipedia,it's a great place to get info on stuff,but there are so many times where I find stuff that does'nt even make eny sense.And I started this thread to see if enyone else noticed,I'm not saying that people should change it,I'm just saying that it would be easy'ier and faster if the website did'nt let random people write whatever they want about it.That's all I'm saying.

WebDudette
01-02-2010, 12:56 AM
I rarely ever run into sketchy information. Most the time I do, it is typically a mistake or a rumor more so then blatant slander and fucking around.

I quite like PiB's point about what you learn at school being more dangerous. Most everyone knows that wiki isn't the most reliable source, but people are way to trusting of information they get elsewhere, school for example.

The Talking Pie
01-02-2010, 01:46 AM
Ok, So how is it like saying a square would be better as a circle?

...

I'm just saying that it would be easy'ier and faster if the website did'nt let random people write whatever they want about it.That's all I'm saying.

I think people keep replying in the manner that they are because you seem to be failing to grasp the notion that Wikipedia simply wouldn't exist without everyone's ability to edit whatever they want.

Look up the definition of 'wiki'. Hopefully that'll help you understand the 'square as a circle' statement; it's actually 100% apt.

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 01:46 PM
I rarely ever run into sketchy information. Most the time I do, it is typically a mistake or a rumor more so then blatant slander and fucking around.

I quite like PiB's point about what you learn at school being more dangerous. Most everyone knows that wiki isn't the most reliable source, but people are way to trusting of information they get elsewhere, school for example.Yea my school does'nt really give the best knowledge,I like my school though,teachers get into fights. :D

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 01:48 PM
I think people keep replying in the manner that they are because you seem to be failing to grasp the notion that Wikipedia simply wouldn't exist without everyone's ability to edit whatever they want.

Look up the definition of 'wiki'. Hopefully that'll help you understand the 'square as a circle' statement; it's actually 100% apt.I know what wiki is already "a website where people can edit and stuff".And no I'm probely not grasping the notion (whatever notion is) because all I am writing on here is a simple suggestion that would be for everyones benifit.I am not saying that the website has to change or that it should,I am just asking if enyone agrees that it would be faster and easy'ier if they did'nt "wiki" on it!This whole thread was just a question that enyone can speak their minds about not a statement saying Wikipedia needs to change.

WebDudette
01-02-2010, 01:52 PM
If only experts or a select few were capable of updating Wiki do you really think they would have an article on something like The Offspring?

nieh
01-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Hey, I love Wikipedia,it's a great place to get info on stuff,but there are so many times where I find stuff that does'nt even make eny sense.

Examples? In all my wikipediaing over the years, I think I've only come across two things that were blatantly wrong (one of which was fixed by the time I refreshed the page a few minutes later) and while there are occasionally things like uncited rumors, they are normally listed as such.

IamSam
01-02-2010, 02:12 PM
Examples? In all my wikipediaing over the years, I think I've only come across two things that were blatantly wrong (one of which was fixed by the time I refreshed the page a few minutes later) and while there are occasionally things like uncited rumors, they are normally listed as such.

Same. All though I found one night that the only thing the Nirvana page said was "gay."

Heathens didn't even capitalize nor punctuate it.

JohnnyNemesis
01-02-2010, 02:42 PM
Wikipedia is fine, just check the references for the article you are reading at the bottom, this is true of any source, wikipedia is just more accessible.

Yes.


You shouldn't believe everything you read there instantly and without question but that goes for everything in the world ever. Check the references. How hard is that?

Fucking YES.


Wikipedia is just fucking awesome as a concept. A huge repository of information, available for all, written by all. I personally feel it's one of the greatest things mankind has ever created. A shining example of the internet being used for non-porn related purposes. The internet in general opens up a world of information. But like Per mentioned, wikipedia is so accessible. I often feel like I'm the only person in complete awe of the amazing things we have these days. Why does everyone act like it's nothing special? I'm talking now about all the technological wonders that surround us. It all seems so...taken for granted.

MOTHERFUCKING YES!!!

Wikipedia symbolizes one of the most beautiful and just awe-inspiring things about our time: accessible media available to just about everyone, with at least some semblance of democracy.

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 03:15 PM
If only experts or a select few were capable of updating Wiki do you really think they would have an article on something like The Offspring?Yea type in the name and it will surely come up with something

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 03:16 PM
Examples? In all my wikipediaing over the years, I think I've only come across two things that were blatantly wrong (one of which was fixed by the time I refreshed the page a few minutes later) and while there are occasionally things like uncited rumors, they are normally listed as such.Well I have came across alot and let me tell you they can be very VERY annoying.

Vera
01-02-2010, 03:41 PM
Yea type in the name and it will surely come up with something


Well I have came across alot and let me tell you they can be very VERY annoying.

Reading comprehension - zero.

nieh
01-02-2010, 04:55 PM
Reading comprehension - zero.

Maybe that's why he thinks so many things on wikipedia make no sense?

dexter12296566
01-02-2010, 04:59 PM
Ok,Has enyone noticed that Wikipedia barley ever has eny straight facts on the website?They just let enyone type what they want on it,and to prove it,last year or so I went on there and wrote a several paragraph summery of the after-life of the flouting head we know as Robert Mitchum.:D.I seriously did...

Does enyone agree that Wikipedia should post straight up facts with a reliable source?

i noticed that a while ago. that is why i dont use it!

The Talking Pie
01-02-2010, 05:06 PM
I am just asking if enyone agrees that it would be faster and easy'ier if they did'nt "wiki" on it!

You've had plenty of answers to this question, but you seem to be failing to grasp the concept that people can disagree with you. Ironically enough, those who have disagreed with you have backed up their stances with evidence, citations and/or common sense.

I understand, of course; I hate when my threads get derailed and everyone on the board doesn't rally around me to emphatically agree with what I've said in the original post, but you know, it happens.

You may wish to address some of the issues that have been raised in response to your original question. Why is common sense when browsing Wikipedia not a suitable enough censor, for example, when we allow ourselves to gain the majority of the rest of our knowledge through idle conversation and mainstream media?

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 05:33 PM
You've had plenty of answers to this question, but you seem to be failing to grasp the concept that people can disagree with you. Ironically enough, those who have disagreed with you have backed up their stances with evidence, citations and/or common sense.

I understand, of course; I hate when my threads get derailed and everyone on the board doesn't rally around me to emphatically agree with what I've said in the original post, but you know, it happens.

You may wish to address some of the issues that have been raised in response to your original question. Why is common sense when browsing Wikipedia not a suitable enough censor, for example, when we allow ourselves to gain the majority of the rest of our knowledge through idle conversation and mainstream media?For the last time!,I do'nt care if people disagree,I like that they are speaking their minds and I respect it!I'm just talking about a simple question and you people can't seem to get that through you're thick skulls!I'm just asking a question about wikipedia!I love wikipedia!and I'm not trying to change it!

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 05:34 PM
i noticed that a while ago. that is why i dont use it!Thank you!You read my story?

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 05:35 PM
Reading comprehension - zero.Whats that supposed to mean? :D

IamSam
01-02-2010, 05:50 PM
Maybe that's why he thinks so many things on wikipedia make no sense?

1. I'm a she!
2.I'm sure I read better then you guys
3.kill yourself!


Reading comprehension - zero.

Whats that supposed to mean?

http://www.pspcrazy.com/images/news/image/FacePalm_picard.jpg

ospringfan112113
01-02-2010, 05:52 PM
http://www.pspcrazy.com/images/news/image/FacePalm_picard.jpgLol,I was kidding at the end where I asked:D .Do'nt worry I'm not that stuped. Still no reason to bring star trek into this.

IamSam
01-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Do'nt worry I'm not that stuped.

Of course you're not؟

Omni
01-02-2010, 07:40 PM
I really really hope you're just a troll.

The Talking Pie
01-03-2010, 06:21 AM
For the last time!,I do'nt care if people disagree,I like that they are speaking their minds and I respect it!I'm just talking about a simple question and you people can't seem to get that through you're thick skulls! I'm just asking a question about wikipedia!I love wikipedia!and I'm not trying to change it!

You sure have an odd way of showing it.

For the last time, people have answered your question. Everyone except for you has been having a healthy debate about this issue; you're just reacting like a moron.

Once more, I ask you, why do you not join in the debate and answer some of the criticisms launched in response to your view, instead of calling us all thick?

On a side issue, I'm relatively certain you're either dexter3.14159265358979323846 or a mildly amusing attempt at parody.

Paint_It_Black
01-03-2010, 09:41 AM
2.I'm sure I read better then you guys
3.kill yourself!

Correct. If you read better than me then I would kill myself. Very good.


Still no reason to bring star trek into this.

There's always a reason for Star Trek. Always.



On a side issue, I'm relatively certain you're either dexter3.14159265358979323846 or a mildly amusing attempt at parody.

Great call! I hadn't noticed that! It's an intriguing possibility!

ospringfan112113
01-03-2010, 03:40 PM
You sure have an odd way of showing it.

For the last time, people have answered your question. Everyone except for you has been having a healthy debate about this issue; you're just reacting like a moron.

Once more, I ask you, why do you not join in the debate and answer some of the criticisms launched in response to your view, instead of calling us all thick?

On a side issue, I'm relatively certain you're either dexter3.14159265358979323846 or a mildly amusing attempt at parody.I know most people awnsered my question,but the others including you and I are in this argument beacuse one of the people that posted on this thread got the idea that I was talking about changing it which I was'nt.So now I'm arguing with you people about me getting awnsers out of some people and aprently how I write/type words!So I have been trying to explain this to you people for a while and you still do'nt get it,I do'nt see how explaining something to you people is reacting like a moron,seems like a pretty normel way of reacting to me.

And to awnser you're question when it starts off as a simple question to people who have looked at this thread and has used Wikipedia there seems like there is nothing to debate,I do'nt want to debate with what people think about Wikipedia because they have the right to speak their mind,A little something called "free speach".I have been trying to awnser the criticisms that have been posted here but the people who have posted them can't seem to understand what I said,that's why I call you and some of the others thick headed.

And last, no I am just ospringfan112113 not trying to pull a parody.Just asking a question and aguing with people like you who can't understand the question.

ospringfan112113
01-03-2010, 03:46 PM
Correct. If you read better than me then I would kill myself.That's not what I ment,what I was saying was that I'm sure I could read just as fine as you.and no reason to write those words in bold I noticed the mistake,So what if I sometimes forgot about writing the A instead of the E in different words?It's a common mistake almost enyone makes.

The Talking Pie
01-03-2010, 04:22 PM
I still can't help but notice that your replies are consisting entirely of condescension and/or insults.

If you didn't intend a debate that's fine, but in that case the thread's over; you've said that you think Wikipedia should be read-only, and everyone else has disagreed with you. It's just that many of us have justified the reasons for our stance, whereas you've merely cited the example of yourself vandalising what is essentially public property to prove a point.

I'm also curious why you keep going out of your way to imply your support of free speech. This might just be me reading into things, but it reeks of ad hominem sentiment.

ospringfan112113
01-03-2010, 05:06 PM
I still can't help but notice that your replies are consisting entirely of condescension and/or insults.

If you didn't intend a debate that's fine, but in that case the thread's over; you've said that you think Wikipedia should be read-only, and everyone else has disagreed with you. It's just that many of us have justified the reasons for our stance, whereas you've merely cited the example of yourself vandalising what is essentially public property to prove a point.

I'm also curious why you keep going out of your way to imply your support of free speech. This might just be me reading into things, but it reeks of ad hominem sentiment.Ok maybe there has been some insults,but it's only cuz some of you people are really starting to annoy me (no offence)and I do apoligize to you all for enything that was insulting and/or effending to you.

Not to disagree with what you said but not everyone disagreeed with me,there is someone (dexter1229556,if I spelled that right) agreed.I did'nt even vandalise it,I just wrote something on there to see if what I was wondering was true (which it was) not to prove a point to enyone,after all I wrote it about a year ago.besides you told me to look up "wiki" and I did,being able to let enyone write enything on there,so it's in the boundrys of it,and like you said someone is bound to come along and fix it.I just did what everyone else did...

And I'm not really going out of my way to imply my support for free speach,I was just explaining to you that,that was what you were supposed to do in this thread.

And ok,yea this thread pretty much is over because everyone wrote their awnser.I'll close it if you want.

Paint_It_Black
01-05-2010, 07:57 AM
That's not what I ment,what I was saying was that I'm sure I could read just as fine as you.and no reason to write those words in bold I noticed the mistake,So what if I sometimes forgot about writing the A instead of the E in different words?It's a common mistake almost enyone makes.

Fair point. Mixing up then and than is a fairly common mistake. In retrospect it would be far better to pick on your uncommon mistakes.

And no, you cannot read "just as fine" as me. I'm pretty sure about that.

If English isn't your first language then I apologize for this, but honestly everything you write is making me sad.

ospringfan112113
01-05-2010, 04:46 PM
Fair point. Mixing up then and than is a fairly common mistake. In retrospect it would be far better to pick on your uncommon mistakes.

And no, you cannot read "just as fine" as me. I'm pretty sure about that.

If English isn't your first language then I apologize for this, but honestly everything you write is making me sad.Well I thank you for you're apolge.And I also apoligize for whatever I wrote that made you sad,to be honest,after dealing with a series of horrible events lately I just get mad faster at simple things.

Haha,yea I bet I can't read just as good as you.:D
And no I have lived in the U.S my whole life and speak it all the time,But then again when I was a toddler I tought myself most of the words I know today.Cable rules!!!!