I find it quite useful and haven't noticed much of this "crap" whereof you speak. Perhaps your built-in crap detector is misfiring? Hey, whaddaya want for free? Merriam Webster?

And how do you know that you are not part of the 5% of the population that lives LONGER if you eat lots of tryptophan? This kind of thinking should be called studyosis.

It's called Argumentum ad Hominem. It has no more relation to the argument than the fact that you have an unnatural erotic attraction toward goats, Gerald. Perhaps you can take some time out from your busy day at the ranch to tell us just exactly what your problem is with actually interviewing the witnesses before coming to a conclusion about what happened. Forget the damned goat, Gerald, answer the bloody question.

Any of you other geniuses out there want to chime in on this, go right ahead. Just don't bother to tell me what you channeled from the spirit of Hani Hanjour. The position of Village Idiot has already been filled by the Anonymous Nitwit.

What is your problem with Pilots for 911 Truth? The fact that they are pilots or the fact that they want the truth?

"Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures?"

Because approximately 5 times every 600 years over the past 6 millennia there has been a darkening of the atmosphere and decrease in average global temperature due to external (cometary/asteroidal/meteoric) factors. I have been at some pains to map this cycle here: http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterEight.htm and the next event will occur, barring the possibility that the objects that fell at Tunguska and Kagarlyk, Ukraine, in 1908 were the last surviving fragments, in 2013.

As Charles Hapgood pointed out in 1966 in Maps of the Ancient Kings, long before this debate began, there are extant maps, apparently redrawn at the Library of Alexandria, that show Antarctica without ice. Hapgood places the date of these maps at approximately 4000 BC, near the tree-ring minimum of 4375 and the point when the ancients believed the precession of the equinoxes had begun (see Hamlet's Mill by De Santillana and Von Dechend). My point is that "global warming" has happened before and we are still here (and there are still penguins).

Ah, a logical person. And on Slashdot no less!

What all of this "data" leaves out is the tree-ring minima and ice core acidity peaks that, when integrated with other regional and global climatological events stretching back, at the very least, to 4375 BCE, present a picture of some kind of cyclical, apparently cosmically induced climate cycle. The current period of this cycle is just over 105 years, so any theory that doesn't take into account our position in this cycle--101 out of 105 years (2009-1908)--is suspect. In short, lay the average temperature rise from 1908 until 2009 over that for 1803 until 1904 and see what you get. I would strongly suspect that you will see little if any change cycle to cycle.

I was going to bring this up myself.

Yes, THEY can murder thousands of people both here and abroad, but YOU cannot accidentally fart in public without them wanting to lock you up for the rest of your life.

What just blew me away last night watching a video from PilotsFor911Truth was that the NTSB simulation agrees with the interviews done by the guys at NationalSecurityAlert, that the plane at the Pentagon followed a northerly flight path that could not possibly have knocked over the light poles. The only folks who were out of step on this were the 911 Commission. Add to this the failure to reset the altitude gauge in the simulation upon descent and you have the plane at 400+ feet, flying OVER the Pentagon and not into it.

Remember, according to J Edgar Hoover, there's no such thing as the Mafia.

I've known some of those people.

It's tough living in a world where some guy has to go around the workplace (as I recently observed) putting "DANGER: HOT!" stickers on all the lab hotplates. Like, DUH!

Good article on this at the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/03/wikipedia_blackmail_case_disclosure/

According to The Register article, Wikipedia WILL release the IP address when presented with an order by the court.

There appears to be some kind of business dispute behind all of this: "One of G's companies is in dispute with a person whom she believes is also behind a smear campaign against her. An anonymous letter she received appeared to be a threat to claim that her expenses claims amounted to theft. Another anonymous letter disclosed the information that was later published on the Wikipedia page."

Or Barry O'Bomb-a?

The Yakuza has an atom bomb? Does Hillary know about this?

Except that most of it isn't verifiable. It's just the accepted nonsense of this generation. If Wikipedia had existed in the 18th Century, it would have told you that bleeding people using leaches was a valid means of treating a cold and that the medical establishment really didn't kill George Washington. Think about it. How much of our currently accepted "knowledge" won't be laughed at in the year 2109? Or 2209? Or 2909? And does it make the crime of the Nazis any less heinous if "only" a million people died? As for homeopathy, is it any more ridiculous that giving people powerful organic chemicals without even bothering to track the side effects? You've obviously never had an allopathic physician laugh at you because the steroid he prescribed made you morbidly depressed.

I am one of those "olds" you speak of, and I seem to be able to spot these things a mile away. But then the older I get the more cynical I get. And if I want to learn about xyz, I go to the Borders web site and see what the local store has on xyz, or I just buy the Xyz Bible from Amazon. If I want a quick video on something, I go to YouTube. You really have to go out of your way to get scammed by these characters; though, obviously, they are still unethical. I suspect the dupes involved are the same folks who put money in the collection box every week to get "saved." As old PT used to say, there's a sucker born every minute.

What's the difference? Wikipedia is simply a means of promoting whatever is the accepted "common knowledge" about a subject at the time. Anything resembling original research is immediately stricken from the Wikipedia "Gospel according to the Experts." In this regard, Wikipedia resembles the kind of banal nonsense one reads in high school textbooks.