Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wikipedia Gets Millions In Donations; Who the hell would give a penny to them?
Topic Started: Nov 12 2008, 07:46 PM (3,347 Views)
Mark Dice

Wikipedia has a donation button at the top of the page now when you look something up, and i've seen this before but its really bothering me now. They have recieved almost 2.5 million in donations to keep the site going, and their goal is 6 million! I've been doing a little research on wikipedia, and found that the Alfred P. Sloan Foundationgave them a 2 million dollar grant this year.
Who in the world would donate ANY money to wikipedia, let alone MILLIONS?

Anyone remember those old encyclopedias on cd rom? like Encarta? Those were probably pretty reliable, but wikipedia is a joke. Something is really not right here. Wikipedia provides no real value to anyone, so why would they donate? Wikipedia is a "non profit" organization by the way. Oh, just keep reading and you'll learn more about their finances.


Wikipedia is one of the top sources for most information people look up on the internet now. Practically anthing you search for comes up with a wikipedia entry as one of the top results. We know that the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies keep a close eye on entries for certain people and events, and they basically keep the most damaging info from being posted, and make sure that there is plenty of disinfo on the site as well. Now, lets look at the financial aspect of wikipedia.


according to their 2007-2008 financial report, the office of the executive director got how much money? $450,000.


Wikipedia has 20 employees. The head guy's office gets 450 k. Pretty good for being a "non profit" website. 450k is only about 10 times as much as the average American makes in one year.


Also according to their financial statement you may find this info interesting:

Major benefactors
($50,000 or more)
>> Anonymous
>> Anonymous
>> Alan Bauer
>> Vinod and Neeru Khosla
>> Open Society Institute
>> Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation
Patrons

($15,000 to $49,999)
>> Answers Corp
>> John and Frances Beck Foundation
>> Craigslist Inc.

>> Phillip Greenspun
>> Richard Merit
>> RetailMeNot. com
>> Two Sigma Investments LLC
>> Wikihow Inc.

Leading donors

($5000 to $14,999)
>> Crown Clothing Corp
>> Burt and Diana Cutler Family Foundation
>> Graphics Press LLC
>> John Little
>> Michael Minor
>> Sims / Mae’s Foundation Inc.

>> Time Warner Telecom Holdings
>> Wikia Inc.


Sustaining donors
($1000 to $4999)
>> Rau Abhari Fund
>> Nitin Agarwal
>> Reem Alasfour
>> Anonymous
>> M.
Amy Batchelor
>> Dominique Benoit
>> Biegelsen Foundation
>> Roger Brissenden
>> Brooke Burgess
>> Daniel and Margaret Carper Foundation
>> Harald and Hildegard Dahms
>> John Dash
>> Steven Dauber
>> Mark Dixon
>> Gregory D.
Dyer
>> John Eckstein
>> Jill Efting
>> EIF: Entertainment Industry Foundation
>> Stanley Eisenberg
>> Ezekiel Films Pty.
Ltd
>> Joel Garringer
>> Tracy Gittins
>> Joseph Goodman
>> Tsuyoshi Goto
>> David Grubb
>> Pearl M. & Julia J.
Harmon Foundation
>> Urban Hafner
>> Robert D. Hall and Ana F.
Barreto
>> Hamilton Foundation
>> RuthAnn Harnisch
>> Amber Haubold
>> Mel Huang
>> Hecht Family Charitable Fund
>> Clark Higgins
>> Hitz Foundation
>> Gene Hodges
>> Francis Hogle
>> Claudia A. Holz and William S.
Lamb
>> Joichi Ito
>> Joby Foundation
>> Kaz Foundation for Social Advancement
>> Robert Keeley
>> Kevin Klinekole
>> Donald and Jill Knuth
>> Max Levchin
>> Lawrence Lessig
>> Bill Liao
>> Mary E.
Liebman
>> Andrew MacMillan
>> Steve Madonna
>> Lauren Marino
>> Action Merchant
>> Mark Merritt
>> Jeff Moe
>> Farhad Mohit
>> Rodman W.
Moorhead III Fund
>> Nora Roberts Foundation
>> Gail O’Brien
>> Robert O’Neill
>> Alex Poon
>> Max Pucher
>> Michael Putch
>> Fabio Rossello
>> Frank Rothacker
>> Christopher W.
Ruddy
>> Ryan Salsbury
>> Charles R.
Schwab
>> Serad Holdings Ltd.

>> Skinner Fund
>> Robert Silajev
>> Social Text Inc.

>> Gary Steinmetz
>> Tyko Strassen
>> Edward Swartz
>> Mattias Soderheilm
>> Titcomb Foundation
>> Melody Vogelmann
>> Michael Webb
>> Graham Weston
>> David Wilburn
>> Chris White
>> Wohler Technologies Inc.

>> Michael R.
Zahniser

[[Board of Trustees]]
Michael Snow, Chair
(Florence Devouard served as Chair
of the Board until July, 2008)
Jimmy Wales, Chairman Emeritus
Jan-Bart de Vreede, Vice-chair
Domas Mituzas, Executive Secretary
Stu West, Treasurer
Kat Walsh
Frieda Brioschi
Ting Chen

[[Wikimedia Advisory Board]]
Angela Beesley
Ward Cunningham
Florence Devouard
Heather Ford
Debbie Garside
Melissa Hagemann
Danny Hillis
Mitch Kapor
Joris Komen
Teemu Leinonen
Rebecca MacKinnon
Wayne Mackintosh
Benjamin Mako Hill
Erin McKean
Trevor Neilson
Achal Prabhala
Jay Rosen
Clay Shirky
Peter Suber
Raoul Weiler
Ethan Zuckerman

[[Staff]]
Sue Gardner, Executive Director
Erik Möller, Deputy Director
Technology
Brion Vibber, Chief Technical Officer
Mark Bergsma, Networking Coordinator
Michael Dale, Software Developer
Tomasz Finc, Software Developer
Rob Halsell, IT Manager
Tim Starling, Software Developer
Programs
Cary Bass, Volunteer Coordinator
Delphine Ménard, Chapters Coordinator
Frank Schulenburg, Head of Public Outreach
Jay Walsh, Head of Communications
Administration and Finance
Véronique Kessler, Chief Financial
and Operating Officer
Sara Crouse, Head of Partnerships
and Foundation Relations
Rebecca Handler, Head of Major Gifts
Patti Melton, Personal Assistant to the
Executive and Deputy Directors
Rand Montoya, Head of Community Giving
Anya Shyrokova, Development Associate
Mary Lou Secoquian, Accountant
Kul Wadhwa, Head of Business Development
Legal Coordination
Mike Godwin, General Counsel
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flippy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark Dice

Your point by posting the wiki page about me? Its surprisingly accurate. I noticed that when people were trying to post the micheal reagan death threats that the edits kept being deleted for weeks until someone finally left them up.

Notice on the bohemian grove page there is NOTHING about the alligations of snuff films. I posted things several times with sources to John Decamp's book, and Ted Gunderson's writings and Paul Bonnaci's testimony, but they kept getting deleted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sj1
Member Avatar

Mark Dice
Nov 12 2008, 08:06 PM
Your point by posting the wiki page about me? Its surprisingly accurate.

Quote:
 
-He is also known for beating girlfriends and masterbating on nuns.

-His penis is 2 inches long, when erect.

-His mother once called him, "the best lay I ever had".

-Marc has been known to frequent Mosques and rifle ranges, where he yells "Allahu Akhbar" as he strokes his rifle.

-
:blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
m0n3yman

Slander and libel.

Mark Dice has put his neck out there for 9/11 truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tower
Member Avatar

Wikipedia, like everything on the Internet, should be taken with a ton of salt.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark Dice

Gee Flippy, I wonder who posted that crap on my wiki page? Oh, yeah, if you click on the history of the article it shows the date and time, and what do you know, its right before you posted the link. Coincidence?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Mark Dice
Nov 13 2008, 11:12 AM
Gee Flippy, I wonder who posted that crap on my wiki page? Oh, yeah, if you click on the history of the article it shows the date and time, and what do you know, its right before you posted the link. Coincidence?

It also shows IP.... It was not Flippy or anyone who has posted in this thread.

Edit to add - There is only one user on this board who's first octect, but no other octect matches, And he has complimented you for your work publicly.

I would be inclined to supect a guest from JREF who resides in or near NYC.
Edited by JFK, Nov 13 2008, 11:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guile

lol at this thread
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FUNWO
Member Avatar

JFK
Nov 13 2008, 11:23 AM
Edit to add - There is only one user on this board who's first octect, but no other octect matches, And he has complimented you for your work publicly.
Ok, you got me, JFK. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Dice&diff=251472905&oldid=251460783

Mark, thank you for your investigation on this matter. Personaly I do not even care anymore where wikipedia is leading and that undo above was the only edit I made this year.

Wikipedia went down very visibly after summer 2006. Since then some articles that contained "conspiracy theories" were edited, comprimised, misleading infomation was added intentionally and whole articles were deleted or broken apart. Obviously it was a controlled effort. See also:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/140807_wikipedia_credibility.htm

I do not have evidence who is controlling them, but I have my suspects. I spent quite a time observing edit-wars, and viewing the history of some special articles and I could confirm that there is a network of people who have an agenda to surpress certain information and they were among the admins or were befriended with them.

There was a time where you could not succeed in adding permanently valuable information on some political issues. I experienced that rather well on articles about All seeing Eye (Eye of providence), Illuminati, Fremasons, etc.. I really do not know if that is still the case.

Quite a few of my entries were deleted although I had made my research, but they are not always interested in evidence. For example they first accused me of vandalism and changed my entry when I added the names of the persons who financed Adam Weishaupt and motivated him and then after I reedited the article they accused me of anti-semitism and got me banned.

Some other articles are quite well done and present accurate information. My view of wikipedia is therefore ambigiuos.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

FUNWO
Nov 13 2008, 06:21 PM
JFK
Nov 13 2008, 11:23 AM
Edit to add - There is only one user on this board who's first octect, but no other octect matches, And he has complimented you for your work publicly.
Ok, you got me, JFK. ;)
:D

It wasn't you. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim Riches

Quote:
 
Wikipedia provides no real value to anyone, so why would they donate?
What a foolish statement this is!
Quote:
 
Wikipedia is one of the top sources for most information people look up on the internet now. Practically anthing you search for comes up with a wikipedia entry as one of the top results.
This is part of the value you denied existed above.
Quote:
 
We know that the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies keep a close eye on entries for certain people and events,
This is understood to be the case generally on the Internet.
Quote:
 
and they basically keep the most damaging info from being posted, and make sure that there is plenty of disinfo on the site as well.
This is absurd. You're going to have to do better than dropping accusations like these, then continuing on to finances.
Quote:
 
Wikipedia is a "non profit" organization by the way.
This is a good model for such an endeavor. The donors list doesn't read like the 'rogue's gallery' you imagine it to.

Wikipedia is an excellent resource. It far surpasses anything M$ Encarta has ever offered! Anyone can edit or create entries, which is it's greatest strength, not the weakness some see it to be. If you look at the top of any page, you'll see a discussion link where users argue over the validity of a page's contents. (here's a good example on the Franklin Coverup) There are also references to most statements made on any page, and it points out where this is not the case. (citation needed) The thing is policed by all; anyone can cry bullshit about any piece of information on the site.

Which I'm calling now.

Edited by Tim Riches, Nov 13 2008, 07:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
FYI Mark...You had publicity and Reagan's final card, but you took the deal.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/k-daniel-glover/2008/11/12/liberal-talker-fired-over-joe-plumber-rant





Edit by JFK - Embeded video.
Edited by JFK, Nov 13 2008, 10:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flippy

Mark Dice
Nov 13 2008, 11:12 AM
Gee Flippy, I wonder who posted that crap on my wiki page? Oh, yeah, if you click on the history of the article it shows the date and time, and what do you know, its right before you posted the link. Coincidence?

Yeah, because after the few dozen times of calling you out on these boards I'd hide behind a wiki page.

Also, as JFK pointed out. Wiki tracks IP addresses. They probably purchased that feature with the "fraudulent" donations you are trying to call out.

Jeez - I'd think if you were smart enough to do enough research to write the Resistance Manifesto, if you were able to find enough gullible people to sign up for your fake movement, if you were able to rewrite Resistance Manifesto, if you were able to write your Ultimate Dating Guide, if you were able to do all of this with a "full time job", that you'd know about the IP address tracking on Wiki pages.

But hell man, wtf do I know. I'm not a best selling fraud like you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian

tim riches, im not sure if you have ever monitored a specific topic/entry at wikipedia, but not all is fair in wikiland. the objectivity and democracy that you're attributing to them, is an ideal that SHOULD take place in practice, but it is not always the case. i havent tracked many entries there, but one in particular comes to mind, that of the flight 77 page. i know for a fact that a doj contract employee and jref member who goes by the name "kryptos" at jref, and as "aude" on wiki, has almost single-handedly managed to marginalize and gate-keep any relevant OBJECTIVE information from staying on the f77 page, and therefore restrict the random public from having access to the entire body of available information about "flight 77" and the pentagon 911 incident.

"aude" has worked her way up to wiki editor status, and therefore her say seems to rule, in spite of repeated attempts by many public wiki contributors to post pentagon-related evidence, and their efforts to reach an authority higher than "aude" willing to allow the information to stay on that page. the editor "aude" is not by any means unbiased about the subject at hand. she owns and runs an often-cited "debunk" site dedicated to defending the official version of 911 (pentagon included). personally i think she should recuse herself from any 911-related pages, but of course thats lofty ideal thats never gonna happen. at best i could hope that she would back off the f77 page enough to allow BOTH sides to present and defend their case and the evidence they find relevant to the issue. but even thats NOT taking place. so ONE PERSON (perhaps 2, cuz there is at least one other editor who has made edits along the same bias) has managed to completely shut out joe-public from the vast body of information compiled by pentagon researchers. info/evidence like CIT's interviews with various witnesses to the pentagon event are historical records of the event, and not theory. they're just people recalling what they saw, so they are completely and fully relevant to any flight 77 page, including or especially wiki's. YET that info continues to be excluded from one of the most used public resources on the planet. mind you - if you rely on wiki and only wiki to get info about any subject, then maybe you deserve the limited information and understanding you end up with on that topic.

but back to the topic and you're thoughts on wiki tim: in spite of all protocols and procedures available at wiki, the place is still vulnerable to being dominated and controlled by a few editors (and admins) who in at least one case, are pursuing and perpetuating their own agenda, an agenda which does NOT coincide with the alleged ideal of truth and objectivity that you seem to be attributing to wikipedia. so in at least one very siginificant case, wiki is not only keeping information from the public, but there doesnt appear to be anything anyone can do about it, even through all of wiki's given channels for doing so.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim Riches

I think that Wikipedia is not a conspiracy forum. It is enough that on the relevant pages there are "Controversy" sections that indicate where further research by the reader can be done. It's not Wikipedia's job to exhaustively document every aspect of a given topic, from all sides. There will always be dispute when the article describes an event where many different viewpoints exist. The discussion links are often larger than the articles in such cases, and the participants and mods can agree to leave certain bits out of the article while stating within it that there is debate about certain points.

In the case of Flight 77, the article reads like the Official Account (yet has some eyebrow-raising information in it despite this) but there is a Conspiracy theories section which details some of the controversy and provides links for further reading on each one.

While I agree that the articles on Wikipedia that interest us are hardly 'on our side,' they are also hardly biased or disinfo. Perhaps the reason some articles have been agressively policed is that some of the contributors could do with a bit of advice you gave above:
22205
 
personally i think she should recuse herself from any 911-related pages
This is advice to be taken seriously from both sides of the issue. Wiki articles try to be as objective as possible, I'm sure. It doesn't help when those with agendas (us and them) argue for the inclusion or excision of data.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that the situations you describe took place. I'm convinced that this sort of thing happens because it's almost inevitable given the open-source structure of the site. It amazes me sometimes that more vandalism does not take place regularly, but then again, in situations where trust is given to all (like leaving a dollar for the muffin in the lunchroom when it's possible to take it free) people tend to behave better because of that trust. When those with clear agendas (again, us and them) make a concerted effort to direct the page along lines they choose, the changes can be noticed, argued over, and either kept or deleted. If there are those who have control over what gets added who are clearly out for gatekeeping and disinfo, I haven't noticed it; and in any case, that is also something that could be referred "higher up the chain" through directed complaints.

22205
 
if you rely on wiki and only wiki to get info about any subject, then maybe you deserve the limited information and understanding you end up with on that topic.
Agreed, without reservation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tower
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Wikipedia is an excellent resource. It far surpasses anything M$ Encarta has ever offered! Anyone can edit or create entries, which is it's greatest strength, not the weakness some see it to be.

How exactly is millions of uneducated individuals thinking they're special and gifted spewing out whatever crowd knowledge and crowd mentality something good?
Quote:
 
If you look at the top of any page, you'll see a discussion link where users argue over the validity of a page's contents.

Ahoy 400 page long Harry Potter discussion, goodbye 1/3 of a page long partial differential equations discussion!
Quote:
 
There are also references to most statements made on any page, and it points out where this is not the case. (citation needed)

But the references themselves do not need to be scientific at all. It's enough that the source exists, by Wikipedia standards. (read their policy if you don't believe me)
Quote:
 
The thing is policed by all;

So it's like a groupthink.
Quote:
 
anyone can cry bullshit about any piece of information on the site.

Let's do an exercise then. I'll introduce a minor mistake into an article about Heroes or Dexter and you will introduce a major screwup into an article about, let's say, the Debye-Hückel equation. Want to bet which one gets reversed first?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim Riches

As I stated before, anyone being able to edit anything is a strength, not a weakness. Of course you could introduce mistakes or disinfo into any article, but it would be caught and corrected pretty quickly, depending on the regularity the article is read. Edits are kept track of, so once frivolous edits are noticed, the user would be warned/banned.
Quote:
 
How exactly is millions of uneducated individuals thinking they're special and gifted spewing out whatever crowd knowledge and crowd mentality something good?
That is how it has always been done, from cave painting onward.
Quote:
 
I'll introduce a minor mistake into an article about Heroes or Dexter
I decline the challenge for the reasons above. (You watch Dexter too? It's an awesome show! The books are pretty good too.) The choice of Dexter might be a good one, as fans tend to visit their pages often and would probably notice the changes pretty fast.
Edited by Tim Riches, Nov 14 2008, 08:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tower
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
As I stated before, anyone being able to edit anything is a strength, not a weakness. Of course you could introduce mistakes or disinfo into any article, but it would be caught and corrected pretty quickly, depending on the regularity the article is read.

And because actually valuable articles are hardly read at all while pop-culture topics get millions of hits per day, you receive a really poor important information source.

Quote:
 
Edits are kept track of, so once frivolous edits are noticed, the user would be warned/banned.

My IP is dynamically assigned to me by my ISP every time I connect. Oh well...

Quote:
 
That is how it has always been done, from cave painting onward.

No it hasn't. Encyclopedias weren't redacted by anyone that just happened to pass along and felt entitled to inform everyone about something he hardly knows anything about.

Quote:
 
(You watch Dexter too? It's an awesome show! The books are pretty good too.)

I don't as I steer clear from anything that's surrounded by hype. I acknowledge the risk of missing something great and feel absolutely comfortable with it.

Quote:
 
The choice of Dexter might be a good one, as fans tend to visit their pages often and would probably notice the changes pretty fast.

But that's my point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark Dice

Myname is said,
Quote:
 
FYI Mark...You had publicity and Reagan's final card, but you took the deal.


"But i took the deal."

What DEAL? If you think that because accepted his offer to go on his show, that "hurt my case" against him, then please don't insult my intelligence. The FBI case officer said it was fine. Legally, it doesn't matter if i went on his show. Keyboard jockeys can complain all they want about what I did, but it doesn't affect reality.

If i hadn't went on his show, then the keyboard jockeys would have complained about that, saying i was scared to confront him.

and FYI, I contacted multimple lawfirms who dealt with civil cases, and who specialized in issues like this and NONE of them would take the case and sue him. One lawyer agreed with me about 9/11 and started telling me about a book he wrote about how the FBI and CIA are involved in the drug trade. He would have loved to take my case, but he said we would not win.

So any kind of "deal" you think i blew comes from pure ignorance.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark Dice

Flippy said:
Quote:
 
I'm not a best selling fraud like you.


I'm a best selling author? That's news to me. Last I checked I'm still in debt and live in a crappy appartment in a town overfilled with illegal aliens.

You put my "full time job" in quotes, like you think i don't have one. I work 50 hours a week on a normal job. The reason i'm able to write books with that job is probably because I don't spend all my time as a keyboard jockey making false claims about people.

And if i'm a fraud, then I guess nothing I talk about is real. So there is no bohemian grove, and all the sources and citations i make in my book are just made up too then i guess. I guess Alex Jones, Bermas, and everyone else who endorsed the manifesto are frauds too, because they put their name on my book.

Anyway....I've waisted enough time exposing these foolish allegations. I have real work to do.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
Mark Dice
Nov 15 2008, 09:16 PM
Myname is said,
Quote:
 
FYI Mark...You had publicity and Reagan's final card, but you took the deal.


"But i took the deal."

What DEAL? If you think that because accepted his offer to go on his show, that "hurt my case" against him, then please don't insult my intelligence. The FBI case officer said it was fine. Legally, it doesn't matter if i went on his show. Keyboard jockeys can complain all they want about what I did, but it doesn't affect reality.

If i hadn't went on his show, then the keyboard jockeys would have complained about that, saying i was scared to confront him.

and FYI, I contacted multimple lawfirms who dealt with civil cases, and who specialized in issues like this and NONE of them would take the case and sue him. One lawyer agreed with me about 9/11 and started telling me about a book he wrote about how the FBI and CIA are involved in the drug trade. He would have loved to take my case, but he said we would not win.

So any kind of "deal" you think i blew comes from pure ignorance.

No it's not called suing Reagan in court, it's called pressing charges. I think you're not that ignorant yet you play games where a real incident just might cost you your life. Next time it could be Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, or yourself that gets the threat made real. You seem to have no conscience about that, which is typical Dice behavior. For all the good you think you do when a bully threatens Mark Dice, Mark Dice will turn and run depending on the situation. Good to know when the SHTF.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark Dice

Quote:
 
No it's not called suing Reagan in court, it's called pressing charges. I think you're not that ignorant yet you play games where a real incident just might cost you your life. Next time it could be Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, or yourself that gets the threat made real. You seem to have no conscience about that, which is typical Dice behavior. For all the good you think you do when a bully threatens Mark Dice, Mark Dice will turn and run depending on the situation. Good to know when the SHTF.


Are you HIGH on drugs? the D.A. wouldn't let the case go forward. I file a complaint.....the DA says no charges. Not much i can do about that. No lawer would take the case to then sue. The FCC did nothing despite all the complaints.

You say I turned and ran? how exactly did i turn and run. I released the revised edition of the manifesto 2 months later. I went on his show and confronted him. I explained to everyone how they could file charges with the FCC and Reagan's syndicator.

you're seriously not making ANY sense. AT ALL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
Mark Dice
Nov 15 2008, 10:56 PM
Quote:
 
No it's not called suing Reagan in court, it's called pressing charges. I think you're not that ignorant yet you play games where a real incident just might cost you your life. Next time it could be Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, or yourself that gets the threat made real. You seem to have no conscience about that, which is typical Dice behavior. For all the good you think you do when a bully threatens Mark Dice, Mark Dice will turn and run depending on the situation. Good to know when the SHTF.


Are you HIGH on drugs? the D.A. wouldn't let the case go forward. I file a complaint.....the DA says no charges. Not much i can do about that. No lawer would take the case to then sue. The FCC did nothing despite all the complaints.

You say I turned and ran? how exactly did i turn and run. I released the revised edition of the manifesto 2 months later. I went on his show and confronted him. I explained to everyone how they could file charges with the FCC and Reagan's syndicator.

you're seriously not making ANY sense. AT ALL.


First you must file charges with the FCC too not someone else doing this by calling in a gripe. Second, If the prosecutor is not taking the case seriously you have the ability to go to higher authority. Third, if the prosecutor did not accept your case you have the right to file a lawsuit against the State for not upholding your civil rights. Fourth, I think you claiming "HIGH on drugs" is your way of saying that, 'Mark Dice didn't do shit about it otherwise Mark would have tried filing charges on Mike Reagan. If it happens again guys and if somebody else does die next time, I'm so sorry m'kay thanks.' Fifth, just because you ran from pressing charges doesn't mean a death threat against some seeking truth will not happen. Sixth, you've just made it more clear how much more easy it is for others to make those kind of death threats all the more real. Seventh, Mark Dice seems only serious about self preservation for Mark Dice. Ninth, sexuality was here before Mark Dice and will continue existing without Mark Dice. Eighth, Mark Dice has a few loose screws when Dice sees sexuality as pushing the NWO agenda and acts like a Christofascist. Tenth, Mark Dice says he filed a complaint (seen no proof) Mark Dice gave up after the prosecutor turned him down.
Edited by mynameis, Nov 16 2008, 04:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian

timriches
 
In the case of Flight 77, the article reads like the Official Account (yet has some eyebrow-raising information in it despite this) but there is a Conspiracy theories section which details some of the controversy and provides links for further reading on each one.


tim i have a couple points to make. first, lets look at that page (section) the above link takes us to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Conspiracy_theories

Conspiracy theories
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
The 9/11 attacks have spawned a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account. One of the best-known theories was put forward by Thierry Meyssan which contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a missile launched by the American military.[94] Proponents say that the 75-foot (23 m) hole is too small to account for an aircraft with a wingspan of 124 feet (38 m).[95] Mete Sozen, a member of the ASCE team onsite after the crash, explained that an airplane does not create a "cartoon-like outline of itself" when crashing into a reinforced concrete building.[96] Conspiracy advocates also point to other minutiae such as small amount of debris or the condition of grass on the lawn.[95] The documentary film Loose Change asserts that there were no discernible pieces of debris from Flight 77.[97] Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. He states that Flight 77 "was absolutely a plane. I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." In addition, Kilsheimer's account is supported by the photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building.[96]


if you check the entire appendix, there is NOT one link to any actual so-called "conspiracy" site where one can actually further their knowledge on the "alternative view" of the event. i can hardly call the above info objective, for it tries instead to refute/debunk each of the "conspiracy" angles it mentions. furthermore, these angles are hardly where the proof of "conspiracy" is these days, so in a sense its a bit of a strawman. in other words, CURRENTLY there is something much more definitive (than those items cited on wiki) that proves a deception (conspiracy) and that proof is what's being OMITTED from that page.

which brings me to my second point, and i made this distinction earlier, but i understated it and maybe you missed it: the testimony of the witnesses who saw the plane are a historical record of the event. yes these accounts actually reveal and expose that there was "conspiracy", but those accounts are not told by "conspiracy theorists", they are told by actual witnesses to the event, and SHOULD therefore be included in any page on flight 77, especially a wiki one. instead wiki goes out of their way to link to AFTER THE FACT "witnesses" like killshymer (misspelled), who work to support the official story. but wiki omits actual living witnesses to the event, and this is no accident nor is it inconsequential. editors like "Aude" and her groupthink associates have made sure that the flight 77 pages looks and contains exactly what it contains (and OMITS).

but here is a compromise and a suggestion i have: CIT's video presentation of these witnesses includes commentary by CIT and though i dont personally see any of it as "conspiratorial", i do see that it could (unfortunately) be construed or characterized that way. so i think that someone (cit or someone else with the time and resources) should make a new edit of the videos which excludes any CIT commentary and consists of ONLY the interviews with witnesses and their recollections.

my hope is that those witness accounts themselves, free of any CIT commentary or interjections, should be permissible AND available on wikipedia. minus any "conspiracy" talk, there is absolutely NO objective or justified reason to exclude these accounts from wiki. i would like someone to take the time to break and upload the video accounts in to individual segments and cut out the CIT parts, then link them on the wiki page. then we'll see if Aude and Co. allow those links to stay, or if they will (continue to) censor them and thereby deprive the random public from crucial information relevant to "flight 77". if i had to bet money, i would bet that even stripped down, "conspiracy-free" information will NOT be allowed on wiki's f77 page, if it in anyway contradicts the official version of events.

so we'll have to see if that happens, and when it does, we'll see just how fair or objective the wiki editors will be and wether they will allow that information to stay on the f77 page.


***

about the OP: mr.dice perhaps you can look up some of the aforementioned wiki investors and see if you find an angle (vested interest) they might have in favor of something other than truth.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply