On Sep 28, 10:44 pm, Joseph DeMartino  wrote:   
   > On Sep 28, 5:11 am, Duggy  wrote:   
   >   
   > > I read a text book on SF that was less accurate.   
   >   
   > And I find mistakes pretty much every day in newspapers, books TV   
   > documentaries and various web sites.  That other sources are also   
   > inaccurate doesn't make Wikipedia more so.  On some subjects it is   
   > good, on some bad.  On none should it be absolutely trusted, used as a   
   > sole source or considered authoritative.  In this case it is flat-out   
   > wrong in one entry so the "mystery" isn't a mystery.   
   Well, it's actually not wrong, but that's beside the point.   
   I never claimed any of those things that you said.  It isn't to be   
   absolutely trusted, etc, etc.  Just because I said something else was   
   less accurate certainly doesn't mean any of those things.  Or need to   
   be told what I myself have said, many, many times.   
   It seems to be cool to dis wikipedia as if the only truely smart   
   people are those who never use it.  Wikipedia is a tool.  Like all   
   tools it has advantages and disadvantages.  Flaws, weaknesses and   
   strenghts.   
   ===   
   = DUG.   
   ===   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32   
    * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)