Re: The deaf, dumb, and blind biofuel cultists have yet another heavy issue to explain away!

"Owl Cafe & Filling Station" <ethyl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:t20et31kq41uvuo73cj3sq2evrcpm40jv4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:54 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <findme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mumbled:


> >Who killed the electric car?

> Not so generous motors.

GM was responsible for shredding them into tiny shards after refusing
to allow lease holders to purchase their vehicles, and failing to
advertise
them in the slightest fashion worth noting.

Did any one around these groups ever SEE an electric car advertisement?

Odd, isn't it... since EVERY auto manufacturer was forced to build one or
stop selling vehicles in the state of California.  When George W. Bush
took
office, electric cars were becoming commonplace in the state of
California.
Had he not done this, it would rapidly have spread and we'd likely be
seeing
a completely different field of new cars.

 >  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - oil crooks.

> They killed it eh?

George W. Bush used the Federal Government to sue the state of California
in order to force it to drop it's law pending suit against auto
manufacturers.

Try here...
http://www.ev1.org/
And here....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/paul.commentary/
And here...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/who-killed-the-electric-c_b_24348.html
And here...
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/13/who_killed_the_electric_car_new
And here...
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
>
> In late 2003, GM officially canceled the EV1 program.[11][12] Despite
> unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees

Please... enough of the Wikipedia crap....

The public would be better off banning WikiPedia.  Any publicly editable
data base is not to be trusted.


    "Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia:
it’s
    an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."

.... And it isn't working very well.
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html


Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is
currently
under dispute over it's content accuracy".  "This Article or section may
require
cleanup", and other disclaimers.  It's becoming a real sore on every
teacher's
ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable
database,
Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased
and/or
misleading information.

http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68


The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being
shut
down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
information to the public.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html



The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials
as
sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth.  In the US, a
great
number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
on research papers.  It's a known issue that it contains false information
as a result of being publicly editable.

It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
practical jokes...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
<same story>
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974


Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
complete fraud.

http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp



http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
Saturday, January 21, 2006

     "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
    problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
    Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
    consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don’t believe
    me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer



Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?

June 02, 2006  
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03

    " Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
    continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
    Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
    shot dead.

    Last month, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
    Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
    blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."

This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
responsibility for it's accuracy.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp