Political Correctness in Modeling

Oujé-Bougoumo

I mean, I HAD to giggle that one.

According to Wikipedia: 725 people. Your mission is to go count 'em. Maybe tonight in the bar.

Don't blame ya.

Don Kelly liked the word  "Oujé-Bougoumo" so much he said it several times at the beginning of one of his shows.

I suppose I should have worded the original post better, also I was lacking when it came to sources. My intention was more a question of any personal experiences. You do raise some valid points and I'm sorry if I offended any directly or indirectly. Though I stand by my original argument I do see your side of the argument and I hopes we can both respect each others opinions.

Yes sir, I agree and sincerely apologize for the "troll" comment, that was completely undeserved.

I have never encountered any comments about anything I've modeled from a "PC" perspective, but as I've said I put no stock in the concept anyways.

I did get literally thrown off a forum once for posting a picture of a stark naked young lady, from the backside. Rather lovely figure, but I did break the rules.

That's a shame, I always found it odd that the human body is somehow off limits but I digress. I'm glad we settle our diferences amicably.

If nothing else works- 

almost anything can be patched up with a little bondo, man ! 

Good to hear things are getting back to normal around here.

Sounds like we have reached the point where a round of fermented beverages is in order. Preferably served by appropriately garbed attractive ladies ;)

Beer! Beer! Beer! Said the Privates!

Merry Men are we!

But none so fair that they can compare to the Airborne Infantry!

Whiskey for the men and beer for their horses ............! 

Bondo is in the rum!

Sprue-ce Goose

Whiskey for the men and beer for their horses ............! 

 

ah yes, a great song!

Hello!

It's kinda like the old forums are back again! Now let us build some models! Good luck with that and have a nice day

Paweł

OK lads, enough talk and let grab a drink and back to the the bench for that wonnerful  smell of plastic!

plasticjunkie

OK lads, enough talk and let grab a drink and back to the the bench for that wonnerful  smell of plastic!

 

I don't drink so i am afraid i will have to find somthing else to enjoy as well as keping my hands busy.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, now, what could i do.

Bish

 

 

plasticjunkie

OK lads, enough talk and let grab a drink and back to the the bench for that wonnerful  smell of plastic!

 

 

 

 

I don't drink so i am afraid i will have to find somthing else to enjoy as well as keping my hands busy.

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, now, what could i do.

 

From the looks of that pic, that should be easy!

Gary

Texgunner

 

Bish

 

 

plasticjunkie

OK lads, enough talk and let grab a drink and back to the the bench for that wonnerful  smell of plastic!

 

 

 

 

I don't drink so i am afraid i will have to find somthing else to enjoy as well as keping my hands busy.

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, now, what could i do.

 

 

 

 

From the looks of that pic, that should be easy!

Gary

 

I have no idea what your talking about i'm afraid

Bish

Texgunner

 

Bish

plasticjunkie

OK lads, enough talk and let grab a drink and back to the the bench for that wonnerful  smell of plastic!

I don't drink so i am afraid i will have to find somthing else to enjoy as well as keping my hands busy.

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, now, what could i do.

 

From the looks of that pic, that should be easy!

Gary

  

I have no idea what your talking about i'm afraid

 

.......probably means being helpful by retrieving the empties and returning with more beer.............

...always gives me a good feeling to see so many happy faces..........

Sprue-ce Goose

 

 

the doog

 

 

Sprue-ce Goose

Regarding "Wiki" articles. I would advise being very, very cautious of the content of Wiki articles.

The warning against believing everything posted on the internet also applies to Wiki articles.

Per Wiki policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines

 Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.

  

Actually, Wikipedia is considered by many to be one of the most accurate sites on the internet. It is constantly revised to contain the most current information and the information is peer-reviewed and corrected. You can't just anonymously edit the text to alter facts; you must cite your sources, and attribute your email/identity to your additions and your information can be challenged and removed if found to be errant or propaganda.

 

 

 

Doog:

Thanks for the vote of confidence in Wikipedia.

In that case, Wikipedia standards must have changed considerably since I first viewed a Wikipedia webpage perhaps ten years ago.

The historical accuracy of the page I viewed at the time was so obviously wrong that I shunned the website.

As for Wikipedia today:

I do note that comments are now being added to web pages such as the text at the top of this webpage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tootoosis

However, it would be helpful if whoever posted the notation:" This article needs additional citations for verification" had also noted those sections or statements which have not been verified. I do not see any obvious mention of what requires verification within such an article- or did I miss something in the references section? 

Perhaps clicking on each hyperlink and sifting through every related web page is necessary in order to discover the reason why additional citations are needed? 

.

In view of this thread's title, I hope my post is suitably PC ...............

 

"In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies."

from http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html  

Doog:

Thanks for the info.

I'll check it out.

I would still very much prefer that notations posted in in Wikipedia web pages stating: " This article needs additional citations for verification" actually refer to those items requiring verification. 

Hello!

I don't know for sure, but I believe the details to the edits of individual Wikipedia articles can be seen in the discussion page and in the revision history page. Nobody ever looks there, but the information is provided.

Have a nice day

Paweł

Pawel

Hello!

I don't know for sure, but I believe the details to the edits of individual Wikipedia articles can be seen in the discussion page and in the revision history page. Nobody ever looks there, but the information is provided.

Have a nice day

Paweł

 

Maybe I should giggle a Wiki article on how to check a Wiki article..............

GMorrison

Good old Amazon is now bombarding me with offers for books about the SS.

Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! says Mr. Bill

 

Amazon is bombarding me with offers for James Burke DVDs

So...wait. Political correctness, then ***, then the Japanese, then back to ***, then Iceland, then Vikings, then Wikipedia, then beer girls, then back to Wikipedia? 

BTW, does this tie in with Doog's blog post in any way? 

EDIT: and FSM is censoring "N-A-Z-I". Thanks FineScale forums 

Moff

So...wait. Political correctness, then ***, then the Japanese, then back to ***, then Iceland, then Vikings, then Wikipedia, then beer girls, then back to Wikipedia? 

..............

.....and on to Amazon..............

................I've heard the forum works in mysterious ways.............must be true...

Moff

So...wait. Political correctness, then ***, then the Japanese, then back to ***, then Iceland, then Vikings, then Wikipedia, then beer girls, then back to Wikipedia? 

BTW, does this tie in with Doog's blog post in any way? 

EDIT: and FSM is censoring "N-A-Z-I". Thanks FineScale forums 

 

A Nazi was in a beer hall and met another Nazi. So there were two *** at the table.

The "censorship" or as I call it the Nanny Bot looks for flame wars. It's been explained, and I believe, that the plural term is banned if you will in the context of following the word "rivet", a pejorative used on those accused of being too obsessed with detail correctness.

Calling anyone a Nazi is a pretty unacceptable insult.

Sprue-ce Goose

 

 

Moff

So...wait. Political correctness, then ***, then the Japanese, then back to ***, then Iceland, then Vikings, then Wikipedia, then beer girls, then back to Wikipedia? 

..............

 

 

 

.....and on to Amazon..............

................I've heard the forum works in mysterious ways.............must be true...

 

GMorrison

 

 

Moff

So...wait. Political correctness, then ***, then the Japanese, then back to ***, then Iceland, then Vikings, then Wikipedia, then beer girls, then back to Wikipedia? 

BTW, does this tie in with Doog's blog post in any way? 

EDIT: and FSM is censoring "N-A-Z-I". Thanks FineScale forums 

 

 

 

 

Nazi censored? No, not true.

 

A Nazi was in a beer hall and met another Nazi. So there were two *** at the table.

The "censorship" or as I call it the Nanny Bot looks for flame wars. It's been explained, and I believe, that the plural term is banned if you will in the context of following the word "rivet", a pejorative used on those accused of being too obsessed with detail correctness.

Calling anyone a Nazi is a pretty unacceptable insult.

 

We've had this specific discussion before, I'm pretty sure, in another thread, when I noticed what Moff is talking about, in one of my own posts.  Looks like the nannyware allows it in the singular, but not in the plural.

Whether or not the author meant to troll, he certainly created an entertaining thread 

And GMorrison, was that actually you ranting in one of those threads linked to? I can't picture you ever getting that heated, especially in that context. Or were you being sarcastic?

All in all, this has turned out well enough. No animals were harmed in the making of this thread.