Plz leave edits in the hands of professional "impartial" wiki editors like this ........
Bjornte, interpret as you wish. You might be pleased to know that you must have made Dilger's day.
After all, it is quite rare that his diatribes have any effect. But here we have it, this article is now labelled as biased, and will certainly be rewritten in a manner more pleasing to Cupertino.
To be honest, I thought you, as a European, especially a proud Norwegian, would be above kowtowing to large American companies. Alas, I see Apple is inching closer and closer to its goal of eliminating all meaningful competition via its world-class legal and marketing departments, and its army of blind followers.
Furthermore -- even more happy news for you -- since Wikipedia is apparently controlled by the American companies with the largest marketing and legal departments, just as any other American media outlet, I see no purpose in further contributing to, trusting in, or promoting Wikipedia. So have at it, edit as the overlords from Cupertino demand. Slopswool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That is one hell of a pathetic page there. I'm baffled that someone could write such a thing, have such a view.
Idiots tend not to like being corrected, do they? Otherwise I'd set straight the moron naming me in "wanting" a nuclear attack.
Of course, I can't do it with the username I use everywhere, because that's "not impartial", and I can't do it with another username, because then "how could you possibly have the information"?
We know that Samsung pays people to change their presentation on websites. Why haven't they been banned from Wikipedia yet?
Err, clearly my point was a little too subtle for you.
People seem to expect "objectivity" in the media for some odd reason - what they get instead is information mixed with opinion which curiously happens to align with the views of the publishers. Objectivity exists only in the dictionary; subjectivity, however, can be found everywhere.
"Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust Wikipedia as a single source for knowledge."
Why single out WikiPedia? Just change the sentence a little and you're done ...
Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust "Authority X" as a single source for knowledge.
Err, clearly my point was a little too subtle for you.
People seem to expect "objectivity" in the media for some odd reason - what they get instead is information mixed with opinion which curiously happens to align with the views of the publishers. Objectivity exists only in the dictionary; subjectivity, however, can be found everywhere.
Ok, but I guess my point was too subtle for you, too. The words 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' are to be found in a dictionary, but there is no more guarantee of objectivity in a dictionary definition than there is in anything else.
Comments
The moon, or the Greek mythology hero?
Moon. Can't drink a glass of mythology.
Can't drink a glass of moon either, unless that's some obscure saying I've never heard before, and I've heard just about all of them.
Shamey, shamey
Plz leave edits in the hands of professional "impartial" wiki editors like this ........
Bjornte, interpret as you wish. You might be pleased to know that you must have made Dilger's day.
After all, it is quite rare that his diatribes have any effect. But here we have it, this article is now labelled as biased, and will certainly be rewritten in a manner more pleasing to Cupertino.
To be honest, I thought you, as a European, especially a proud Norwegian, would be above kowtowing to large American companies. Alas, I see Apple is inching closer and closer to its goal of eliminating all meaningful competition via its world-class legal and marketing departments, and its army of blind followers.
Furthermore -- even more happy news for you -- since Wikipedia is apparently controlled by the American companies with the largest marketing and legal departments, just as any other American media outlet, I see no purpose in further contributing to, trusting in, or promoting Wikipedia. So have at it, edit as the overlords from Cupertino demand. Slopswool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.
Beats the paid comments from Samsung, US overlords, Korean overlords take your pick, somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Amen to this! concrete crack filler
That is one hell of a pathetic page there. I'm baffled that someone could write such a thing, have such a view.
Can if there's water on it. Ganymede has it in spades.
Idiots tend not to like being corrected, do they? Otherwise I'd set straight the moron naming me in "wanting" a nuclear attack.
Of course, I can't do it with the username I use everywhere, because that's "not impartial", and I can't do it with another username, because then "how could you possibly have the information"?
We know that Samsung pays people to change their presentation on websites. Why haven't they been banned from Wikipedia yet?
Ahh gotcha. I had forgotten that, thanks for the astronomy refresh.
Why single out WikiPedia? Just change the sentence a little and you're done ...
Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust "Authority X" as a single source for knowledge.
Err, clearly my point was a little too subtle for you.
People seem to expect "objectivity" in the media for some odd reason - what they get instead is information mixed with opinion which curiously happens to align with the views of the publishers. Objectivity exists only in the dictionary; subjectivity, however, can be found everywhere.
Ok, but I guess my point was too subtle for you, too. The words 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' are to be found in a dictionary, but there is no more guarantee of objectivity in a dictionary definition than there is in anything else.