It is good to get exposed to different opinions, especially those that we may not agree with.
During the 1980s when I was studying Russian at UCLA, I regularly tried to read Pravda, which was published daily in the USSR. (The paper was available at UCLA's Russian Department.)
This was certainly educational; I was able to read about world events from the other side of the political spectrum.
There were problems with Pravda: The language was a little too stilted, containing the usual Marxist-Leninist jargon. When I finally visited the USSR I learned that most Russians themselves did not even bother reading it! Since there was usually a shortage of toilet paper, I am sure that the paper was still put to good use.
John
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann <joy.mccann@...> wrote:
>
> I know everything; I'm omnivorous. (Except for fish.)
> Truth be told, I've seen the term, but I hate the whole idea of there being
> no information-gathering system in the entire world in which people are not
> forced to hammer out some kind of consensus.
>
> So, no: I haven't checked it out--there's something creepy to me about
> giving up the ghost of a search for objective (semi-objective) truth without
> even trying. One is tempted to ask, "why don't we all just crawl into our
> caves and never exchange ideas at all?" But of course, many people live that
> way.
>
> On the other hand, I'd love to see an alternative to Wikipedia that doesn't
> share its bias against electronic publishing in general, and blogs in
> particular: most of the editors there seem to worship the printed word, as
> if that guarantees accuracy of a given source . . . and, come on, now: any
> magazine or newspaper is only as good as its research department in that
> regard, and book publishers don't usually employ fact-checkers at all.
>
> When I have any kind of a question, I usually consult
> Free-Markety-But-Not-Randian-Nutcasy-Pro-Western-Values-Trending-Conservative-on-Economic-Issues-But-Liberal-on-Social-Concerns-Pedia.
> And none other!
>
> With all information sources, the buyer should beware. Indeed, some would
> say that the buyer of political thought has a duty in that regard.
>
> --J
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, alexm_94109 <aemelnick_at_...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Okay, maybe everybody else has already seen this, but I've only just
> > discovered conservapedia.com, a Wikipedia-esque site devoid of Wikipedia's
> > "liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors." The article on
> > Obama (http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama) is either sad or
> > hilarious.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joy M. McCann
> Goddess of Ink and Paper
> (But pixels obey me, too.)
> Mistress of proofreading, fact-checking,
> Line-editing, and copyediting
> Copy Write Editorial Services
> 818/429-9806
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Received on 2009-04-13 10:51:09