Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and theres no reason to come across like you know it all. you have to know who the sock might have been before.
Not true. Most of the time when people cry "sock" they don't actually know who it is.
Originally posted by mitchum
There's no comma in commas.
I think you mean apostrophe.
Originally posted by Darth Extecute
You noob.. Wikipedia is an irreliable source..
Not true. It actually can be very reliable, and people have done studies on it that show it is usually as accurate as a regular encyclopedia. But it's not a good idea to use it as a sole source for something important - rather use it to find quick information and other sources.
Originally posted by Lana
Not true. Most of the time when people cry "sock" they don't actually know who it is.I think you mean apostrophe.
Not true. It actually can be very reliable, and people have done studies on it that show it is usually as accurate as a regular encyclopedia. But it's not a good idea to use it as a sole source for something important - rather use it to find quick information and other sources.
1. True.
2. That was the word I meat in an above post
3. Thank you very much
Originally posted by LanaVery few people trust Wiki. I would trust it with my life. I don't understand peoples doubt in wikipedia.
Not true. Most of the time when people cry "sock" they don't actually know who it is.I think you mean apostrophe.
Not true. It actually can be very reliable, and people have done studies on it that show it is usually as accurate as a regular encyclopedia. But it's not a good idea to use it as a sole source for something important - rather use it to find quick information and other sources.
Originally posted by Homer J.
Yeah, but If someone sees its false information, someone will alert the proper people and it will be fixed. For most things, its a good source of information.
True, true.
YO, PICK UP THE PHONE!
Hello?
WAZZZZUP!?!?!?
WUZZZAA.
So what's up with you?
Watching the game, havin a Bud.
True, true.