Wikipedia's standards fall yet again...

In Part II, Sasuke sees little change from his personality and mindset at the end of Part I, still craving power above all else. His lust for strength is such that, during his reunion with Naruto and Sakura, he claims to be willing to give his body to Orochimaru if it means killing Itachi. Sasuke has at least changed to a point that he no longer cares for his former teammates' well-beings, being more than willing to kill them since neither is of any use to him. His relationship with Orochimaru shows a similar lack of loyalty, as during their time together he applies no honorifics to Orochimaru's name, is somewhat rude to him, and does not express his allegiance with Otogakure by wearing a Sound headband. Of the loyalties Sasuke has, the only one he displays is that of the Uchiha clan, the symbol of which he wears on his back collar. Despite this lack of allegiances to those close to him, Sasuke seems to be unable to bring himself to needlessly harm those he has never met before, and makes it a point to prevent their deaths when possible. He's also known for being the most gayest character in Naruto. Commonly called Naruto-sexual.

Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

Then again it could be argued that every character in Naruto, and the people who watch it, are chronic little-boy-pee-pee-touchers

this passage should be saved for anyone who quotes wikipedia as indisputable proof of anything.

Originally posted by Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

funny that you posted...considering you dont give a shit. well...actually its not funny, but.....yeah....*leaves avoiding eye contact*

Originally posted by Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

That had me in stitches!

I liked the Impediment quote too. He's always good at making quotes to live by. 🙂

Anyway, Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself, not because it doesn't know some shit about a retarded anime.

Wikipedia is just unreliable because it's able to be edited. It doesn't necessarily mean people put false info up there.

Though I agree using it as a source is usually a bit silly.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wikipedia is just unreliable because it's able to be edited. It doesn't necessarily mean people put false info up there.

Though I agree using it as a source is usually a bit silly.

-AC

That is essentially what I said.

It's unreliable cos anyone can do it, it doesn't mean someone who DID, is wrong.

-AC

It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That is essentially what I said.

It's unreliable cos anyone can do it, it doesn't mean someone who DID, is wrong.

-AC

Bad post

Originally posted by lord xyz
I liked the Impediment quote too. He's always good at making quotes to live by. 🙂

Anyway, Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself, not because it doesn't know some shit about a retarded anime.

Good post

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wikipedia is just unreliable because it's able to be edited. It doesn't necessarily mean people put false info up there.

Though I agree using it as a source is usually a bit silly.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bad post

Good post

Originally posted by lord xyz
Aww, you like Naruto.

I was just more referring to your post being trivial nonsense and his actually stating a problem with Wikipedia.

But good show.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a good show.

I was just more referring to your post being trivial nonsense and his actually stating a problem with Wikipedia.

But good show.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wikipedia does contradict itself. Something that contradicts itself is a problem, yes?

That's an immensely stupid thing to say.

Because if it contradicts itself wouldn't one side of the contradictions be likely right?

It might be an unreliable source because it contradicts itself (it doesn't always btw), but you do see that it can and is correct in many cases.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You said "Wikipedia is wrong because it contradicts itself"

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's an immensely stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because if it contradicts itself wouldn't one side of the contradictions be likely right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It might be an unreliable source because it contradicts itself (it doesn't always btw), but you do see that it can and is correct in many cases.

Why do people feel they can say one entirely different word to another and then act like they meant the other?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do people feel they can say one entirely different word to another and then act like they meant the other?

-AC

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, it's unreliable because any idiot could have posted it. An Australian could be the one who wrote the article on the American civil war. (Don't bother mentioning Kram3r.)

That wouldn't mean it's unreliable. I know a lot of information about the American Civil War as I studied it in Modern History. I could also back it up as well. It's not reliable because, as mentioned above, and you have stated, any one can edit it.