- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Sightly OT - Juicers
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
I think you've misunderstood what he meant by "history" page. Entries in Wikipedia are journalled - any alterations are logged and all previous versions of the page are available so you can see what changes have been made and by whom.
I reckon that you're as likely to get an accurate factual definition from Wikipedia as you are from any comparable source - with the bonus that if you want you can poke around and see what other alternative versions of "the truth" have been put forward by others.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
mike wrote in news:Xns985FC8E00902Amikeringbtinternetco@130.133.1.4:
Whoops
formatting link
about that, it was thebeetroot juice
mike
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
A bit like this group then?
And also just like this group, no-one has to take any statement at face value - there are plenty of sources to cross-reference and check the facts. What Wikipedia *does* give you, however, is a concensus, built up from a combination of many people's experience. In that respect, I guess it is going to give you a much better definition of what the stuff actually *is*. Other people on this group can give you their personal experiences and tell you whether (in their oppinion) it has been any good for them.
-- JJ
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Or perhaps no-one is willing to re-post a lot of information that they have just found for you and are refering you to. I don't think people here would be asking you to look at that Wikipedia page if they did not think it contained the answer you were looking for. If you don't want to look, then what else can they do...?
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Why would you trust somebody on here to tell you the answer when you won't trust wikipedia? By your definition, neither are capable of giving a factual definition.
In practice, wikipedia is actually very good at giving definitions for such things as 'what is wheatgrass'.
Of course if the definition on there is insufficient for your needs, and you discover the answer elsewhere, you could add the information on there :-)
cheers, clive
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Probably - I'm very literal :-)
Confusing.
I still can't advise anyone on the best juicer :-)
Mary
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
If they don't know they do nothing - I asked people (I thought).
Mary
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
I wouldn't be so presumptuous! It's not important enough and I think this thread has gone on for too long.
:-)
Mary
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Mostly? Is that good enough?
So one has to keep looking. I have better things to do - such as work out how to play a DVD ...
Mary
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
The message from "Clive George" contains these words:
Tell you what, I'll go copy a load of stuff from wiki and paste it here. That'll make it authoritative.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
LOL! Now I DO know what beetroot is, I grow it.
At least I THINK it's beetroot - it said it on the packet - should I believe it?
:-)
Mary
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
I wouldn't waste your breath, she doesn't believe in the idea of finding things out for yourself. One wonders why she frequents this group.
H- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Only God is perfect.
H- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
It's as good as you'll get with any other encyclopaedia. They're all of them fallible, but where wikipedia scores is that its failings can be addressed and are visible.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
and t.w.a.t is thataway ^^^^^
HTH Pete