Tattoo pattern French Guiana

corinebohan@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> <snip> if the original poster typed Guyana instead
> of guiana (which curt ommited to correct btw)

Corine, correction was unnecessary.

> he'd find even more material...

Anyone who follows the Wiki link I presented will see:

"Not to be confused with Guyana."

Guyana there is a link that leads to that forementioned "even more
material..."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana

> he might even try googling Guyane Francaise,

Yes, he might. And that information - "Guyane française" - is also
offered by the Wiki page.

It would appear that you, Corine, have commented without actually
following the Wiki link.

> just saying...

Exactly.

> Corine

In fact, it looks like you many not only have disregarded the Wiki
link, but most of the thread as if you had not then perhaps you would
have read my initial question for the OP - "What did your search
include?"

In addition to the Wiki link
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana>,
I included http://www.kacike.org/cac-ike/ReviewContents.html and
http://www.sdnp.org.gy/apa/. The OP replied - if you'd cared to read
the entire thread - "Yeah, I've read those pages," which, hey, would
indicate to me (y D'OH! mmv, Corine) that they were aware of Guyana and
Guyane Francaise.

And, oh, hth. ;o)

But, hey, thanks for reinforcing my original offering.

Say, do /you/ have an opinion on either the film or the book also
mentioned in this thead? Oh, that's right, you didn't read all of the
thread. Take your time. It's all still available, right?

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Wikipedia is a bogus organization promoted by the companies about which
Wikipedia articles are written. They pay the wikipedia users millions of
Dollars to let them use their names with the blessing of the Wikipedia
adminstrators. I tried to edit wikipedia articles to set the matters
straight. My computer got Blocked by wikipedia adminstrators zimzalabim
and others. Wikipedia is a fraudulent organization

pundit005 wrote:

(cue Twilight Zone opening music)

http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/twilzone.wav

> Wikipedia is a bogus organization promoted by the companies about which
> Wikipedia articles are written. They pay the wikipedia users millions of
> Dollars to let them use their names with the blessing of the Wikipedia
> adminstrators. I tried to edit wikipedia articles to set the matters
> straight. My computer got Blocked by wikipedia adminstrators zimzalabim
> and others. Wikipedia is a fraudulent organization

Okay then.

Still...

In December 2005, the science journal "Nature" compared Wikipedia
with Encyclopedia Britannica. The journal used scientists to compare
some of the two encyclopedias' articles on natural sciences. The
journal concluded that the "difference in accuracy was not
particularly great," although Britannica is now debating the validity
of the study. /From:
http://www.theplainsman.com/campus/the_war_on_wikipedia

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James wrote:
>
> In December 2005, the science journal "Nature" compared Wikipedia
> with Encyclopedia Britannica. The journal used scientists to compare
> some of the two encyclopedias' articles on natural sciences. The
> journal concluded that the "difference in accuracy was not
> particularly great," although Britannica is now debating the validity
> of the study. /From:
> http://www.theplainsman.com/campus/the_war_on_wikipedia


Great. So you start with the science journal "Nature" and end with a
quote from a third tier college, Auburn University-Montgomery. A
student newspaper, which, by the way, is probably not even listed with
the collegiate press association (didn't check, don't care).

See, that's the Curt style.

Again, seven-week journalism course.

God knows what you're teaching the kids.


Kavin

KavinTaylor@gmail.com schreef:
> See, that's the Curt style.
>
> Again, seven-week journalism course.
>
> God knows what you're teaching the kids.

*I was citing from sure sources : my own language...
but the moron had to challenge me on this like everything else :)

Corine

smiling-frog@home.nl wrote:

> *I was citing from sure sources : my own language...
> but the moron had to challenge me on this like everything else :)
>
If I make it to Europe, will you make out with me?


Kavin

KavinTaylor@gmail.com schreef:

> smiling-frog@home.nl wrote:
>
> > *I was citing from sure sources : my own language...
> > but the moron had to challenge me on this like everything else :)
> >
> If I make it to Europe, will you make out with me?

*I'll surely buy you a beer first, in Amsterdam or Paris, wherever you
make it.

Corine

On 9 Dec 2006 19:31:48 -0800, smiling-frog@home.nl wrote:

>KavinTaylor@gmail.com schreef:
>
>> If I make it to Europe, will you make out with me?
>
>*I'll surely buy you a beer first, in Amsterdam or Paris, wherever you
>make it.

So, once you buy him a beer, will you make out with Kavin?

nj"just asking"m
--
"Alef is for lion, and
bet is for house..."

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt James wrote:

re Wikipedia legitimacy

> > In December 2005, the science journal "Nature" compared Wikipedia
> > with Encyclopedia Britannica. The journal used scientists to compare
> > some of the two encyclopedias' articles on natural sciences. The
> > journal concluded that the "difference in accuracy was not
> > particularly great," although Britannica is now debating the validity
> > of the study. /From:
> > http://www.theplainsman.com/campus/the_war_on_wikipedia
>
> Great. So you start with the science journal "Nature" and end with a
> quote from a third tier college, Auburn University-Montgomery. A
> student newspaper,

And?

> which, by the way, is probably not even listed with the collegiate
> press association (didn't check, don't care).

Right. Don't care, eh? I've noticed.

Perhaps the following will be of just as much interest, eh?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html

Oh, yeah, The Wall Street Journal referenced the Nature schtufff just
as the previously mentioned student newspaper. Neat how that works.

Britannica's rebuttal:
http://corporate.britannica.com/brit...e_response.pdf

And Nature's responses:
http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html

> See, that's the Curt style.
>
> Again, seven-week journalism course.

Absolutely. Well, almost. The course, iirc, was eight weeks in length
back in the day.

Still, and, yeah, again, your underoos-inna-bunch-edness reflects only
on you, Kavvy. Regardless, thank you for putting the Defense
Information School (DINFOS) in the spotlight. Memories are a good
thing.

What had been the Basic Journalism Course (BJC) appears to have been
renamed the Basic Public Affairs Specialist-Writer (BPAS-W) course, a
12-week course. "This course is the initial training for dual
qualification of students in both journalism and broadcasting,"
according to information available at
https://www.atrrs.army.mil/atrrscc/c...-WRITER&phase=

That link also leads to text that offers, "The Navy is the only service
that requires their students to attend both DINFOS-BPAS-W/AFIS-BJC and
DINFOS-BPAS-B/AFIS-BBC (dual track)."

Apparently the print and broadcast training components are a package
deal now. When I was serving in the military, the Basic Broadcaster
Course was awarded to only a few graduates of the print course. In
fact, another sailor and I, though invited to the broadcast training,
had to successfully complete voice and diction training for a few weeks
as a prerequisite for BBC training.

And - I'm certain you'll be interested to know - the Basic Broadcaster
Course has since been renamed the Basic Public Affairs
Specialist-Broadcaster (BPAS-B) course which is 10 weeks and four days
in length.

Somewhere along the line, I also completed Shipboard Information
Training and Entertainment (SITE) training which consisted of two weeks
of learning how to operated the shipboard CCTV system and associated
equipment.

Belittle the training all you'd like. It was hella fun and more. I'm
proud to have served on the USS Richard E. Byrd as a Navy journalist.

> God knows what you're teaching the kids.

That two plus two will always equal four, but that art is subjective.
And, of course, to check with more than one source. To wit:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512172

Gee, I wonder if that paper's an Associated College Press member. (The
Plainsman is, btw.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne...dia/index.html

Aw, CNN ain't nuffin but a thang, right?

I especially liked this bit from the article available at the other end
of that link:

But it really does follow the open source model, which is that more
eyeballs make all bugs shallow. Meaning: the more people that see it,
the more obvious you'll be able to get those bugs or inaccuracies out
of it." /cnn.com

And, speaking of CNN, none other than The New York Times offered the
following re Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder, and his creation's
popularity:

>From the start, Mr. Wales gave the site a clear mission: to offer free
knowledge to everybody on the planet. At the same time, he put in place
a set of rules and policies that he continues to promote, like the need
to present information with a neutral point of view.

The system seems to be working. Wikipedia is now the Web's
third-most-popular news and information source, beating the sites of
CNN and Yahoo News, according to Nielsen NetRatings. /From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/te...rssnyt&emc=rss


Popularity aside, Wikipedia was also recently included in a lively
discussion on The Wall Street Journal Online:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...ml?mod=blog s


And, yes, it's all about the discussion, Kavin.

Hth.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

N Jill Marsh schreef:
> So, once you buy him a beer, will you make out with Kavin?
>
> nj"just asking"m

*Well, he's yummy... ;)

Corine
--
Resolve to be thyself; and know that he who finds himself loses his
misery. Matthew Arnold

Curt James schreef:

> > > In December 2005, the science journal "Nature" compared Wikipedia
> > > with Encyclopedia Britannica. <snip blablabla>
> And, yes, it's all about the discussion, Kavin.

*You're missing the point here: we don't give a shit :)

Corine

corinebohan@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> *You're missing the point here: we don't give a shit :)

Yes, of course. Your comment, "if the original poster typed Guyana
instead of guiana (which curt ommited to correct btw)," indicates as
much, doesn't it?

Perhaps *you* omitted something. ;o)

> Corine

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

smiling-frog@home.nl wrote:

> *I'll surely buy you a beer first, in Amsterdam or Paris, wherever you
> make it.

It still amazes me when Europeans speak of countries the way we speak
of states.

"Oh, we'll just pop over to France" as if it is the same as "I'll just
pop over to Florida."

Wacky.

But then, there is a beach or two in Florida . . .


Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> It still amazes me when Europeans speak of
> countries the way we speak of states.

Not exactly a surprise.

> "Oh, we'll just pop over to France" as if it is
> the same as "I'll just pop over to Florida."

Been out of Georgia much?

I've traveled from Ghent, Belgium to Paris, France (about 200 miles)
and I've traveled from Lancaster, PA to Daytona Beach, FL (about a
thousand miles), so, yeah, it's all relative.

> Wacky.
>
> But then, there is a beach or two in Florida . . .

I've heard rumors of that.

> Kavin

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James wrote:
> I've traveled from Ghent, Belgium to Paris, France (about 200 miles)
> and I've traveled from Lancaster, PA to Daytona Beach, FL (about a
> thousand miles), so, yeah, it's all relative.

And you've not made any friends in any of those places.

Curt, it was just a statement. Why'd you feel a need to get involved?
Just to show how miserable you are?

Yeah, let's talk about how things reflect, Curt.

Kavin