Talk:South America

Thoughts anyone?

Ok, so I'm hesitant to change the contents of the South America article. I know - and I'd be willing to bet most Knoxians know - that South America is not considered a region of Mexico and that more than "certain liberal intellectuals" claim it is a continent, as the article currently states. But would changing that so that it is purely a factual entry go against the spirit of the WikiFire?

I don't want to get into a war of changes with someone. But I'm not sure what to do. Option 1: Leave the inaccuracies intact. Option 2: Change the inaccuracies and risk starting a war of changes with whoever wants to claim South America is considered a region of Mexico. Thoughts?

Bill M. 23:16, 31 October 2007 (CDT)

Jesus Fucking Christ. It's not that complicated. The idea that South America is a region of Mexico is satire in regards to the fact that most Americans call all Latinos "Mexicans." To anyone who is smart enough to get into Knox College (I would hope) it is obvious that South America is a continent. If we've lowered our standards so much that this is in doubt, Jesus Fucking Christ help us. There are a lot of factual inaccuracies on WikiFire. Just off the top of my head, article Alcoholism, which says that no one of college age is an alcoholic. This is untrue. But it is an expression of the Knox zeitgeist. WikiFire is not a substitute for Wikipedia. If some stupid asshole is dumb enough not be familiar with what "South America" is, it isn't WikiFire's obligation to correct them.

It's called irony, dumbass.

hmmm ... this hostility is frightening. I mean, this page would be much more useful if it addressed how the Knox community and South America interact with eachother, but until someone wants to write about that, I don't think it really matters if the page is factual. So, basically, someone who went to a South American program or someone from South America should write something useful. Then this won't really be a problem ... Tfooq 17:42, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

In summary of my general position: if you want to scour WikiFire of all its factual inaccuracies, than you can count on losing about 35% of your information. Just so you know. Get your priorities in order.

I nominate this for the "least pleasant talk page" award. Camozzi 02:56, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

haha. yes. like Fox News, I'm going to call that victory early. I just deleted the rant above, as creative as it was, because it was too mean. that's not really a policy or anything, I guess i just don't like that much negativity floating around. if someone wants to debate its existence out of a need for uncensored debate, i'll gladly continue the conversation. However, it would perhaps make your point stronger if you were not anonymous, since Mr. Mayeroff put his name on everything he has written, thus giving you a rather unfair advantage in this argument (or fight or whatever it is). Tfooq 03:53, 2 November 2007 (CDT)