Nineteenth century pedantry will never die, That WTF moment Options

[lilburne]

In 1498 the duc d'Orléans mounted the throne as Louis XII, and d'Amboise was suddenly raised to the high position of cardinal (September 17, 1498) and prime minister. In December 1498, he obtained, for reasons of state, the annulment of the marriage of the king to Jeanne de Valois; the king married Anne de Bretagne, widow of the late king, in January 1499.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_d%27Amboise

Sometime the stilted language is a dead give away.

[Malleus]

In 1498 the duc d'Orléans mounted the throne as Louis XII, and d'Amboise was suddenly raised to the high position of cardinal (September 17, 1498) and prime minister. In December 1498, he obtained, for reasons of state, the annulment of the marriage of the king to Jeanne de Valois; the king married Anne de Bretagne, widow of the late king, in January 1499.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_d%27Amboise

Sometime the stilted language is a dead give away.

It is. So what's your point?

[lilburne]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

[Malleus]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

[Peter Damian]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

It is surprising because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and crowdsourced things are always improving. But this article is not improving. Paradox.

[Malleus]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

It is surprising because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and crowdsourced things are always improving. But this article is not improving. Paradox.

That a single article has not yet improved is no paradox.

[Peter Damian]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

It is surprising because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and crowdsourced things are always improving. But this article is not improving. Paradox.

That a single article has not yet improved is no paradox.

Ah - so all but one crowdsourced articles will be continuously improving. I am no longer surprised.

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 22nd March 2011, 9:10pm

[radek]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

It is surprising because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and crowdsourced things are always improving. But this article is not improving. Paradox.

That a single article has not yet improved is no paradox.

Ah - so all but one crowdsourced articles will be continuously improving. I am no longer surprised.

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

An economist, a physicist and a mathematician go for a train ride in the Scottish country side. While they're going along, the economist looks out the window and then suddenly exclaims "ooh there's a black sheep out there, they have black sheep in Scotland!". The physicist twists his face in disdain, peeks out the window and says "correction, there is at least one sheep in Scotland which is black". The mathematician looks at both of them, sighs deeply and says "there exist at least one sheep in Scotland, at least one side of which is black".

[RMHED]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

It is surprising because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and crowdsourced things are always improving. But this article is not improving. Paradox.

That a single article has not yet improved is no paradox.

Ah - so all but one crowdsourced articles will be continuously improving. I am no longer surprised.

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

An economist, a physicist and a mathematician go for a train ride in the Scottish country side. While they're going along, the economist looks out the window and then suddenly exclaims "ooh there's a black sheep out there, they have black sheep in Scotland!". The physicist twists his face in disdain, peeks out the window and says "correction, there is at least one sheep in Scotland which is black". The mathematician looks at both of them, sighs deeply and says "there exist at least one sheep in Scotland, at least one side of which is black".

An economist, a physicist, a mathematician and a pished Glaswegian go for a train ride in the Scottish country side. While they're going along, the economist looks out the window and then suddenly exclaims "ooh there's a black sheep out there, they have black sheep in Scotland!". The physicist twists his face in disdain, peeks out the window and says "correction, there is at least one sheep in Scotland which is black". The mathematician looks at both of them, sighs deeply and says "there exist at least one sheep in Scotland, at least one side of which is black". The pished Glaswegian says "Youse gobshite bawbags" and chins all three of them.

[lilburne]

Ah - so all but one crowdsourced articles will be continuously improving. I am no longer surprised.

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

Even so I think we ought to give crowd sourcing credit for "The period of Boyle's residence was marked by the reactionary actions of the victorious parliamentarian forces".

[Malleus]

It is. So what's your point?

1911 EB c&p, and unimproved in 5.5 years.

So that's supposed to be a surprise?

It is surprising because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and crowdsourced things are always improving. But this article is not improving. Paradox.

That a single article has not yet improved is no paradox.

Ah - so all but one crowdsourced articles will be continuously improving. I am no longer surprised.

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

I thought that you claimed to have some understanding of basic logic? Not much evidence of it here.

[Doc glasgow]

The pished Glaswegian says "Youse gobshite bawbags" and chins all three of them.

Good grief - even a pished Glaswegian, on a bad night in the Gorbals, can do better with invective that that!