![word mojo mypoints word mojo mypoints](https://earningkart.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/killi-reward-point.png)
![word mojo mypoints word mojo mypoints](http://www.quotationof.com/images/mojo-quotes-2.jpg)
Soultaco 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) wow i couldn't have put it better myself. well, you effectively proved their point. A better analogy would be: What if someone called you a violent animal? Because if your immediate response is to physically assault them. Qoqnous 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) It's not the way you described it either.
#WORD MOJO MYPOINTS FULL#
Slimdavey 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)slimdavey Graham, what will you do if someone spit in your face? What will you do if someone attack you when you are just minding your business? What will you do, if a newspaper prints an article full of insults about you? What I am trying to say is, it is not the way you described it. Not to paint a group of people with a single broad stroke, but reacting with violence to the insinuation that your religion breeds violence probably wont help the cause. Vanessa kelly 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Well said. Errr, doesn't that somewhat validate what the cartoonist was getting at? Graham 06:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Touche. for that matter).- 212.88.77.68 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Anyone else find it ironic that when a picture depicting a certain religion harbouring hothead elements is published, the response is for the hotheads to go out and burn and bomb buildings. Babajobu 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Cyde Weys - Wikipedia is not an American, nor Asiatic news source - it's global (and American is not synonymous for U.S. Cyde Weys 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC) *haha* You only mention pictures - what about our long text? That doesn't help at all? (fishing for compliments ) Rajab 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The text helps a lot, Rajab, and you've done some very good work on it (despite our differences). But you get closer to understanding it with the pictures than without. You're right, there truly is no way to make sense out of people killing others and burning down buildings over a few pictures. The thing of it is, together with all those riots, the cartoons still don't make anything make sense, all you get is a picture of people burning down buildings and demanding the destruction of nations because of the pictures on a piece of paper :/. ⇒ SWAT Jester Ready Aim Fire! 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC) or something to that effect Hellznrg 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC) indeed, news is a documented externality of wikipedia's existence. it's an unexpected and unintentional extension of its encyclopediacal nature. Wiki just has a shorter time to publication than most encyclopedias. It will most definitely appear in the history books, albeit as a footnote (unless this later recognized as a watershed moment), but it will appear. P.S., anyone find it ironic that news outfits routinely show dead and mutilated bodies, executions, etc., but a freaking cartoon is too "offensive" to them?! - Cyde Weys 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, not a news source (see ) Dmaftei 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Pardon me, but this has passed from being news to "history in the making". So I just wanted to give a big thumbs up to Wikipedia for being one of the few American news sources to stand up and show the controversy. Ohh, they'll show the riots and pictures of bloodied and dead protestors, but without the context of showing the original cartoons, none of it makes sense. I just want to say I am proud that Wikipedia has more collective cojones than BBC, Fox News, and CNN combined, none of which would show the controversial cartoons. 40 Countries Table: multiples lines for one country.36 Primary source of story on additional (fake) images.29 Question about one cartoon's interpretation.20 Move cartoons down the page to reduce offense?.15 Full List of Newspapers who have Printed 1 or more Cartoons.12 Location of image - currently at top of the page.8 Users who exist only to edit this article?.7 Query regarding quickly developing talk pages in general.