Talk:Narcoterrorism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
POV or Opinon; what's the purpose? |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
POV or Opinon; Where lies the difference? |
POV or Opinon; Where lies the difference? |
||
It was no subtle attempt that the diction chosen for the above mentioned paragraph was composed with an eye for obscurity. To be misunderstood among scholars who love the unity of well-penned paragraphs is another compliance, another stab into the dysfunction of thought. An opinon is not validated by facts, no more than a POV is the ramification of numerous opinions with hazy facts. As you can tell by now I am lingering on obscurity. Not wihtout purpose, of course, that would be lacking in POV. I agree with the following: if wikipedia was constructed as a free-thinking informative site of the age of modernity than it must rely on alanguage and style that goes beyond convention, that adopts POV's that appear improper and out of place. In other words, it must promote thought. |
It was no subtle attempt that the diction chosen for the above mentioned paragraph was composed with an eye for obscurity. To be misunderstood among scholars who love the unity of well-penned paragraphs is another compliance, another stab into the dysfunction of thought. An opinon is not validated by facts, no more than a POV is the ramification of numerous opinions with hazy facts. As you can tell by now I am lingering on obscurity. Not wihtout purpose, of course, that would be lacking in POV. I agree with the following: if wikipedia was constructed as a free-thinking informative site of the age of modernity than it must rely on alanguage and style that goes beyond convention, that adopts POV's that appear improper and out of place. In other words, it must promote thought. |
||
== POV or Opinon; what's the purpose? == |
|||
'''It was no subtle attempt that the diction chosen for the above mentioned paragraph was composed with an eye for obscurity. To be misunderstood among scholars who love the unity of well-penned paragraphs is another compliance, another stab into the dysfunction of thought. An opinon is not validated by facts, no more than a POV is the ramification of numerous opinions with hazy facts. As you can tell by now I am lingering on obscurity. Not wihtout purpose, of course, that would be lacking in POV. I agree with the following: if wikipedia was constructed as a free-thinking informative site of the age of modernity than it must rely on a language and a style that goes beyond convention, that adopts POV's that appear improper and out of place. In other words, it must promote thought.''' |
|||
Revision as of 21:14, 12 March 2006
Narcoterrorist definition
Added in the three objectives of the narco-terrorist:
- Nobbling the police
- Corrupting judges
- Influencing politicians
Lukewilson 01:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Narcoterrorism: A brothel of Lies
Whoever believes that narcoterrorism exist must acknowledge his or her own conformisim of the state. Having recognized the state as entity and as a machine of deceit it follows that its principles survive through this model of belief.Belief in an organization of institutions designed, without approval from the majority, as often thought, to undermine the will of life. A lie is possible only after conscientious activity; however, it feeds on a preset morality. A scale works with two ends to determine weight and to establish a rank, figure or numerical value.
POV
Although I personally agree completely with what is being said here, I must admit that the wording is a little too POV for Wikipedia:
"When defined by the government, narcoterrorism becomes a discordant concept incited with prejudicial objectives; the support provided by the people must be founded within the confines of the issue. Narcoterrorism is transformed into a passionate concept that justifies military action, of which the people that have no involvement with either politics or narcotics become the casualties. Action, regardless of its legitimacy, finds its reasoning in a misinterpreted statement: without narcoterrorism the accumulation of weaponry from the state will seem conspicuously unnecessary."
nsandwich 19:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
POV or Opinon; Where lies the difference? It was no subtle attempt that the diction chosen for the above mentioned paragraph was composed with an eye for obscurity. To be misunderstood among scholars who love the unity of well-penned paragraphs is another compliance, another stab into the dysfunction of thought. An opinon is not validated by facts, no more than a POV is the ramification of numerous opinions with hazy facts. As you can tell by now I am lingering on obscurity. Not wihtout purpose, of course, that would be lacking in POV. I agree with the following: if wikipedia was constructed as a free-thinking informative site of the age of modernity than it must rely on alanguage and style that goes beyond convention, that adopts POV's that appear improper and out of place. In other words, it must promote thought.
POV or Opinon; what's the purpose?
It was no subtle attempt that the diction chosen for the above mentioned paragraph was composed with an eye for obscurity. To be misunderstood among scholars who love the unity of well-penned paragraphs is another compliance, another stab into the dysfunction of thought. An opinon is not validated by facts, no more than a POV is the ramification of numerous opinions with hazy facts. As you can tell by now I am lingering on obscurity. Not wihtout purpose, of course, that would be lacking in POV. I agree with the following: if wikipedia was constructed as a free-thinking informative site of the age of modernity than it must rely on a language and a style that goes beyond convention, that adopts POV's that appear improper and out of place. In other words, it must promote thought.