| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:13 am Post subject: As Featured Today On Wikipedia ... |
 |
|
Demand Note
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Top row: The distinctive green ink used on the backs of Demand Notes gave rise to the term "greenbacks"
Bottom row: Prominent design elements used on the front of $5 and $20 Demand Notes (located respectively under their denomination); pictured in the middle is the front of a $10 Demand Note with prominent design elements listedA Demand Note is a type of United States paper money that was issued between August 1861 and April 1862 during the American Civil War in denominations of 5, 10, and 20 dollars. Original legislation referred to the currency as "treasury notes".
The term Demand Note was applied retroactively because the notes were redeemable on demand for gold coin.
Demand Notes were created to serve as a means of monetary exchange in place of gold and silver coins that were vanishing from circulation at the time due to hoarding of commodities. The U.S. government used the notes to pay its incurred expenses and also to pay the salaries of its workers and military personnel. Once the public learned the notes were redeemable in gold coin, the notes began to circulate as widely as gold and silver coins previously did.
Because of the distinctive green ink used on the reverse of all Demand Notes, the notes were nicknamed "greenbacks". However, other U.S. government issued notes of the time such as Interest Bearing Notes and the later Legal Tender Notes, which issued in larger quantities, were also known by this nickname. The obverse of the notes contained familiar elements such as a Bald Eagle, Abraham Lincoln, and Alexander Hamilton; however, the portraits used on Demand Notes are different than the ones seen on U.S. currency today.
Demand Notes were the precursor to another class of U.S. paper money known as Legal Tender Notes. Not all Legal Tender Notes of the time, however, were redeemable in coin like Demand Notes, and thus Demand Notes took precedence. As a result, many more Demand Notes were redeemed and not many notes exist today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_Note |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
IGTG:
When are you going to tell us who runs Wikipedia?
OTOH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
IGTG:
When are you going to tell us who runs Wikipedia?
OTOH |
The Hanso Corporation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
IGTG:
When are you going to tell us who runs Wikipedia? |
The Hanso Corporation. |
What's HANSO?
Former Prince of Porn & avowedly staunch Zionist JIMMY WALES was the guy who sticks in my mind 
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2/Section_IV.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm glad you've finally let us in on the secret, and now that you have I can see where you're coming from.
If you had simply told us before you could have saved us all a lot of grief on the subject.
When one knows as much as you do, you have an ethical obligation to share it with the rest of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
As for all of the drama you raised in bringing him up: what is your point? |
May i take a stab? The term "Encyclopedia" is generally though of as being an unbiased reference tool. It's quoted from frequently on this board, and generally taken by those who quote it as being an authority on what's what. I think if it's run by a Zionist, then it may have an unstated agenda we should be aware of.
The Zionism, Israeli, Jewish, Holocaust, anti-semitism thing has incredibly strong inhibitions, taboos, (not to mention legislation) etc associated with it in the US and by reflection most other places. It contaminates 9/11 discussions, I don't know exactly why. If we are to use some reference tool to give us a zero point, or ground level, or whatever, I'd prefer it to be above the fray.
Gopher, I'm still planning to sink my teeth into that Wikpedia "conspiracy theory" definition. I think it's biased in favor of calling anything you like a conspiracy theory. Maybe I'll start a new thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
May i take a stab? The term "Encyclopedia" is generally though of as being an unbiased reference tool. It's quoted from frequently on this board, and generally taken by those who quote it as being an authority on what's what. I think if it's run by a Zionist, then it may have an unstated agenda we should be aware of.
The Zionism, Israeli, Jewish, Holocaust, anti-semitism thing has incredibly strong inhibitions, taboos, (not to mention legislation) etc associated with it in the US and by reflection most other places. It contaminates 9/11 discussions, I don't know exactly why. If we are to use some reference tool to give us a zero point, or ground level, or whatever, I'd prefer it to be above the fray.
|
I personally try not to cite wikipedia for anything other than basic, run-of-the-mill, uncontested facts. Because that's the kind of thing that people are unlikely to mess around with on an open board.
So for example, I would cite wikipedia if the topic is something like "what year was Pearl Harbor bombed?" But not for something like "Did FDR have advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbour bombing?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's all true. Jimmy Wales says he only knows English and basic German but he actually has a strong Zionist control over all 220+ languages on Wikipedia. You should see him in action when articles on the Arabic Wikipedia have sections critical of Israel; he just sweeps in there and rewrites the whole thing. The man writes a pretty mean pro-Zionist article in Estonian, and let's not even start about his Chuvash language ability. The Chuvashians didn't know what hit their Wikipedia. Bam! Jimmy Wales swooped in and it was Zionist content as far as the eye could see.
Let's check that article by IGTG:
| Quote: |
| By the way, in late October 2005 Wales twice edited his biography in Wikipedia (in direct violation of Wikipedia's own rules) to make Bomis look more "tasteful", by removing the wording which described the "Bomis Babes" section of the Bomis portal as a "pornography section" or an "erotica section", and referring to it, instead, as a "blog". |
Wrong! This is encouraged. Editing one's own page under an alias is not.
Actually, I can't go on, I feel myself getting dumber every second I spend reading the thing. These pages are everywhere though, and almost without fail they're started by a retard who decides one day they're going to go in and rewrite an article they don't like to something in tune with their opinion, and when their unsourced edits get reverted they re-revert, and re-revert again, and lo and behold get blocked. Quelle surprise. Then after the 24 hour block is over they think "time to rewrite the SAME article with the exact same edit!" Then after being blocked again, perhaps permanently, they create an anti-wikipedia page and proceed to make the world that much dumber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
May i take a stab? The term "Encyclopedia" is generally though of as being an unbiased reference tool. It's quoted from frequently on this board, and generally taken by those who quote it as being an authority on what's what. I think if it's run by a Zionist, then it may have an unstated agenda we should be aware of.
The Zionism, Israeli, Jewish, Holocaust, anti-semitism thing has incredibly strong inhibitions, taboos, (not to mention legislation) etc associated with it in the US and by reflection most other places. It contaminates 9/11 discussions, I don't know exactly why. If we are to use some reference tool to give us a zero point, or ground level, or whatever, I'd prefer it to be above the fray.
|
I personally try not to cite wikipedia for anything other than basic, run-of-the-mill, uncontested facts. Because that's the kind of thing that people are unlikely to mess around with on an open board.
So for example, I would cite wikipedia if the topic is something like "what year was Pearl Harbor bombed?" But not for something like "Did FDR have advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbour bombing?" |
Wikipedia can be used for the latter as well as long as the article has been sourced well enough. Take this one for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
This article has a total of 111 sources to back up what's written on the page, so you always know exactly why it says what it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mith:
Point taken. Although I would probably just use wiki to link to the original article, and quote that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pussinboots
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Mith:
Point taken. Although I would probably just use wiki to link to the original article, and quote that. |
Without attributing your original source? That's plagiarism!
I can't believe you'd advocate such shoddy practice on a message board that might well be being viewed by students right now! What will they think about the usual attribution standards of Western research after being exposed to your shockingly lackadaisacal attitudes?
I recollect you saying somewhere that you're from Alberta. Did you give Ralph Klein the same kind of advice? That would explain a lot.
Shame on you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well I'd be shocked if we ever see Igothisguitar linking to Wikipedia again; Now that he has so forcefully made his point I can't imagine he would be such a hypocrite as to support Zionism by reading and referring others to Wikipedia. That just wouldn't be kosher... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
