Then please enlighten us. We can only take your comments on face value. If we don’t understand what you’re trying to say it’s because you aren’t expressing yourself.

BTW, I posted this, not John.

You’re the one throwing insults around. Where in any of my comments did I insult you? Your childish behavior only makes you the one looking stupid.

So, back to your original comment:

“Wikipedia has no profit to lose. Does this now put Google in a better light? It does for me. ”

Please explain what you really mean and I will be more than happy to address that point. Since I wasn’t able to get it the first time please explain your point clearly so I don’t miss it this time.

In this discussion I have leaned to your side while disagreeing with several people. Several others have also leaned in your direction. Now, why would you be upset that not everyone agrees with you. Even if I don’t agree, there have been several questions posed or thoughts brought up that are very worthy of discussion.

The greatest joy in these discussions shouldn’t be winning the argument. It should be in the learning from what others have to add to the discussion. Not every idea will be a gem, but there are enough to make it worth the effort.

John makes himself look even stupider yet by basing his response on what I think, which he can’t know.

“Milo you are so smart! Yes you are! Coochy coochy coo! Yes you are smart! My big smart fella! Coochy coochy coo! Of course it puts google in a better light! I will say whatever makes my special little fella happy! Coochy coochy coo! woogy woogy!”

John

Yes, that is the American way. Things like Haliburton, under Dick Cheney, selling nuclear technology to Iran, or IT&T financing the overthrow of a democratically elected President to save the copper mines, or the United Fruit Company paying private armies to kill labor leaders on the Central American banana plantations. Yup, if there is profit, look for an American company to be there.

Maybe most shareholders care, but believe it or not, that doesn’t count. Most shares are controlled by brokers and portfolio managers. They are the ones caring about the bottom line and their reaction is reflected in the stock’s price. So while you are your $50,000 of Google stock is important to you, the fund with $5,000,000,000 gets the attention. And most people keep their stock portfolios invested inside high performing funds.

Google wasn’t even publically traded (2004) when they started compromising western ideals in China. BUT in January 2006 when the censorship was brought to light, the stock dropped 20% and is only recently recovering to the January share price.

“…but granted, it didn’t really add anything to the discussion, but who [sic] does?”

The comments that weren’t deleted.

I commend Wikipedia for standing up to the censorship issues, but obviously Dvorak.org would rather censor their posts. My post didn’t use any bad language, nor was it inaccurate…but granted, it didn’t really add anything to the discussion, but who does? Bravo Wikipedia, shame on you Dvorak.org

Nope, sorry. One doesn’t get a dispensation from hypocrisy because money is an issue. True, Wikipedia has more leeway because they are not chasing revenue, but they are risking being banned from China.