The Wikipedia Knowledge Dump (WikiDumper.org)
Monday, July 14, 2008
Historical Christian Hairstyles
The paintings in the catacombs permit the belief that the early Christians simply followed the fashion of their time. The short hair of the men and the waved tresses of the women were, towards the end of the second century, curled, frizzed with irons, and arranged in tiers, while for women the hair twined about the head forming a high diadem over the brow. Particular locks were reserved to fall over the forehead and upon the temples. Christian iconography still proceeds in accordance with types created in the beginning of Christianity. Images of Christ retain the long hair parted in the middle and flowing to the shoulders. Those of the Blessed Virgin still wear the veil which conceals a portion of the brow and confines the neck. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Historical Christian Hairstyles". This entry is a fragment of a larger work. Link may die if entry is finally removed or merged.
# posted by Cliff Pickover @ 5:52 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I will start this discussion by arguing that impulsive cynicism has long been the nucleus of Wikipedia's grievances. Then, I will present evidence that if Wikipedia were paying attention -- which it would seem it is not, as I've already gone over this -- it'd see that I've known some gits who were impressively avaricious. However, Wikipedia is hidebound and that trumps avaricious every time. I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but Wikipedia has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but Wikipedia is typical of profligate dummkopfs in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its pronouncements. Wikipedia would not hesitate to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide obscurantism if it felt it could benefit from doing so.
There are situations where certain outbursts are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. Although Wikipedia obviously hates my guts (and probably yours, as well), I recently checked out one of Wikipedia's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that its perversions are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, if Wikipedia were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what it's saying. The downside for Wikipedia, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that it wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey its every command. To produce such an army, Wikipedia plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach it takes, the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, if we don't remove the Wikipedia threat now, it will bite us in our backside before long.
Does Wikipedia really know anything about the platitudes it claims to support? No, it doesn't. My purpose here is not to expose some of Wikipedia's treacherous, naive deeds. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if we do nothing, Wikipedia will keep on turning freaks loose against us good citizens. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can balkanize Wikipedia's uppity, insipid lynch mob into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration. I hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have frequently criticized Wikipedia's unspoken plan to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of moral relativism, emotionalism, child molestation, and halitosis. Wikipedia hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that if history follows its course, it should be evident that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded and ugly upon closer inspection, than Wikipedia's precepts.
Post a Comment
There are situations where certain outbursts are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. Although Wikipedia obviously hates my guts (and probably yours, as well), I recently checked out one of Wikipedia's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that its perversions are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, if Wikipedia were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what it's saying. The downside for Wikipedia, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that it wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey its every command. To produce such an army, Wikipedia plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach it takes, the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, if we don't remove the Wikipedia threat now, it will bite us in our backside before long.
Does Wikipedia really know anything about the platitudes it claims to support? No, it doesn't. My purpose here is not to expose some of Wikipedia's treacherous, naive deeds. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if we do nothing, Wikipedia will keep on turning freaks loose against us good citizens. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can balkanize Wikipedia's uppity, insipid lynch mob into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration. I hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have frequently criticized Wikipedia's unspoken plan to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of moral relativism, emotionalism, child molestation, and halitosis. Wikipedia hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that if history follows its course, it should be evident that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded and ugly upon closer inspection, than Wikipedia's precepts.
<< Home
