|
|
|
December 21, 2006
Having my nightmare and eating it too!
Last night I had one of the worst nightmares I can ever remember having, and I'll spare the awful details, because for one thing, I just don't want to write about it. And for another, some things are a little too personal, and I while I think soul-baring is occasionally good, too much soul-baring can have an opposite effect on the soul. However, before the nightmare, I woke up and remembered the lines to a song from childhood. It's called "Gingerbread man": Gingerbread man, baked in a pan.Yeah, I know, it's out of character. But it's in season! What was really a surprise is that despite fairly diligent googling, I couldn't find the song on the Internet. A common mistake bloggers make is in thinking that because something can't be found on the Internet, it does not exist. Earlier today, I saw a classic example of this in the form of one very partisan blogger accusing another (much better, and much better known) blogger of making something up. The "proof" that he made it up was that it wasn't in Wikipedia. Now, I like Wikipedia and often use it, but I'd never state that the failure of Wikipedia to mention something meant it wasn't true. (So don't go accusing me of making up the "Gingerbread Man" song simply because the lyrics aren't to be found in Wikipedia.) Anyway, once this post is published, I will have solved the problem of not finding it on the Internet! Here's the best depiction I could find of the dilemma posed by the song:  Oh the humanity! (I'll just bet that tragic incident had something to do with dough.) posted by Eric on 12.21.06 at 04:05 PM
Comments
I don't see how you've broken a "gentlemen's agreement" unless you were part of it. And even if you were a part of it, breaking it would only mean that your status as a gentleman would be open to question, not what Wikipedia said. I like Wikipedia too, but it wouldn't be very helpful if we were all bound by a "gentlemen's agreement" not to cite it. Can you point to an actual copy of the agreement? All I could find in Wikipedia was this: A Gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement between two parties. It may be written or oral. The essence of a gentleman's agreement is that it relies upon the honour of the parties for its fulfilment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is, therefore, the opposite of a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen's_agreement No mention of not citing WIkipedia, much less of the "two parties" who agreed not to do it! Eric Scheie · December 22, 2006 10:50 AM There are enough childhood songs based on the cannibalistic aspects of eating gingerbread men that there are two possibilities about your childhood song: (1) it is a very obscure but real song that just hasn't had lyrics posted on the internet on a website searched by google, or (2) this was your own childhood variation of very-similar edible gingerbread men songs. From a quick google, here's a webpage of ginger-cannibalism holiday songs: Your song is not far removed from "ABC Gingerbread Man" and "Gingerbread Children," that I'm thinking your song was your own childhood recreation of one of those songs (with your own lyrics filling in the forgotten blanks). Rhodium Heart · December 22, 2006 01:09 PM Eric: I vaguely remember the lines: But that was a long time ago - - Charlie · December 22, 2006 02:35 PM Eric: I agree completely that the idea that I had to play by the rules of the agreement without actually signing the social compact is mind-boggling. Nevertheless, while I usually try to avoid forum arguments (because of their similarity to the Special Olympics), I was sucked into two in the last year. In one instance, I used Wikipedia to prove that net neutrality wasn't the law in America today. In another, I used Wikipedia to show the outcomes of several races prior to 1964 for President (I was trying to prove that many people voted for and against Goldwater because of his stand on military issues). In both cases, I was berated for using Wikipedia, which was so obviously a flawed source that it was akin to simply making up data to support my argument. Maddening, especially considering the US Presidential races. What are the odds that those are significantly wrong, exactly? Again, all I can say is, maddening. Jon Thompson · December 22, 2006 05:31 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I love wikipedia, and I actually hate how often people slam it. No, it isn't even close to perfect, but it is a wonderful resource for beginning research or corroborating information. However, whenever I link to wikipedia, people who disagree claim I am breaking the gentlemen's agreement not to use wikipedia to get information out there.