Magic of Biology

[dnl]

I looked at some of my last post here and wanted to answer some but i dint want to drag up all those dead topics so here we are first one:

I think you're getting your information from those crazy web-ads. There's a few rather disreputable organizations marketing "myostatin-blocker" dietary supplements. They base their claims on some preliminary research that myostatin deficiency is correllated with unusually extensive muscle growth (in cattle, incidentally). There is a slight correllation between myostatin deficiency and increased muscular development in humans, but nothing even remotely conclusive. The medical community is looking at this as a possible cure for certain ailments, most notably muscle atrophy in geriatric patients. However, the myostatin-blocker ads are completely bogus. Don't believe them. It's people out to make a quick buck, and dash. (And if you know anybody who's thinking about actually buying this stuff, keep in mind that if you get really lucky, whatever you receive will be merely a placebo and won't actually be harmful -- When buying stuff on the internet, buyer beware).

No, I don't read those silly adds. [url/]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin [/url] Bow down to the great wiki god!!!!!

I have decide, I was only going to answer that one for now and instead of answering multiply questions. I'm going to make a complete autonomy of a werewolf and point out how much of this is possibly. I should have it done by next week but is there anyone by chance that has any questions they would like to see answered besides the few I'm going to do?

[TakeWalker]

I hate to argue alongside the point, but the fact is Wikipedia is hardly a scholarly source. Anyone can edit or create a page that says anything they want. Thus, information such as what you've attempted to link to must be taken with a grain of salt. I use Wiki myself for less important things -- pop culture references, mostly -- but I would never, say, allow a student to cite it in a paper. It's simply untrustworthy.

Now, if you, say, linked to one of the sources Wikipedia uses in the article (which I have not, by the way, looked at), it might have a greater impact on your argument.

[Morkulv]

[dnl]

yea, so your saying just because wiki can be edited by anyone that it's not truest worth. I hear a lot of teachers say that but just too let you know that your logic is flawed and unimportant to this thread.


P.S. just a side not a lot of the younger teachers are fine with using it...Just a side note that I noticed.

Also since many of the people who would vandal's a wiki page are teens many of the scientific pages are far more reliably than any on pop culture.

[JoshuaMadoc]

yea, so your saying just because wiki can be edited by anyone that it's not truest worth. I hear a lot of teachers say that but just too let you know that your logic is flawed and unimportant to this thread.


P.S. just a side not a lot of the younger teachers are fine with using it...Just a side note that I noticed.

Also since many of the people who would vandal's a wiki page are teens many of the scientific pages are far more reliably than any on pop culture.

That's a very arrogant remark. Had you said it differently i would've taken back my word.

[camkitsune]

Don't they have people to double-check stuff, though? I'd think that if a bunch of misleading/bogus information were placed on a Wiki page, they'd have people to take it out. Because obviously if you can't trust it, there's no point in using it, and if there's no point in using it people will stop doing so (At least in theory.)

[RedEye]

The people who do the double checking are the people who disagree with what's been written. Sometimes they learn something, sometimes the Wiki is in error and corrected...
and sometimes people who think "it cann'a be so!" make changes that flow with their beliefs, not hard truth (if there is such a thing).
The Wiki IS a superb reference work, but as with any reference works, never assume it to be totally right or completely wrong.
Always double or triple check!
Now, as to what this has to do with Werewolves...Me not knowzit.
Probably, this thread needs to be relocated.
Other than No werewolf would ever use 'statin drugs, since they cause a loss of all bodily fur in Werewolves.

[dnl]

yea, so your saying just because wiki can be edited by anyone that it's not truest worth. I hear a lot of teachers say that but just too let you know that your logic is flawed and unimportant to this thread.


P.S. just a side not a lot of the younger teachers are fine with using it...Just a side note that I noticed.

Also since many of the people who would vandal's a wiki page are teens many of the scientific pages are far more reliably than any on pop culture.

That's a very arrogant remark. Had you said it differently i would've taken back my word.

I don't plan on on change what I said anywhere in the near future and you can keep you word's. Not that you posted anything in this thread?

[RedEye]

Come on, People! Let's not get ruffled over a difference of opinion.

[JoshuaMadoc]

I don't plan on on change what I said anywhere in the near future and you can keep you word's. Not that you posted anything in this thread?

haha what

You're not my stepdad. GTFO.

[STARWOLF_THE_MYSTIC]

Come on, People! Let's not get ruffled over a difference of opinion.

Yeah, don't make me get Figarou and his RDG, (Rubber Duckie Gun).

[dnl]

I don't plan on on change what I said anywhere in the near future and you can keep you word's. Not that you posted anything in this thread?

haha what

You're not my stepdad. GTFO.

Now I'm confused why are you even posting here...So far all of your posts seem pretty random?

[Scott Gardener]

Reliability of Wikipedia:

I feel the lack of reliability is over-rated; for the most part, the fact-checking oversight has made Wikipedia a remarkably reliable and well-documented phenomenon, and I'd certainly consider it far more reliable than many of the sources we routinely use for information already, such as word of mouth from friends or many of the media outlets, which lack the objectivity of people from more than one country reading and contributing. (I'm in the U.S., and Fox News has gained legendary status for allegedly slanting facts pertaining to the Iraq War and overall presentation of the conflicts in a manner favoring the Bush Administration. Sometimes I go to BBC news to find out about world events, because they'll cover events that American media ignores or underplays, like the terrible events in Darfur.) Wikipedia is a global phenomenon. (Admittedly, most of us, myself included, are only familiar with the English articles. Some of you are bilingual or trilingual and may also read articles in your native or second language. Still, having people in the U.S., U.K., Australia, and other places helps improve variety of perspectives--it's one of the nice things about The Pack, too, and the Internet in general.)