It's so easy to use and very informative.
I'm re reading The Da Vinci Code because the movie is due out soon. It's surprising the results that you get bu looking up items in the book.
For example, did you know that you can buy a cryptex online?
Does anyone else use Wikipedia a lot?
Take care,
Gordon.
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
-
gordonartist
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:55 pm
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
I've read the Da Vinci Code, it is pretty good, but don't plan to see the movie probably. My daughter will though, and is reading my copy of the book now. She will give me a good review-if she is watching the movie and not her boyfriend!
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
Ha-ha-we would pile up the car with 5-6 girls, and go to the drive-in. We were never in the car! Strolling up and down the rows, talking to friends, flirting. And if you went with your boyfriend........................
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
Drive in Movies were big in my day...guess what they are coming back in a big way 
Oh and yes Wikipedia is very cool..
Oh and yes Wikipedia is very cool..
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
Can't understand the fuss about the Da Vinci Code. It's plagiarised and badly plotted. Dan whatsits too full of his own importance to bother about writing a well-crafted story. didn't bother reading his second book because my old man did and said it was the same as the first.
And it's not going to destroy the Church.
And it's not going to destroy the Church.
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
gordonartist wrote: It's so easy to use and very informative.
I'm re reading The Da Vinci Code because the movie is due out soon. It's surprising the results that you get bu looking up items in the book.
For example, did you know that you can buy a cryptex online?
Does anyone else use Wikipedia a lot?
Take care,
Gordon.
:wah: I did the exact same thing when reading The Da Vinci Code
I'm re reading The Da Vinci Code because the movie is due out soon. It's surprising the results that you get bu looking up items in the book.
For example, did you know that you can buy a cryptex online?
Does anyone else use Wikipedia a lot?
Take care,
Gordon.
:wah: I did the exact same thing when reading The Da Vinci Code
-
chrisb84uk
- Posts: 11634
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:29 am
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
I think that Wikipedia is a really good site, it certainly has a lot of informative things on there that have really helped me learn a lot, since I first found it.
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
Tigerlily wrote: Can't understand the fuss about the Da Vinci Code. It's plagiarised and badly plotted. Dan whatsits too full of his own importance to bother about writing a well-crafted story. didn't bother reading his second book because my old man did and said it was the same as the first.
And it's not going to destroy the Church.
I read the Da Vinci Code and enjoyed it - I cannot comment on the information content as I don't have enough background knowledge but I did enjoy it as a story.
I then followed it up with Digital Fortress. Unfortunately I do know something about computers, codes, cyphers and the like and the author obvoiusly didn't. The holes in the plot ruined any possible enjoyment from the story - it made me wonder if the Da Vinci Code was similarly flawed.
One thing that does make me laugh is the sudden spate of people who are treating the Da Vinci Code as if it's a leaned treatise and meant to be the truth.
It's a work of fiction written as a novel with the "facts" adjusted to suit the storyline.
And it's not going to destroy the Church.
I read the Da Vinci Code and enjoyed it - I cannot comment on the information content as I don't have enough background knowledge but I did enjoy it as a story.
I then followed it up with Digital Fortress. Unfortunately I do know something about computers, codes, cyphers and the like and the author obvoiusly didn't. The holes in the plot ruined any possible enjoyment from the story - it made me wonder if the Da Vinci Code was similarly flawed.
One thing that does make me laugh is the sudden spate of people who are treating the Da Vinci Code as if it's a leaned treatise and meant to be the truth.
It's a work of fiction written as a novel with the "facts" adjusted to suit the storyline.
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
Bryn Mawr, my comment about plagiarism was based on the fact that I read all the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail stuff they first time round, but the authors there never pretended it was anything other than speculation. It was extremely well-written.
I have a very well developed plot-sense, if that's what it's called, and the Da Vinci Code is full of descriptions of actions that don't gel. People run through doors followed by other people and don't shut the door behind them - to name one irritating example of many. They don't take elementary precautions while supposedly super-intelligent. The characters come across as idiots and I remember feeling that the end was a massive anti-climax.
I have a very well developed plot-sense, if that's what it's called, and the Da Vinci Code is full of descriptions of actions that don't gel. People run through doors followed by other people and don't shut the door behind them - to name one irritating example of many. They don't take elementary precautions while supposedly super-intelligent. The characters come across as idiots and I remember feeling that the end was a massive anti-climax.
I've grown very fond if Wikipedia.
Tigerlily wrote: Bryn Mawr, my comment about plagiarism was based on the fact that I read all the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail stuff they first time round, but the authors there never pretended it was anything other than speculation. It was extremely well-written.
At least that was proposing a serious theory - if speculative. The DVC is purely written as a novel not to be mistaken for fact
Tigerlily wrote: I have a very well developed plot-sense, if that's what it's called, and the Da Vinci Code is full of descriptions of actions that don't gel. People run through doors followed by other people and don't shut the door behind them - to name one irritating example of many. They don't take elementary precautions while supposedly super-intelligent. The characters come across as idiots and I remember feeling that the end was a massive anti-climax.
Ah - I missed things like that. My objections to Digital Fortress were technical but so much so that I couldn't enjoy the plot at all.
At least that was proposing a serious theory - if speculative. The DVC is purely written as a novel not to be mistaken for fact
Tigerlily wrote: I have a very well developed plot-sense, if that's what it's called, and the Da Vinci Code is full of descriptions of actions that don't gel. People run through doors followed by other people and don't shut the door behind them - to name one irritating example of many. They don't take elementary precautions while supposedly super-intelligent. The characters come across as idiots and I remember feeling that the end was a massive anti-climax.
Ah - I missed things like that. My objections to Digital Fortress were technical but so much so that I couldn't enjoy the plot at all.