PDA

View Full Version : Bush distantly related to Kerry


trenzterra
September 7th, 2004, 20:54
Was reading Wikipedia over the last few days, and noticed this:



As a side note, the current Bush family is believed to be descended from the Spencer family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_family) that produced Diana, Princess of Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales), which would make George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) a 17th cousin to Prince William of Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_William_of_Wales). Obidiah Newcomb Bush's wife, Harriet Smith, and their descendants, are also distant cousins of John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_political_family

Interesting!
keith
September 7th, 2004, 21:25
We're all related through adam and eve.
jmiller
September 7th, 2004, 22:59
Oh yes, and we all know how accurate the Wikipedia is. :rolleyes:
trenzterra
September 7th, 2004, 23:37
Oh yes, and we all know how accurate the Wikipedia is. :rolleyes:
Very accurate, 99% of the time.
jmiller
September 8th, 2004, 01:07
Very accurate, 99% of the time.Where on earth did you pull that statistic from ?

Well, I think we all know the answer to that question. :devious2:

A source that allows random users to update definitions is *definately* not 99% accurate, that's for sure.
trenzterra
September 8th, 2004, 01:10
Where on earth did you pull that statistic from ?

Well, I think we all know the answer to that question. :devious2:

A source that allows random users to update definitions is *definately* not 99% accurate, that's for sure.The people who run Wikipedia do check for bad edits too.

I personally think its a good idea. Even encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com got some articles from Wikipedia.

BTW http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5986623 is an interesting read as well, saying why Kerry will win November's election.
tandoc
September 8th, 2004, 01:47
A source that allows random users to update definitions is *definately* not 99% accurate, that's for sure.

who cares, as long as I can list it as a source in my history essays :bandit2:
trenzterra
September 8th, 2004, 07:14
who cares, as long as I can list it as a source in my history essays :bandit2:
I used it today researching Picasso too, and added a whole lot of crap to the three pages :p.

One source - plagiarism
Many sources - research
stu
September 8th, 2004, 09:45
here's a stat for you all: stu is always 100% right!
jmiller
September 8th, 2004, 12:21
who cares, as long as I can list it as a source in my history essays :bandit2:Hah, that's fair enough.

I just don't appreciate Trenzterra making up statistics like that. :confused4
tandoc
September 9th, 2004, 00:25
i'm almost always right..

the only time i was wrong was when i thought i was wrong but was right.
trenzterra
September 9th, 2004, 01:12
Hah, that's fair enough.

I just don't appreciate Trenterra making up statistics like that. :confused4
Who is the 'Trenzterra' whom you speak of?
notnamed
September 9th, 2004, 16:36
here's a stat for you all: stu is always 100% right!

I'll just cite you in my essays then. Source: stu, master of all, commander of (__o__), etc.