Yeah he had one joke last night I thought was funny.

  He says edwards was caught by reporters at two in the morning at the hotel after being with the woman.  Reporters were waiting!  That's where edwards went wrong.  He should have met his mistress at the hotel where McCain is staying because there are no reporters there!

The link to your actual comment is here.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

I highly recommend that you don't waste your time reading Abe_Jefferson's shouting rant in response to PT.  I have taken the time to read through every one of PT's links (Note to AJ: a list that has entries indented with a dash in front of it denotes a subordinate article, or in your terminology, "a repeat").  AJ shouts:

"You attempt to take down GW by listing a hand full of articles that contradict it.  As if that's enough to repudiate the 1000's of legitimate studies and articles testifying to the existence of man made GW."

Is your bias showing, AJ? 

Moving on, it is interesting that, according to The Faith Based Encyclopedia (not a religious oriented encyclopedia),

 

"As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date or incorrect information to be posted. However, because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually corrected quickly. Thus the overall accuracy of the encyclopedia is improving all the time as it attracts more and more contributors. You are encouraged to help by correcting articles and passing on your own knowledge." 

One person's "knowledge," unfortunately, may be another's ignorance. To put the Wikipedia method in its simplest terms:

 

1. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can submit an article and it will be published.

2. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can edit that article, and the modifications will stand until further modified.

 

Then comes the crucial and entirely faith-based step:

 

3. Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy...

...Take the statements of faith in the efficacy of collaborative editing, replace the shibboleth "community" with the banal "committee," and the surprise dissolves before your eyes. Or, if you are of a statistical turn of mind, think a little about regression to the mean and the shape of the normal distribution curve. However closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler.

In actuality, the articles referenced by PT are very informative.  They point out how entries can be manipulated, as referenced by another commenter, Foolican, who earlier stated he was a former wikipedia editor, who said:  "And don't even get me started on global warming. Shock-jock climatologist William Connolley is the greatest example of agenda-driven policy."

Just a few short eye opening examples, with links to some of the articles mentioned by PT (the words under the links have no particular significance, I just wanted to make sure the link got in there- I highly recommend reading this series of articles by Lawrence Solomon- they explain a lot regarding the process that would also relate to the John Edwards hoo ha):

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don't suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet's cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. “Do you really believe in Martians?” I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington event. The answer was “No.”
Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by painting him as a political partisan and someone who “is best known as president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax.”...

Wait- it gets better, more from the same article:

Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however — often just minutes — before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site. Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters by the dozens have been likewise demeaned — to check for yourself, just look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

And the piece de resistance (any misspelling is purely intentional):

Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate...

But Connolley is a big shot on Wikipedia, which honours him with an extensive biography, an honour Wikipedia did not see fit to bestow on his boss at the British Antarctic Survey. Or on his boss's's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss's boss, none of whose opinions seemingly count for much, despite their impressive accomplishments. William Connolley's opinions, in contrast, count for a great deal at Wikipedia, even though some might not think them particularly worthy of note. "It is his view that there is a consensus in the scientific community about climate change topics such as global warming, and that the various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarize this consensus," states his Wikipedia page, in the section called "Biography." ...

Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds -- in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley's supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process....

I apologize for the lengthy cut & paste job, but the depth of the corruption of integrity was unknown to me prior to this.  Read PT's reference links and your time will be rewarded.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com