Comments on: Venezuela: Wikipedia Page on Chavez http://globalvoicesonline.org/2006/01/11/venezuela-wikipedia-page-on-chavez/ The world is talking. Are you listening? Sat, 26 May 2012 18:07:22 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Asha Nair http://globalvoicesonline.org/2006/01/11/venezuela-wikipedia-page-on-chavez/comment-page-1/#comment-22466 Asha Nair Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:07:53 +0000 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/01/11/venezuela-wikipedia-page-on-chavez/#comment-22466 Catherine, maybe you don't spent a minute to try rescue your country, so keep running your "rolling-eyes-smilies" observations and let patriots spent A LIFE in fighting. Fight that means, between others, try to demonstrate that an encyclopedia call Head of State is a ruthless dictator, and "fascists" the followers; it's a matter of hypocrisy or realism, don't you get the point? Do you noticed that chavism got only the 10-15% of votes (approx 1-2 millions AND the 15 agust 2004 got 6 millions? In the Chavez's word "It's a catastrophe!" WAKE-UP, read more, roll-eyes less, b.y.p. for my english. Catherine, maybe you don’t spent a minute to try rescue your country, so keep running your “rolling-eyes-smilies” observations and let patriots spent A LIFE in fighting.

Fight that means, between others, try to demonstrate that an encyclopedia call Head of State is a ruthless dictator, and “fascists” the followers; it’s a matter of hypocrisy or realism, don’t you get the point?

Do you noticed that chavism got only the 10-15% of votes (approx 1-2 millions AND the 15 agust 2004 got 6 millions? In the Chavez’s word “It’s a catastrophe!”

WAKE-UP, read more, roll-eyes less, b.y.p. for my english.

]]> By: Catherine http://globalvoicesonline.org/2006/01/11/venezuela-wikipedia-page-on-chavez/comment-page-1/#comment-22427 Catherine Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:47:43 +0000 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/01/11/venezuela-wikipedia-page-on-chavez/#comment-22427 First of all I'm shocked that he spent over a year on this (what's his day job?). Second, it's obvious that he does not want an "impartial" article at all. He's not upset over it being biased; he just wants it biased in his favor. (Where's the rolling-eyes smiley when you need it?) First of all I’m shocked that he spent over a year on this (what’s his day job?). Second, it’s obvious that he does not want an “impartial” article at all. He’s not upset over it being biased; he just wants it biased in his favor. (Where’s the rolling-eyes smiley when you need it?)

]]>