Skip to main content

Would YOU rely almost exclusively on Wikipedia to prove your claims?

Secular koranism was invented by Claire Khaw in 2009. Despite its 15 years in existence, Microsoft's "Copilot", the software giant's newly developed AI companion, was perhaps not the most flattering when asked about "secular koranism" this week The last in October 2023) ......

or, because of her past associations and activities, about Claire Khaw herself. The AI brought up her BNP past and promptly dispensed with it returning this answer:

Claire Khaw ALWAYS, without fail, uses Wikipedia (unless quoting one of her miscreant acolyte's personal blogs) as her source to back up her claims. Bear in mind Wikipedia themselves (rather ironically, I'm using a Wikipedia link myself below, although in fairness, Wikipedia rightly do not allow these two pages to be edited by the public!) issue two warning about using them as a reference, which are reproduced here. I have concluded that this is because there are no other validated, reliable sources available to back up many of her claims.

No, that's not what Wikipedia themselves say Claire! Why not fact check things yourself Claire Khaw! You are the one mkaing the outlandish claims all the time! And if you have to head off somewhere else to check it, as you perhaps suggest, surely it would be simpler and more ethical/moral go to the authoritative source in the first place!

The first two screen grabs here are as recent as 28 Oct 23, despite having been telling her for a year or more about the reliability of using Wikipedia as a verifiable and recognised source of proof for a claim, But she will not listen. This is rather strange for someone who claims to be a legally-qualified (honours degree non-practising barrister) moralist, a psychologist, a scientist, a philosopher and a political campaigner, all on top of being "the most theologically knowledgable person in the West, if not the whole wide world" (see How indeed?)

 Some of the claims she has made that she uses Wikipedia to back her up.






Remember, she claims to be a legally-qualified (honours degree non-practising barrister) moralist, a psychologist, a scientist, a philosopher and a political campaigner, all on top of being "the most theologically knowledgable person in the West, if not the whole wide world" (see How indeed?) yet relies so heavily on Wikipedia as her source.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why does Claire Khaw idolise the terrorists Hamas with her sheer fiction and yet has NEVER condemned them?

Before starting this, I remind you that Claire Khaw professes to be, " A psychologist, a legally-qualified moralist, a scientist, a philosopher and the most theologically knowledgable person in the West if not in the whole wide world". All the evidence presented below is either from her own timeline/offensive antisemitic blog, or from freely available authoritative (unlike Claire Khaw who only uses Wikipedia) sources. It is worth noting the words  legally-qualified moralist above in the context that since the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7th October (it is now 28 Nov - 7 WEEKS since) NOT ONCE has Claire Khaw called out the atrocity, admitted that Hamas are terrorists or offered/shown the slightest sympathy for the 1,400 Israeli brutally murdered, or acknowledge that the Hamas Charter, which is accessible everywhere on the Internet, is acknowledged worldwide as calling for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. And she had the bare-faced nerve to post this o

What sort of a chap is her buddy boy Vincent Bruno?

Let's start with potentially one of the most offensive reposts on Facebook during 2023. No contra argument from Claire Khaw, bearing in mind she is quick to remind everyone that she is a legally-qualified moralist, psychologist, scientist, philosopher and political campaigne r , all on top of being "the most theologically knowledgable person in the West, if not the whole wide world. Would you post this abhorrence on your timeline, irrespective of your delusional claims made above? This is not the behaviour of a normal, sentient and caring human being. It is deeply inhumane, Hitlerian and antisocial. But Claire Khaw simply cannot herself see how deeply offensive and immoral it is. So what he is saying, and to which Claire Khaw concurs, is that these wonderful kids should have been  terminated before age 11. I find that so incredibly barbaric and would like to think of it as a justifiable jailable offence. I had a second-cousin who was severly mentally handicapped and who passe

What sort of "thing" at all is this secular koranism nonsense?

DISCLAIMER: I am deeply indebted to the "fully-qualified", "experienced", "professorial adademics" and a "working legal eagle" all of whom, in their professional capacities (apologies, no names for obvious reasons) have given up their time to concur fully with my observances based solely on the facts and evidence (all obtained through Claire Khaw's own postings) that I have gathered. It has not been my intention in any way to do so, but there is nothing libelous or defamatory within this series of exposé blogs. It is all simply fully evidence-based, with reasonable conclusions drawn on what I have observed, to demonstrate the utter, blatant, disingenuousness of secular koranism and its inventor. To paraphrase Thomas Edison   "This is something already in existence, just vapidly repurposed as something else, but as a something else no one needs or wants, that doesn't, and will never, work and is otherwise a creative act of misa