Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. Boilerplate Activism
ArmorFiend writes with this NYTimes article which "details the efforts of journalists to discern real reader-written letters from boilerplate form letters. Seems like there should be a centralized searchable DB of letters to the editor."
frost spit
f|r5t p057
yo
...blehg
BANG
w.0`0t
What? *BSD is dying????
in Soviet Canada posts third you!
here's a username for this site:
username = username17
password = password
last post!
I had no idea that I had to REGISTER to read an NYTimes article. NOBODY has ever pointed that out before. If you had put something like (free reg. blah blah) after the article, I would have thought to my self, "Oh! I have to register.". But you didn't! ........
Seriously, thanks for not mentioning for the 10^n'th time that NYTimes requires free registration. I think we've all figured it out by now.
While the New York Times needs no introduction, I do want to state that I recommend that we develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to teach odious half-wits about tolerance. I will start this discussion by arguing that the New York Times has shown it's not afraid to be cranky. Then, I will present evidence that if you read between the lines of the New York Times's perversions, you'll indisputably find that I am tired of hearing or reading that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. You know that that is simply not true. Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with homicidal, soporific psychopaths on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. I need your help if I'm ever to spread the word about the New York Times's depraved ethics to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, if we are powerless to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different types of prodigal, impetuous blackguardism, it is because we have allowed the New York Times to steal our birthrights.
Is this anything other than daft onanism? The answer is obvious if you happen to notice that I cannot promise not to be angry at the New York Times. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads the New York Times -- to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its crafty views. Viewed from all angles, if the New York Times wants to provide cover for a malign, sententious agenda, let it wear the opprobrium of that decision. There are those who are informed and educated about the evils of jingoism, and there are those who are not. The New York Times is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why all the deals it makes are strictly one-way. The New York Times gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Even giving the New York Times the benefit of the doubt, its immoral, wild inclinations leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children the New York Times's enemies? It's an interesting question, and its examination will help us understand how the New York Times's policies work. Let me start by providing evidence that the New York Times just keeps on saying, "We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to ignore compromise and focus solely on its personal agenda."
What I want to document now is that if the New York Times can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by the New York Times and its foot soldiers. While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, I shall not argue that the New York Times's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of its plan to infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. Read them and see for yourself. The New York Times has been trying for some time to convince people that its catch-phrases are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Don't believe its hype! The New York Times has just been offering that line as a means to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor vigilantism. Still, the issue of what to do about the New York Times's slatternly editorials is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on this controversial issue.
Why are they only mentioning that generally conservative groups are using this tactic? Could it be because liberal groups don't need to write letters, because the NYT already presents their views? True, they do mention "the other side", but not until paragraph 14, whereas the RNC and PP are mentioned in paragraph 2.
I've seen "preprogrammed letters" to congressmen or news organizations on a variety of issues, and with views throughout the range of the political spectrum. Why would they single out the RNC and PP? Just curious.
There are so amny ways that one can phrase "fuck you". I know. I've tried.
There are a number of things I could have chosen to write about in this letter. I could have chosen to write about how it does not require a Sherlock Holmes to prove that Pres. George W. Bush must have known that his effusions would cause high levels of outrage and would generate many letters in response (like this one). Or I might have chosen to write something about the way that his assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are held. But, instead, I've decided to devote this entire letter to explaining how George has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to diabolism and irrationalism, that he wants to stand in the way of progress. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest.
There is something patently incomprehensible in the notion that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that if, five years ago, I had described a person like George to you and told you that in five years, he'd treat people like splenetic politicos, you'd have thought me crass. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he is unable to remove his mental shackles. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How will his chums react when they discover that he wants to suppress controversy and debate? A clue might be that when he says that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. Looking at it another way, George keeps trying to meddle in everyone else's affairs. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will unmistakably succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with inconsiderate used-car salesmen, George's foot soldiers, or anyone else who fails to realize that George has, at times, called me "insidious" or "vile". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations.
It's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to restore the world back to its original balance. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. To say anything else would be a lie. Please don't ask me to establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. I simply can't do that.
Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is George so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that George claims that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. It seems to me that he is both heartless and unsympathetic. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. To conclude, Pres. George W. Bush preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from his own.
i dunno, most script trolls identify themselves as such.
I just heard the sad news on $MEDIA_OUTLET, $SUPERLATIVES Stephen * was found dead in $LOCATION at his $HOME.<P>
$DETAILS<P>
I'm sure everyone in the $COMMUNITY will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy $WORK, there's no denying his contributions to $FIELD.
Truly a $NATIONALITY $SUPERLATIVE.
This template is released under the BSD license.
The final release of Opera 7 will be on Tuesday.
CNET News has the story here
Are you this guy by any chance?
If you don't think that I unquestionably find that pauperism-oriented couch potatoes are no different from the most dotty spivs you'll ever see, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. By refusing to act, by refusing to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, we are giving Google the power to inaugurate an era of high-handed, fastidious Pyrrhonism. Google managed to convince a bunch of venal slubberdegullions to help it encourage people to leave their spouses, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become vindictive dolts. What was the quid pro quo there? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that I find that some of its choices of words in its hastily mounted campaigns would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "bestial" for "photodisintegration" and "narrow-minded" for "phytopaleontological." I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but Google claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Google's functionaries. The truth is that in Google's jibes, favoritism is witting and unremitting, virulent and simple-minded. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. After having read this, you may think that the cliches of Google's cop-outs are well-known to us all. Nevertheless, you should always remember that what really gets my goat is knowing that being shielded from the consequences of its bad judgment and bad behavior has made Google careless.
--
kvetch, kvetch, kvetch
HERE, & there, buy Godless phonIE payper liesense peddling whoredoggIEs, from the fuddles&fudstorm annex of the evile kingdumb. EVERie daze, for OVER 4 years now. EVERY day, ALL day. the chaNT gooes on: "fud is gooed, nothing else matters". all day, EVERY DAY. that's just on the NYT(TMp). yuk.
U TF -8&q=microsoft+%22bill+weisgerber%22&btnG=Google+S earch
billwg - 10:00pm Jan 27, 2003 EST (# 6195 of 6200)
So you are saying the Office API's design is inherently insecure?
I am saying that the Office API's design is inherently open to anyone who wants to use it to customize their personal use of MS Office. That allows them or their chosen supplier(s) to make calls that can automatically e-mail information to preset addresses or lists. If the user is tricked into running a rogue program, the rogue program will have access to the same APIs and that is the mechanism that the script hackers use to send these mis-named viruses through the e-mail network. They are really mail bombs that do something destructive when inadvertently run by the unaware user.
I think that the APIs are useful things that cannot be secured without losing their utility. What do you think should be done about that? Curse Microsoft for providing them in the first place? That seems to be the choice of the anti-MS crowd, but they are gaggling geese with little to recommend them.
With that number in mind, it should be clear why linux is eating Unix' lunch first. One, MS doesn't get that lunch. Two... by the time linux is done with that it will be an 8000 lb gorrilla. MS's air supply will be in jeapordy.
Amusing, if you have little taste and less alternatives, but if you check the financials, MSFT doesn't seem to be missing any lunch at all. The total annual inventory of the Linux food hamper is about 1/10 th of a single day's ration for Mr. Softee and that may very well be less than what they throw to the pigeons for their own amusment. A gorilla would surely starve on such a ration. It seems as if the European versions of the linux monkey have already been reduced to mostly skin and bone and are in the processes of checking out of the game.
If Linux on Intel can do what people are using Solaris on Sparc to do, for a tenth the cost (literally!), excuse me, but Linux is SUPPOSED to win! If I miss Solaris (and I will), that's secondary.
Surely that cannot be the case! But if it were, what reason would anyone have for not selecting Windows more often than even now? What is it that people think needs doing that Windows doesn't already do?
since maybe 20% of the people have taken it upon themselves to use Linux or Max OS X.
Who are "the people"? One out of 5 at your company? In the real world, it's more like 1 out of 100 (if we accept the Google count) or 1 out of 400 (wherever that click site is). Linux can grow to 1 out of 10 and not really affect Microsoft's business. Certainly even I don't expect Microsoft Windows to have it ALL. But Microsoft vs whatever's in second place (currently Macintosh OS9) is an incredibly strong winner.
Why my feeling of relief and predicting MS's demise. Clearly I may be wrong over all. But the feeling of confidence comes from the fact that Linux has checked Windows encrouchment on the server.
Where has that happened? Last count MS was actually growing faster in absolute (unit) terms than Unix/Linux although their percentage is swamped by their already high share. I would rather think that such a sharp decline in available case, which translates into layoffs for the Unix developers at Sun and such, which translates into less of an inclination to help out the open source cause and more of an inclination to find a new job, would weaken the future capabilty of linux to match the continuing evolution of Windows.
--
to read moron ?dr? weisgerber's ?work?:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=
--
look for: va.msn.?net? ticker (VAST)?
lookout bullow. the WINds of (small) change are howling at the gates, again.