Slashdot Mirror
MSN Search Roundup
Thomas Hawk writes "Well after almost 24 hours of public release, The Seattle Post Intelligencer seems to have the best round up on the professional opinions on the new MSN search beta. Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon. The story includes opinions by
Walter Mossberg,
John Battelle,
The Wall Street Journal and others.
"
©Tom Adkins - All Rights Reserved
During the 70s, liberal Democrats offered Gay America a moral escape clause, protection against scrutiny and political power. With power came a willingness to push the moral envelope. Homosexuals have always vociferously denied they have any young boy "problems". But for anyone who has bothered to investigate the homosexual world, the pressure on youth is all consuming. I had the unique experience of interviewing a politically active gay man in 1977, before politically correct lockstep dogma engulfed the American left. In a ratty little Philadelphia row home, this rare, honest and open representative from the Lesbian and Gay Alliance stated bluntly, "The most prized thing in the heterosexual world is beauty. The most prized thing in the gay world is youth. For homosexuals, there is nothing worth less than an old fag. Remember that, and you will always understand us." And so I have.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church faced a growing crisis in the 60s. Potential priests were drawn away to secular temptations. So, the church underwent a reformation, tempting priesthood candidates by easing standards. That attracted gay men. Why not? The Catholic Church offered a target-rich environment and an effective defense system for homosexual rapists. As a gay comedian once stated, "I once studied to be a priest. I'm gay - I'm Catholic - Duuuhhh" Big laughs.
Worse, the seminary has been taken over by homosexuals. In his remarkable book Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood, Michael S. Rose documents homosexual teachers professing disdain for church doctrine and preaching radical homosexual and feminist doctrine. Priests routinely pressure students for homosexual sex, often trolling gay bars in drag, returning to frolic in the seminary shower. Today, an "old homosexual boys" network dominates the religious education of new priests. Straight recruits are drummed out.
Meanwhile, the Church ignores the abuse of loyal parishioners and hides the awful truth: homosexuals have taken over a significant segment of the Catholic Church. Tales emerge daily about priests who assaulted hundreds of young boys, only to be shipped away to another unsuspecting parish. In response to this perversion of faith and flesh, the church began a policy of deny, obfuscate, guilt-trip, abuse constitutional protections, hide assets and aggressively countersue victims.
The marriage of Gay America and the Catholic Church is now consecrated. Hallelujah!
You must be trollin, if you don't see a difference between Google and ANY other search engine, you must be one of those two thirds of Bush supporters who believe Sadaam had something to do with 911.
WTF are you an idiot? What does bush have to do with ANY of this? You god damn retard. It's people like you who give me a bad taste in my mouth when I think of democrats.
And what are you talking about? Every search engine I can think of has had a plain and simple look like google does now. Shit web crawler did it long before google ever did.
Just because they've all grown into huge portals now doesn't mean they started out that way.
People who oppose Bush tend to use him as a metaphor, especially when discussing stupidity. Personally, I think he's "rural minded" but not stupid. He's probably a clever dude with some unpopular opinions (70% of non-Americans would vote Kerry). My understanding of events that led to the war in Iraq is as follows:
1. Saddam threatens to launch attacks USA over many years, mostly getting ignored, but occationally getting bombed, as a deterrant.
2. Osama bin Laden launches his terrorist attacks.
3. The country recovers, and Bush says that threats must be taken seriously.
4. Saddam (foolishly enough, some might say) continues with his threats.
5. USA decides to kill a fly with a cannon, and bombs Afghanistan back into the stone age.
6. The government pushes the terror threat, even though no intelligent terrorist (they are usually quite cunning people) would dare to launch any attack after that event.
7. The government, having created the right political climate, sees the oppurtunity to cannonball another fly and attacks Iraq with no apparent reason other than that Saddam's threats now somehow magically can be considered to be a real danger.
Obviously, I'm not too fond of the dude...
My understanding of events that led to the war in Iraq is as follows:
Your sequence isn't too bad except for the implication that #5 wasn't justified, that #6 is a very questionable assumption, and that #7 is a liberal spin of reality.
I'd modify your sequence to end with:
4. Saddam very foolishly continues with his threats.
5. USA retaliates against Afghanistan after Afghanistan refuses to cooperate with demands related to shutting down terrorists camps and turning in Bin Laden. As far as I remember no government and very few citizens of the world thought this was inappropriate.
6. The government pushes hard to address the global terrorist threat based on the rather obvious premise that if terrorists are willing to kill themselves they are not going to be deterred by the U.S. retaliating against a country.
7. The U.S., having awoken on 9/11 to realize that even 19 unarmed passengers can attack the U.S., realizes that the ongoing threats of a country that at one time had WMDs, attacked three of its neighbors, and was still under suspicion of WMD should be taken more seriously. Ultimatums are made and ignored including by the U.N. The U.N. is unwilling to act but the U.S., recently stung by what we didn't even consider a threat, decides to take no chances and deal with the problem.
It seems you have the sequence basically correct but your ultimate conclusions are affected by your political ideology.
Okay. Agreed.
5. USA retaliates against Afghanistan after Afghanistan refuses to cooperate with demands related to shutting down terrorists camps and turning in Bin Laden. As far as I remember no government and very few citizens of the world thought this was inappropriate.
There were in fact millions of people protesting about it in the streets of Europe. In the case of my country, Norway, the government decided to suck up to USA instead of listening to the people, and sent a symbolic amount of troops to Afghanistan "assist" them (Norway has a tiny army). The thing that angered people was how USA decided to take matters into it's own hands and act outside of the UN. I can perfectly understand how many Americans believe it's their country's mission to save the world. I respect that opinion. I just don't share it.
7. The U.S., having awoken on 9/11 to realize that even 19 unarmed passengers can attack the U.S., realizes that the ongoing threats of a country that at one time had WMDs, attacked three of its neighbors, and was still under suspicion of WMD should be taken more seriously. Ultimatums are made and ignored including by the U.N. The U.N. is unwilling to act but the U.S., recently stung by what we didn't even consider a threat, decides to take no chances and deal with the problem.
To my knowledge, later investigations showed the claims of Saddam having WMDs never had any truth to them. I haven't really kept updated on the situation in Brittain, but the British government is/were basically being accused of lieing about that issue, to justify assisting USA with troops. I read that one or more rather high ranking people decided to leave their government positions because of the revelations. Even if the claims of manufactured intelligence turns/turned out to be untrue, it's still poor intelligence work.
I can't say I'm convinced. I'm not a person who decides to keep an opinion simply for the sake of keeping one. Anyone who can properly clarify exactly why it was nessecary to attack Iraq will have my humble respect.
I can, in some ways, understand why Afghanistan needed to be retaliated.