Slashdot Mirror
Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All
An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times Magazine has an insightful article putting into words how I've felt about information-age culture for a while now. It's about a phenomenon dubbed the "loser edit." The term itself was born out of reality TV — once an outcome had been decided while the show was still taping, the producers would comb back through the footage and selectively paste together everything that seemed to foreshadow the loser's fall. When the show actually aired, it thus had an easy-to-follow narrative.
But as the information age has overtaken us, the "loser edit" is something that can happen to anyone. Any time a celebrity gets into trouble, we can immediately search through two decades of interviews and offhand comments to see if there were hints of their impending fall. It usually becomes a self-reinforcing chain of evidence. The loser edit happens for non-celebrities too, using their social media posts, public records, leaked private records, and anything else available through search.
The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame. The news media does it, the entertainment industry does it, and we do it to ourselves. Any time the internet gets outraged about something, there are a few people who happily dig up everything they can about the person they now feel justified in hating — and thus, the loser edit begins.
But as the information age has overtaken us, the "loser edit" is something that can happen to anyone. Any time a celebrity gets into trouble, we can immediately search through two decades of interviews and offhand comments to see if there were hints of their impending fall. It usually becomes a self-reinforcing chain of evidence. The loser edit happens for non-celebrities too, using their social media posts, public records, leaked private records, and anything else available through search.
The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame. The news media does it, the entertainment industry does it, and we do it to ourselves. Any time the internet gets outraged about something, there are a few people who happily dig up everything they can about the person they now feel justified in hating — and thus, the loser edit begins.
Is there a point here?
It's a classic case of confirmation bias. The human brain does it all the time; if you don't know what it is or how to avoid it, look it up.
Yeah, I'm probably preaching to the choir on that last bit. I hope I am, anyway.
I'm a loser baby, why don't you kill me?
Look, it all makes sense!" is a comfortable place in a chaotic World.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"Don't per the truth get in the way of a good story." Appealling narrative is more satisfying than a true one.
Karma. Just different words for the same superstition.
soylentnews.org
Is the biggest oxymoron there is. Verry little on tv is real and so-called 'reality TV' is among the most fake.
News doesn't fare too much better.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Steve Jobs and his "connect the dots" commencement address.
And that's the thing, the media does that all the time with successful people to show "what it takes" and never show the people who did those things and failed.
And business books will only show the successes that fit into their narrative and next thing you you know, your CEO reads that book and has all of you aping the successful company.
There is also an opposite of the loser edit, but I don't know if it has its own name. It is the edit where by using selective editing the focus is placed on (the mistakes or the perfection) one person in a competition, and minimizes the focus on the person who will eventually win or lose. So that when the final decision is revealed it "surprises" the audience - and hence boosts drama, and hopefully higher ratings.
My feeling is that I see this behavior more than I see a "loser edit"
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
but how does it affect my life in terms of Systemd?
Perhaps it is because the celebrity was overblown in the first place, and then people suddenly realise it, have their eyes opened. It often happens after the celeb's death or years later when witnesses are no longer afraid to speak or historians start digging through letters and archives. Examples are General Wolfe, Stalin, Jimmy Saville, and I'm waiting for Nelson Mandela.
I'm pretty sure this has always been the case. The first time I was conscious of it was during the unabomber case when all of the news outlets were going through Ted Kaczynski's past to find the narrative they wanted. It's just a lot easier now.
Oh wait, every video that you make featuring your li'l buddy Timmyboy is a loser edit. Dice, PLEASE fire these guys. Timmyboy is still very proud of his "journalism degree." He JUST DOESN'T GET IT.
The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?
People were originally upset when SciAm started publishing articles about things like the politics behind nuclear weapons control back in (IIRC) the '80s. I was one of them, but one day there was one that caught my attention, was interesting, etc. - so I stopped my complaining.
Sure, some of the articles posted are of low quality ... I regularly up-vote them if they're stupidity like the Ask Slashdot "I heard there was money in app development" / "How can I interest my 2-year-old in programming" / etc., because they ARE stupid, but if they don't see the light of day, we'll never get to give the poster (and others with similar bad/naive ideas) a whack with the ol' clue-by-four. Not everything posted should agree with your world view or what you consider is acceptable news.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Big brother, after all, is not one entity. It's the internet -- if we let it. Because the Web controls the present, and whoever controls the present, controls the past.
Wait till the internet of things, then even utility company can get much better at digging the dirt.
We've been doing this at least since at least the beginning of recorded history(probably longer). The term "Skeleton in the closet" dates back to at least 1816.
I'm having a hard time seeing their point, when all I can think of is counterpoint. Prior to the Information Age, we lived in a world where our media was spoon fed to us, editing everything to make us believe a narrative. Kennedy was King of Camelot, not a womanizer. Hollywood was sparkles and success, not addictions and failures.
This tool the Internet lets us bypass all the BS and see these people for who they are, just people with problems and opinions, no one worth elevating to a point of authority. Lohan isn't a Mouseketeer anymore, she's an addict. Clinton isn't President anymore, he's tripping off to overseas underage sex parties. In the past, we'd never know the facts, just someone else's "Truth". The IRS had all of the missing backup tapes of Lerner's emails all along, perjuring themselves for the last two years. It isn't revisionism when the truth was hidden in the first place.
Because they can find a handful of things in a sea of evidence and then construct a narrative of guilt around it.
But I would not feel so all alone, everybody must get stoned...
Bob Dylan, Rainy Day Women #12 & #35
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Remember Fatty Arbuckle? He was a bigger star than Charlie Chaplin in his day. He mentored Charlie Chaplin and discovered Buster Keaton and Bob Hope.
Then he threw a party where a hooker got sick and later died. Months later, the jury at his final trial actually gave him a formal written statement of apology from the jury, because of the grief he had gone through for no good reason.
His films were banned and his career was over: And all the publicity was edited and picked to ensure the narrative justified his destruction.
It's called "yellow journalism" these days but it's been around since speech was invented.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
Awesome! "Technology" has invented post hoc reasoning and given it to us as its legacy.
Which is always 20/20. Humans are not able to predict the future no matter what information we are fed (with the exception of Charlie Sheen). Only after the outcome is realized can we then look back and see the clues leading up to it. It is hindsight that we use as a tool to punish others for not being able to predict the future.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
You can find "proof" of anything you want to on the internet, whether it be that the Queen of England is really a lizard or that Steven Harper is a bible-thumping arsehole. You can "prove" Obama isn't really an American, that Kanye West is gawd or that Kanye West is the biggest ego to ever hit the planet.
The internet is just chock full of articles, forums, blogs, and other sources you can cite to support your pre-determined outcome.
It has always been this way -- there is no "fact checking" required to post something. On the other hand, there is no "editor" on a "mission" to change what you post, either.
At the core of it, the problem is not the internet nor the history it exposes, but the viciousness and old-fashioned nastiness of people who want to destroy others, often just because they can. Add that in to the human stew that just loves to hear and read nasty gossip about people they're jealous of, and you have a recipe for the "loser edit."
Where the internet differs from reality TV, though, is that with "reality" TV, all the episodes are subject to "loser edits" because that's what builds "characters" out of hours and hours of otherwise useless footage into something the general public will suck back like sweetened pablum.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Is this why loser.com now points to Kanye's wiki page?
The "Loser edit" if it really is something we should wory about, and seek to avoid, has some rather dire consequences. I mean, think about it. Without the loser edit people like Justin Bieber are OK guys despite 18 documented police interventions and a drug conviction. It means that despite Pat Robertsons direct connection to a diamond mine in the congo that itself was responsible for decades of bloodshed and terror, hes an alright guy with a pretty gruff outlook on the gays. and worse yet, it means Dick Cheney, a man directly responsible for the death of nearly a million Iraqi citizens, is just a misunderstood old fogey.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This style of story-telling is ubiquitous in how the stock market is reported. Every day there's a ton of news and the market either goes up, goes sideways or goes down. Reporters see what happened then pick a sample of news and say "The market rallied on news X & Y". Barry Ritholtz had a great example of a day when the market opened low and then rallied and a newspaper published a morning edition saying the market was selling off because of A and an afternoon edition where it said the market was rallying on the same piece of news.
Fact is that we generally don't know why some things happen, real-life doesn't make for simple stories and people that lose or do bad things are also capable of being kind and charming at other times. We're all heroes of our own stories.
Summary: "The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame."
There is a focal point for the blame: Us. We're the ones that keep the story moving, evolving, and being repeated.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Are we really supposed to be surprised that people search for evidence that supports their desired conclusions, and only for that evidence?
Bad historians have done this forever, carefully culling information to fit the predetermined narrative that they're trying to present. Don't get me wrong, sometimes this can be done in a way that makes history more entertaining & easier to understand as long as it's highlighted as what it is, but the tenor of modern (particularly American, particularly ) teaching of history is very much a linear, determinate thing: this happened, so then THIS happened, which logically led to that.
HIstory - even recent history - *must* be understood in-context. Frankly, that's what makes GOOD study of history a really hard thing. Monday-morning quarterbacking happens whether the event was last night or 1000 years ago. The people of, for example, Dark Ages Europe are practically aliens from another planet, in terms of how they saw the world; to interpret their choices (or worse, to render moral judgement on their actions) solely through the postmodern view of 2015 would be ludicrous, yet it happens constantly.
"History is written by the winners" has always been true; the internet has simply made it a sport everyone can enjoy. It's no longer academic historians fighting closeted battles over esoteric issues within their field, it's the subject of daily conversation.
Further, with the astonishingly short memory/attention span of the modern American electorate, tendentious people are able to get away with the constant revisionist presentation of events within recent memory.
Hell, half the political conversations I have, the first effort is simply to establish SOME common basis of accepted facts upon which we can even constructively argue.
Idiocracy is truly approaching.
-Styopa
Not all — but only the losers among us...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What I have seen over the years is a sense that news needs to be flavored for a certain audience. People used to tune in to the news for the news. Now it seems people tune in for reinforcement of their views, ideology and to be entertained. Its why we have MSNBC and Fox News. Both cater to an certain political and ideological viewer who wants their news in a way that supports what they feel. Unfortunately both can be wrong at times and neither reports some topics as a sterile report void of any opinions or viewpoints. We have always had opinion columns and editorial pieces. That is for the colored viewpoints and ideologies. That is fine for blogs, and certain affiliations to create stories that serve a audience. But general news should at least try to be less skewed on news reporting. Its certainly been proven that the way you present a story can be very effective at developing and influencing a person's conclusions. I have always wanted the news to present itself as facts and let the viewer, or reader develop a conclusion on their own.
This has essentially always been done by people trying to advocate a particular viewpoint. Examples abound, in the courtroom, political and social arena, religions, companies and sciences. Virtually all human endeavors are subject to this type of bias.
So someone notices that this particular evil protrudes into "reality TV". It might be one of the most 'real' aspects there.
D.
PS: Jeff Probst was the kid around on the other side of the block where I was raised. As of the time of his "reality TV" fame, I don''t recognize him. While I wish him well, I have never taken the time to watch his show and doubt that I ever will.
Both my ex-wife and my best friend (of 40+ years) have near-photographic memories, so "loser edit" is pretty much the story of my life.
This time with a large-bore shotgun. Seriously, calling this species "intelligent" is vastly overstating the case.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Even if the storty is a mostly fictional collage that has more paste and glue than content.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Appointing losers to run the Department of State is something Obama should be ashamed of.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Seriously, who depends on Wikipedia as a reliable reference? How about something a LITTLE more serious, like the Smithsonian magazine?
To wit: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
"But Arbuckle's lawyers introduced medical evidence showing that Rappe had had a chronic bladder condition, and her autopsy concluded that there "were no marks of violence on the body, no signs that the girl had been attacked in any way." (The defense also had witnesses with damaging information about Rappe's past, but Arbuckle wouldn't let them testify, he said, out of respect for the dead.) The doctor who treated Rappe at the hotel testified that she had told him Arbuckle did not try to sexually assault her, but the prosecutor got the point dismissed as hearsay."
And:
"It wasn't until the third trial, in March of 1922, that Arbuckle allowed his attorneys to call the witnesses who had known Rappe to the stand. ...They testified that Rappe had suffered previous abdominal attacks; drank heavily and often disrobed at parties after doing so; was promiscuous, and had an illegitimate daughter."
If not a hooker, then perhaps it's too close to call. Fatty deserved better.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
What editor? When the entire publishing industry imploded, copy editors were the first to be laid off.
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Despite your low id you must be new here. The answer is yes it's too much.
This is just the "narrative", isn't it? You can see the same events being given different narratives depending on the race, political persuasion etc of the victim. Nothing at all new here if you're even remotely interested in how event get described in any medium.
It would help if they did a better job of figuring out which ones were dupes before posting them, no? ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Only when they fall from grace, we have no inhabitions of saying we have really felt the entire time.
There are no "looser edits", just repealing of "winner edits".
Truth is, none of us in our heart of hearts really like status, class, or privledge. We all know its entirely bullshit. Only some of us have the audacity to risk being put on a watch list. Its why, when we have the power of anonyimitty feel more free to critique these structures of power and class. Its why we obssess over privacy, and saftey, and strong crypto, and fear the NSA.
If you're upset that a die in a casino rolled a 1 when you really needed something other than a 1, and you go back through previous video of the die being rolled and compile all the shots of it rolling a 1 together as "proof" that it's weighted to roll 1s, that's selection bias. Casino security will be on the floor laughing at you as they throw you out.
The most dangerous place I see this happening is in politics. No, I don't mean what politicians do. I mean when you and I think of our own politics. We have a very strong tendency to immediately accept any corroborating incidents as proof our political views being correct, without questioning if there could've been other explanations for why things happened that way. And we have a very strong tendency to grasp at the first explanation which seems to excuse why an incident seemed to contradict our political views. We let our predetermined views narrate what we observe happening in the world, rather than the letting our observations determine our views.
"I would say it's the opposite - that if everyone has their mistakes on parade, then it' makes it easier for others can admit that they too aren't perfect"
There is absolutely no evidence that this is hapenning. in fact there is a lot of evidence that people simply stops at the top information they find and retain negative information far easier (bias). Look there is a reason stuff like susperstition exists, post hoc or ad hominem are used successfully : because people bias toward the negative. Spread the negative the bias will stay, but a LOT of people will get fucked. The only way it would work would be if *absolutely everybody* would be hit by this, for decades. Not going to happen.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Looks like what you're talking about is the "winner edit".
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Richelieu: "Give me six lines written by an honest man, and I will find something in it with which to hang him." Finding an explanation is not research of the cause, its usually with the purpose of justifying a previous opinion.
our so called Media has been doing this for DECADES. Even worse starting the "loser edit" preemptively to choose a "winner".
but making the "facts" fit the narrative, has been the largest failure of an institution that is as close to "sacred" as our secular government recognizes- freedom of the press being so important that it has been explicitly ensconced in our most basic laws.
Problem is, that freedom also allows manipulation to go unchecked, and has gotten so common that people even go out of their way to *excuse* it.
And that, is bad. Real bad.
The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that.
The irony present in this statement.... it physically hurts. Ouch.
I've worked at companies in which whenever someone leaves, everyone spends the next few months blaming that person for everything.
(I'm sure this is a common practice for exiting CEO's as well)
You're misconstruing the argument in the article. They're not saying that we should try to whitewash people who have done bad things, and a person's bad reputation may often be well deserved. They're warning against falling into the trap of, once someone happens into bad circumstances, of creating a narrative for that person that tries to assign their circumstances as a predestined result of fate. The most insidious example I see of this is when someone contracts a serious disease such as cancer. Often the first questions asked by medical staff are regarding their lifestyle choices, which builds into the narrative that they're sick because of the way they lived.
During the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic, for example, the first questions asked to those diagnosed were often whether they lived a promiscuous lifestyle, took drugs, or engaged in gay sex. All activities which were frowned upon, and fed into the dominant societal narrative at the time that the people who were contracting AIDS were losers who contracted the disease because of their loser lifestyle. I'd argue in that case the loser edit was applied to a whole category of people, and held back progress in addressing a serious health issue.
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to. I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
When all the gamergate "OMG they know my address" stupidity was going on, I pointed out how absurd it was by posting my address here on slashdot even before I was challenged to do so; made my critics look pretty stupid when they were saying "How would you react if someone posted your address on the internet." My phone number's also out there. There's nothing for adults to be afraid of.
Being stalked IRL or online - been there, it was creepy, but I'm still okay and one cyberstalker was identified by the police and lost their job. Wouldn't have been possible if I had been posting anonymously.
I stand openly behind my words, my ideas, and my rights. Too bad more people don't have the courage of their convictions to do the same.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If you've taken any time looking through the stuff that goes through the firehose, it's hard to remember, when seeing 3 submissions over 3 days on the same subject, if you remember them because you've seen it in the firehose before or if it was posted before. Try it for a month.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It would be ironic if Faux News hadn't argued, and won in court, that they are not obliged to tell the truth in their "news casts" because they're really just entertainment.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Basically what law enforcement and prosecutors have done for 100 years
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to.
You've just demonstrated ad hominem. You're paying attention to who says something, not what has been said. Most people consider that a vice, not a virtue. More people, I dare say, value the ideas over the identity, and the more the better
Does the name "Thomas Paine" ring a bell? Obviously someone whose ideas are not worth listening to, because:
Obviously those ideas were the fiction of a madman, irrelevant to anyone and unworthy of publication. And yet:
Perhaps others are more aware that staying alive to write another day is more valuable in the long run than becoming an immediate, little known and unheard martyr for a cause? Like those who would stand up against an, e.g., Islamic government and say "you really ought not treat women that way." Perhaps you think that "Deep Throat" had nothing of value to say, either.
I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
Yeah, thank God that /. vets the identities of people who post under other than "Anonymous Coward" names, so we know that you are the one, true Barbara Hudson (I'm sorry, BarbaraHudson) on the planet and that is your true, real meatspace name.
My phone number's also out there. There's nothing for adults to be afraid of.
There's nothing YOU fear, maybe, but it's arrogance to project that lack of concern over your own safety onto others and tell them how they should behave. Or to defend things like "loser edits" because you have no fear and forcing other people into the open will only prove you are right.
"Well, Billy Joe never had a lick of sense; pass the biscuits, please ...."
The person who thinks they know it all quite often knows all too little. We are not yet at a point where we (collectively) know it all.
Pssst! Looks quite like the Dunning-Kruger effect.
No wireless, less space than nomad, lame.
Living a promiscuous lifestyle, taking drugs, and engaging in gay sex were precisely the things that made AIDS the disease it is today, instead of some obscure virus. That's how the virus was transmitted, dirty needles or unprotected anal sex.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
As children we learn actions have consequences although as adults we rarely apply that common sense principle to everything we do. As adults we learn 'someone caused this outcome' and frequently give this response to great suffering. Both rules promise the world is simple and predictable. The loser edit satisfies our model of right and wrong. It justifies a god complex as the secret conclusion of these rules is, life-crippling suffering happens when someone doesn't deserve a good life.
I hope I see expiration dates on publicly available data within my lifetime.
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to.
You've just demonstrated ad hominem. You're paying attention to who says something, not what has been said. Most people consider that a vice, not a virtue. More people, I dare say, value the ideas over the identity, and the more the better
People who don't have the courage to stand up for what they profess to believe are hypocrites. It shows that, deep down, they really don't believe what they claim to. So yes, it's an attack on them - but their actions make it entirely justifiable, because they're hypocrites, duh.
Does the name "Thomas Paine" ring a bell? Obviously someone whose ideas are not worth listening to, because:he published Common Sense anonymously because of its treasonable content.
Paine was the same guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.", "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection", "It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe", "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul", etc.
Bold words, but his actions in remaining anonymous betray his feet of clay. In his own words, he made a whore of his soul. That he was able to redeem it later is a good thing, but it doesn't detract from the point.
Perhaps others are more aware that staying alive to write another day is more valuable in the long run than becoming an immediate, little known and unheard martyr for a cause?
The excuse of cowards everywhere to not stand up and be counted. It's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact.
Like those who would stand up against an, e.g., Islamic government and say "you really ought not treat women that way." Perhaps you think that "Deep Throat" had nothing of value to say, either.
If islamist had opposed this stupidity over the centuries they wouldn't be in that predicament, would they? But no, the majority of the patriarchy reveled in lording it over women and minorities, same as religious bigots throughout time. That their ancestors didn't stand up to it kind of makes my point ... not standing up just encourages stupidity, bigotry, racism, etc.
Also, we wouldn't have had to endure years of Watergate if "deep throat" had come out publicly immediately. Ever thought of that? But no, his job, his job, his goobermint pension, his job!!!
I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
Yeah, thank God that /. vets the identities of people who post under other than "Anonymous Coward" names, so we know that you are the one, true Barbara Hudson (I'm sorry, BarbaraHudson) on the planet and that is your true, real meatspace name.
I've been on TV and in the news often enough that it's easy to verify that I am me. But if you have ANY doubts, send a stamped, pre-addressed envelope to me:
Ms. Barbara Hudson,
1312 Hymen, #301,
Dollard-des-Ormeaux, QC.
Quebec, Canada.
H9B 1M7
I'll send you a current pic and you can search the news articles to verify it is indeed me :-)
There's nothing YOU fear, maybe, but it's arrogance to project that lack of concern over your own safety onto others and tell them how they should behave. Or to d
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Hi, welcome to /.! You must be new around here . . . ;)
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
This was what made the Kitty Kelly biography of Oprah Winfrey so interesting. Virtually everything Winfrey had done (or had exaggerated) back to her childhood was recorded somewhere in the media.
anyone who doesn't know how to run their own email server. You can control your image if you can control everything else. And really it's all about dat image dat image, no substance.
Why did your bug fix take away a feature?