It was an honor to have served you all these years, readers; however, I am glad this is coming to an end because I think you have noticed how sick and tired I am of reading the regional flags*** of a newspaper and how unhappy I have been blogging about it. It explains not only the lack of meaningful posts and stories here, but the plethora of absolute bulls*** and rubbish that emanates from my distorting, deceiving, obfuscating, agenda-pu$hing, war-promoting, bastion of Jewish supremacism and elitist insult.
I'll be posting some items from time to time here until the end, but it is only going to be a few select items I find important. If I end up posting anything at all. I might, then again, I might not.
"Websites try to nix nasty comments" by Barbara Ortutay | Associated Press
NEW YORK — Mix blatant bigotry with poor spelling.
Okay, right off the bat we get a politically-charged term of denigration for certain beliefs and an indicator of such.
The bigotry doesn't apply at all on this blog since I have condemned all the western military actions based on lies from Africa to Asia to South America, and honestly, I'm a little offended by the mouthpiece of Jewish supremacism hurling charges of prejudice and bigotry at the rest of us.
As for the poor spelling, that is because my hands have become claws over the last eight years. I can not only not pick up common objects, but searing jabs of pain like a knife can occur in the most simple of movements. The numbness comes and goes and is often there at night, which is why I don't sleep well. You wake up and the hand is numb with thick fingers that can barely be bent. No worry, they will loosen later.
Oh, another reason is the SPELL CHECK NEVER WORKED on this f***ing piece of s*** -- which leads us to the NEXT PARAGRAPH!
Add a dash of ALL CAPS.
Oh, I SEE! That's an indicator of some unhinged individual who may be dangerous, not a NONVIOLENT PERSON of FEELING and COMPASSION who happens to SO STRONGLY DISAGREE with the agenda of WAR and LOOTING that he might be TRYING TO MAKE a POINT hoping that CERTAIN PEOPLE TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION, and I see they have but not the way I wanted. They NEVER LISTENED, dearly beloved readers, for this blog was as much for them as you. It was to throw my voice into the din so we could change the course of this falling empire and save the nation, but they never listened. That is why I consider this a useless and shitty blog now.
Top it off with a violent threat.
You know, probably something like this even though it has been ruled protected speech by the Supreme Court:
I've put that up in reference to certain war criminals and lying looters as the type of behavior I would not stand in the way of; even better would be to make them poor, but I don't get to make that call by myself.
Of course, state executions and mass-murdering wars promoted by mouthpiece media gets a pass.
And there you have it: a recipe for the worst of online comments, scourge of the Internet.
It's the end of the first paragraph and I'm already livid at the insults. My scourge is the Boston Globe.
Blame anonymity, blame politicians, blame human nature. But a growing number of websites are reining in the Wild West of online commentary. Companies including Google and the Huffington Post are trying everything from deploying moderators to forcing people to use their real names in order to restore civil discourse. Some sites, such as Popular Science, are banning comments altogether.
It may appear that I banned comments here, but the truth is I had them on when I started blogging, it just never worked. I must admit I have turned them off at other sites for the very same reason. I suppose I'm a pussy, but I don't need to take more time responding to trolls and hasbara haters and the like. I can't even get the Globe done on a given day; when would I have time for that? As I have stated many times, this is an educational and informational site based on fair use with corresponding analysis. It's not a forum or social media site. You can take it or leave it.
And not only that, I NEVER COMMENT (or rarely do, and it is only on what I consider a friend's site). My COMMENTS are HERE for the WORLD to SEE!
The efforts put sites in a delicate position. User comments add a lively, fresh feel to videos, stories, and music. And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.
This is the conundrum for me because even yesterday my hits zoomed. It would be a lot easier to not do this if so many people were not coming here; however, I will never advertise here because that would pollute the from the heart message. Thus the blog has cost me money over the years.
What websites don’t want is the kind of off-putting nastiness that spewed forth under a recent CNN.com article about the Affordable Care Act....
It's okay if it comes from authority or their mouthpieces though. I find so much of their "debate" detestably nasty.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, has long been home to some of the Internet’s most juvenile comments.
Blogger is Google so I guess they mean me (in a general way).
The site caused a stir last month when it began requiring people to log in to Google Plus to write a comment. Besides herding users to Google’s unified network, the company says the move is designed to raise the level of discourse in the conversations that play out under YouTube videos.
Those videos that are not banned, removed, or made difficult to access.
One such video, a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family, met with such a barrage of racist responses on YouTube in May that General Mills shut down comments on it altogether.
I'm tired of the endless parade of divisive wedge issues introduced by the jewsmedia on a daily basis as the tax loot goes to the same special intere$ts and certain tribes.
Related: Boston Globe Bowl of Cheerios
Tastes awful, as usual.
Anonymity has always been a major appeal of online life. At its best, anonymity allows people to speak freely without repercussions. It allows whistle blowers and protesters to espouse unpopular opinions.
You know, like the kind of opinions you find here, although I reject the characterization of them as unpopular. The blog hits seem to fly in the face of that.
At its worst, it allows people to spout off without repercussions.
Related: Sunday Globe Special: Blogs Are For Blowing Off Steam
I guess we have all boiled over here, huh?
But anonymity has been eroding in recent years.
Except in the NEWSPAPERS where there are ANONYMOUS AGENDA-PUSHERS QUOTED ALL the TIME!!
On the Internet, many people may know not only your name, but also your latest musings, the songs you’ve listened to, your job history, who your friends are, and even the brand of soap you prefer.
Well, one thing we do know is the NSA is getting all that stuff and storing it away. Google and the government already know who I am because I have to log in to post here. This isn't about anonymity, nasty comments, or anything else. This is about STIFLING DISSENT and SILENCING those that tell the TRUTH and expose lies and the liars who tell them!
‘‘It’s not so much that our offline lives are going online, it’s that our offline and online lives are more integrated,’’ says Mark Lashley, a professor of communications at La Salle University in Philadelphia. Facebook, which requires people to use their real names, played a big part in the seismic shift....
And Facebook has also been outed as collections agency for the government.
So nice of the American people to just GIVE THEM THAT INFORMATION! That's why I'm not facing up. That and the fact that there are certain people from the past that I don't want finding me. Not because I have done anything wrong, but because they have. I wouldn't feel comfortable with those communications.
Nearly 75 percent of teens and young adults think people are more likely to use discriminatory language online or in text messages than in face to face conversations, according to a recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MTV. The poll didn’t distinguish between anonymous comments and those with real identities attached.
Ever try to be totally honest with people in life? I have, and it never worked out well. Always boomeranged back on me to the point where I was the villain. After a while you get sick of the insult and abuse and just stop banging the head against the wall.
The Huffington Post is also clamping down on vicious comments.
Related: Huffington Post to ban anonymous comments
I don't read that controlled-opposition crap anyway. I also find it odd that a newspaper would argue against anonymity when its pages are full of anonymous quotes from official sources. I guess when you are shoveling bull s***....
In addition to employing 40 human moderators, the AOL-owned news site is also chipping away at anonymous commenting. Previously, anyone could respond to an article posted on the site by creating an account, without tying it to an e-mail address. This fall, the site began requiring people to verify their identity by connecting their accounts to an e-mail address, but that didn’t appear to be enough and the site now also asks commenters to log in using a verified Facebook account.
Does that also apply to the government operatives and the fake profiles they put up for propaganda campaigns?
‘‘We are reaching a place where the Internet is growing up,’’ says Jimmy Soni, managing editor of the Huffington Post. ‘‘These changes represent a maturing [online] environment.’’
More like a cleansing.
Curbing anonymity doesn’t always help. Plenty of people are fine attaching their names and Facebook profiles to poorly spelled outbursts that live on long after their fury has passed.
I've got eight years of work out there, never took anything down, it's all there for you to see. Unfortunately, the fury never passed and is even more acute as time has passed, and as the agenda-pushers have proceeded with their plans.
Yes, some things have been slowed down or stopped for now by the brave and diligent work by bloggers, but are rear-guard preservations that are temporary a victory in any meaningful sense?
The truth is what needs to happen now is the ruling class that hasn't listened needs to stay on its road of self-destruction until it collapses and vanishes from the face of the earth -- along with the rest of us.
See you on the other side, readers.
In some cases, sites have gone further. Popular Science, the 141-year-old science and technology magazine, stopped allowing comments of any kind on its news articles in September.
That's because they backed the physically-impossible, fire-caused collapses of those WTC towers, all three of them.
While highlighting responses to articles about climate change and abortion, Popular Science online editor Suzanne LaBarre announced the change and explained in a blog post that comments can be ‘‘bad for science.’’
That's why the Pennsylvania highway pile up and the Maine trees encased in ice were only photographs in my printed paper. Believe the fart-mi$ting media, folks, not your own senses.
And the irony of explaining comments policy in a blog post?
--more--"
And the Globe chose to leave it off the business section roster?
No big surprise; Globe has been censoring stories and other stuff for years.
Just in case I'm censored or destroyed, I would like to take this time to thank all the people who gave their time or attention to this blog. It was you that kept me going this long and who will keep me going in the future, God willing.
If not, may peace and prosperity come to you and those you love, and may justice rain down on the evil people who have so spoiled this world with their $elf-$erving lusts for greed and power.
Farewell, readers.
UPDATE:
Looks like I may be allowed to continue; it will just mean waiting forever for my page to load.
"Google sets plan to sell users’ endorsements" by Claire Cain Millerand Vindu Goel | New York Times, October 12, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO — Google, following in Facebook’s footsteps, wants to sell users’ endorsements to marketers to help them hawk their wares.
On Friday, Google announced an update to its terms of service that allows the company to include adult users’ names, photos, and comments in ads shown across the Web, based on ratings, reviews, and posts they have made on Google Plus and other Google services like YouTube....
Yeah, when it's all good and will help facilitate bu$ine$$ everything is fine.
What a surreal environment the virtual world will become. All politically-correct commentary that is totally divorced from any criticism or the reality outside.
If a user follows a bakery on Google Plus or gives an album four stars on the Google Play music service, for instance, that person’s name, photo, and endorsement could show up in ads for that bakery or album....
And the royalties received for such reviews?
Facebook, the world’s largest social network with 1.2 billion users worldwide, has been aggressively marketing such social endorsements. For example, if you post that you love McDonald’s new Mighty Wings on the chain’s Facebook page, McDonald’s could pay Facebook to broadcast your kind words to all your friends.
And the commenter will get how much of that?
--more--"
Yeah, no criticism, please.
