"entfillet" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."


Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
"Asshole".

It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.

I know nothing about chess, but find this discussion fascinating. What was
your rating, and what is the rating range?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article .com, "entfillet" wrote:

"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."


Interesting that youu snipped the part of my post that shows you're
mistaken...

Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
"Asshole".

It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.


Isn't that special. You're losing the argument, so you resort to personal
abuse. How mature of you.

Uh, Doug, look at the thread title. The whole thing *started* at
a (feeble) attempt at a personal swipe. You need to see this for
what it is. The self-appointed Elite here don't like being challenged
on anything. When they do, they go in to Scientologist Mode: They
become vicious attack dogs. Relax, it's of no real consequence.
You've won the argument when the counter becomes personal. Enjoy it...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

todd wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.

I've watched Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, in interveiws,
and on his cooking show. I've seen him do the Faith-healing
fraud to raise money.

If you do not realize he is a cult leader then, as they say,
you must have drunk the kool-aid.

What is Air-America? Sounds like it is worth checking out.

--

FF

todd wrote:

...

One of the many reasons why I will never be nominated for anything that
would require Senate review is that I don't think I could physically sit in
a chair and have The Swimmer question me on my ethics.


One presumes that is not one of the _primary_ reasons...

--

FF

wrote:
todd wrote:

...

One of the many reasons why I will never be nominated for anything that
would require Senate review is that I don't think I could physically sit in
a chair and have The Swimmer question me on my ethics.



One presumes that is not one of the _primary_ reasons...


OK, *that* was funny ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

China has not thus far demonstrated any animus to the US

Are you aware of how much of your federal debt they own?

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


China has not thus far demonstrated any animus to the US


Are you aware of how much of your federal debt they own?


How is that animus? Floating bonds to raise capital is a normal
practice among all major governments and business concerns.
It is an expression of trust on the part of the lender that they
consider the borrower to be financially sound. Historically,
US debt has been seens as a rock-solid investement for international
lenders. Why is China different?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
says...
In article t, Java
Man wrote:

Or perhaps Google ripoffs emerging in China, with no protection for
Google's IP?

What IP? Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow.

You may be right about IP -- I don't know what is in the "back office".


All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear
before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had
a couple of days ago.

But you're suggesting that Google's only advantage is a head start, and
not some internal "secrets". Secrets don't have to be legally
protectable IP to be valuable. I've read that one of the reasons Google
is resisting the Bush admin's request is to protect its internal methods
from public exposure. I think there's something more to this than a
simple head start.

Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
advantage that they want to keep secret?

Rick

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Why is China different?

Sigh...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

But you're suggesting that Google's only advantage is a head start

Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's
bullpuckey.

Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
advantage that they want to keep secret?

Yes. Or, uh... No.

A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.

Google aggregates publicly available information.

The information is public.

And available.

Go aggregate it. Oops! Google has a head start! But they may not have
legally protectable IP!

So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head
start?

Sigh...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

wrote in message
oups.com...

todd wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name
on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I
wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.

I've watched Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, in interveiws,
and on his cooking show. I've seen him do the Faith-healing
fraud to raise money.

And that makes you think he's part of the Republican party inner circle how?

If you do not realize he is a cult leader then, as they say,
you must have drunk the kool-aid.

What is Air-America? Sounds like it is worth checking out.

Air America is a radio network that was set up for the purposes of stealing
money from the Boy Scouts and draining George Soros of cash.

todd

"BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last
USCF
rating?"

I'll be in your general area on business in mid March. How about we
play best of three for a hundred bucks? I can stay over for a Saturday
to do it but need to be back home by Sunday afternoon. It's enough
money to make it fun without calling the attention of our wives.

I'd suggest forty moves in two hours.

We'll shake for the white.

I'll be using algebraic notation. We can talk about the other
possibilities, then.

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

But you're suggesting that Google's only advantage is a head start

Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's
bullpuckey.

Sorry. Perhaps I was taking you too literally when you posted:

---------------------
"All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear
before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had
a couple of days ago."
---------------------

Do you consider the subpoena and the loss of share value to be among
Google's advantages? If not, ALL that's left -- according to you -- is
a head start.

Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
advantage that they want to keep secret?

Yes. Or, uh... No.

A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.

If you don't know what Google wants to keep secret, why did you say:

------------------------
"Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."
-------------------------


Google aggregates publicly available information.

The information is public.

And available.

Go aggregate it. Oops! Google has a head start! But they may not have
legally protectable IP!

So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head
start?

Do I have to remind you that you posted that, not me?

So let's recap.

- You originally said all Google has is a head start, but you followed
up denying you had said it.

- You also said Google isn't doing anything proprietary, but later
admitted you didn't know what Google may be keeping secret.

- Finally, after you said that all Google has is a head start, you
attributed the idea to me.

What I want to know is why you did these things in a simple usenet
discussion. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

Do you consider the subpoena and the loss of share value to be among
Google's advantages? If not, ALL that's left -- according to you -- is
a head start.

As you quoted, I said: "All Google has that you don't is a head start,
a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share
value than they had a couple of days ago."

Which of those items do you consider to be Google's advantage? The head
start?

Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
advantage that they want to keep secret?

Yes. Or, uh... No.

A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.

If you don't know what Google wants to keep secret, why did you say:

------------------------
"Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."
-------------------------

What does that have to do with anything that Google may have as a
secret?

So let's recap.

Yes, let's.

- You originally said all Google has is a head start

Yes.

but you followed
up denying you had said it.

I did not do that.

- You also said Google isn't doing anything proprietary

Correct

but later
admitted you didn't know what Google may be keeping secret.

Is Google keeping things secret? How do you know? If they are, the
secrets are SECRET, no? So if Google is keeping secrets, how would I
know what secrets they're keeping?

Admitting I don't know secret information (or even if it exists)
is damning exactly how? Even if it exists, it's a SECRET.

- Finally, after you said that all Google has is a head start, you
attributed the idea to me.

Where did I do that? Do you not understand the difference between the
assertive and the interrogative?

What I want to know is why you did these things in a simple usenet
discussion. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

No, I'm not. But you certainlly appear to be one of the two.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article . com, "entfillet" wrote:
"BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last
USCF
rating?"

I'll be in your general area on business in mid March. How about we
play best of three for a hundred bucks? I can stay over for a Saturday
to do it but need to be back home by Sunday afternoon. It's enough
money to make it fun without calling the attention of our wives.

You still haven't answered that question: what was your last rating?

I'd suggest forty moves in two hours.

Sounds good to me.

We'll shake for the white.

I'll be using algebraic notation. We can talk about the other
possibilities, then.

It doesn't matter to me what notation you use; why even mention it? You figure
out yet that there's no such square as "KP3" in descriptvie notation?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:22:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article . com, "entfillet" wrote:
"BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last
USCF
rating?"

I'll be in your general area on business in mid March. How about we
play best of three for a hundred bucks? I can stay over for a Saturday
to do it but need to be back home by Sunday afternoon. It's enough
money to make it fun without calling the attention of our wives.

You still haven't answered that question: what was your last rating?

You should only be concerned with what I will bring to the board. I
haven't asked for your USCF rating, your FIDE rating, your ELO rating,
because I don't really care. I figure you for a hotshot high school
chess club sort of guy, who is thirty years past his prime,who would
rank about 2000 on the USCF scale.

That makes you meat.



I'd suggest forty moves in two hours.

Sounds good to me.

Winner buys dinner. I hope you like Chinese.


We'll shake for the white.

I'll be using algebraic notation. We can talk about the other
possibilities, then.

It doesn't matter to me what notation you use; why even mention it? You figure
out yet that there's no such square as "KP3" in descriptvie notation?

Have you figured out that there is no such word as "descriptvie"?

Could you have possibly cut me the same slack as I am cutting you in
allowing for the obvious error?


I look forward to our meeting.

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.

todd


You have to realize that in Fredfighter's world, the act of accusing
those espousing ideas not in line with the congressional left or the NYT
editorial page of being mindless robots directed by Rush Limbaugh no longer
gets the desired reaction. Thus, he has had to cast about for someone at
the fringes in order to attempt to denigrate those with whom he disagrees.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:22:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article . com, "entfillet"
wrote:
"BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last
USCF
rating?"

I'll be in your general area on business in mid March. How about we
play best of three for a hundred bucks? I can stay over for a Saturday
to do it but need to be back home by Sunday afternoon. It's enough
money to make it fun without calling the attention of our wives.

You still haven't answered that question: what was your last rating?

You should only be concerned with what I will bring to the board. I
haven't asked for your USCF rating, your FIDE rating, your ELO rating,
because I don't really care. I figure you for a hotshot high school
chess club sort of guy, who is thirty years past his prime,who would
rank about 2000 on the USCF scale.

That makes you meat.

Whatever.


I'd suggest forty moves in two hours.

Sounds good to me.

Winner buys dinner. I hope you like Chinese.

Love it. We have a great Chinese restaurant on the NW side of Indy, maybe 20
minutes from my home.

We'll shake for the white.

I'll be using algebraic notation. We can talk about the other
possibilities, then.

It doesn't matter to me what notation you use; why even mention it? You figure
out yet that there's no such square as "KP3" in descriptvie notation?

Have you figured out that there is no such word as "descriptvie"?

Oh, lookie, you caught a typo. Good for you. You win a gold star for today.

Could you have possibly cut me the same slack as I am cutting you in
allowing for the obvious error?

Nope.

First off, mine is an obvious typo, whereas yours was (a) clearly an error
fact, not a typo, and (b) made repeatedly.

Secondly, rather than admit an error, you tried to bluster past it, claiming
it was not an error. It was pretty clear that, until I corrected you and you
did some research, that you really thought you had it right at the start.

Third, you then resorted to childish, vulgar name-calling.

You used up your slack and then some.

I look forward to our meeting.

Me too. If you show up. Do a whois lookup on my domain; you'll see my real
home address and phone number.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Tom Watson wrote:
SNIP

You should only be concerned with what I will bring to the board. I
haven't asked for your USCF rating, your FIDE rating, your ELO rating,
because I don't really care. I figure you for a hotshot high school
chess club sort of guy, who is thirty years past his prime,who would
rank about 2000 on the USCF scale.

That makes you meat.

Oh look! It's Tom 'I'm-Leaving-In-A-Huff-Because-I-Am-No-Longer-The-
Undisputed-Sage-Of-The-Wreck' Watson. Tommy, yer nom-de-email slipped
and you revealed your grouchy true identity.

Once a patzer, always a patzer ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" wrote:
Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name
on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I
wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.

todd


You have to realize that in Fredfighter's world, the act of accusing
those espousing ideas not in line with the congressional left or the NYT
editorial page of being mindless robots directed by Rush Limbaugh no
longer
gets the desired reaction. Thus, he has had to cast about for someone at
the fringes in order to attempt to denigrate those with whom he disagrees.

I'm a reasonbly conservative-type, and AFAIC, Pat Robertson is a slightly
wacky TV preacher who has a tendency to say inappropriate things. IMHO,
he's the fringe of the Republican party, but I wouldn't go quite as far to
say kook fringe. He certainly doesn't "dictate Republican policy" as he
does in Fredfighter's imaginary world.

todd

wrote:

todd wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.


I've watched Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, in interveiws,
and on his cooking show. I've seen him do the Faith-healing
fraud to raise money.

If you do not realize he is a cult leader then, as they say,
you must have drunk the kool-aid.

Guilt by association. Robertson was once a slighly provocative
ultra-conservative with a religious fan base. He has aged into
becoming a loon. No serious political platform is built around
his personal insanity and suggesting so is just flatly wrong.
Certainly the Republican party has to pay some homage' to the
Religious Right - they are a considerable constituency - but that
hardly makes him a principal in Republican policy setting.

Personally, I find Robertson's lunacy far more entertaining than, say,
Kennedy's (who is just another tired old drunk)...

What is Air-America? Sounds like it is worth checking out.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

I usually use a rollup board when I'm on the road but would not be
adverse to you bringing your own hand-made version, so long as it has
64 squares in alternating colors.

I prefer to play with Staunton style pieces and will bring weighted
versions of same, and would only ask that the pieces are easily
identifiable, if you choose to bring your own.

I travel with a Chronos clock but would be willing to use yours, if
that would make you feel better.

I would prefer that the timekeeping be simple, with no three to five
second pump. Just let the game run for two hours, or forty moves.

Other than that, it's table stakes - best out of three.

Are we agreed?

On 02 Feb 2006 22:32:26 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Oh look! It's Tom 'I'm-Leaving-In-A-Huff-Because-I-Am-No-Longer-The-
Undisputed-Sage-Of-The-Wreck' Watson. Tommy, yer nom-de-email slipped
and you revealed your grouchy true identity.

Once a patzer, always a patzer ...


It's worth it.

One asshole at a time.

You might be next.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:41:29 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Doug Miller
wrote:

Yes, and then the Chinese government would have blocked access to Google
altogether.

Oh. Then it's far, far, better that a US company participate in the
censorship and profit by doing so.

Thanks for clearing that up, Doug.

that clears it up.. no internet access is better than censored access, right?


Mac
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 8:58pm (EST-3)
(Larry*Blanchard) giggles and tells us:
I've got too much time on my hands :-).snip

You don't know how to spend it either.

As long as you've got so much time to waste, go count all the plans
posts I've made, make a site with all the links, each with a title, then
e-mail the site link to everyone here. Except me. Then you can
killfile me. I would have said you could "plonk" me, but I was afraid
you might have mis-understood what I meant.

Gods above, if that's all you have to occupy your time, I'm so very
glad I don't have your life. That'd be at least as bad as being
banished to the Pluperfect Purple Hell.



JOAT
Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

Do you consider the subpoena and the loss of share value to be among
Google's advantages? If not, ALL that's left -- according to you -- is
a head start.

As you quoted, I said: "All Google has that you don't is a head start,
a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share
value than they had a couple of days ago."

Which of those items do you consider to be Google's advantage? The head
start?

I didn't say what I thought Google's competitive advantage is, but I if
think those are the only possibilities, you've oversimplified the
situation so badly that you might even recommend boycotting them for . .
.. oh, wait -- you already have.


Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
advantage that they want to keep secret?

Yes. Or, uh... No.

A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.

If you don't know what Google wants to keep secret, why did you say:

------------------------
"Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."
-------------------------

What does that have to do with anything that Google may have as a
secret?

Are you implying you're unaware that many companies have trade secrets
and similar proprietary knowledge -- companies like, perhaps Google?


So let's recap.

Yes, let's.

- You originally said all Google has is a head start

Yes.

but you followed
up denying you had said it.

I did not do that.

Then what did you mean by the following?

--------------------------
"Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's
bullpuckey."
-------------------------


- You also said Google isn't doing anything proprietary

Correct

but later
admitted you didn't know what Google may be keeping secret.

Is Google keeping things secret? How do you know? If they are, the
secrets are SECRET, no? So if Google is keeping secrets, how would I
know what secrets they're keeping?

Admitting I don't know secret information (or even if it exists)
is damning exactly how? Even if it exists, it's a SECRET.

- Finally, after you said that all Google has is a head start, you
attributed the idea to me.

Where did I do that?

He

----------------------
"So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head
start?"
----------------------

That wasn't my point, and isn't now. It was yours.

Do you not understand the difference between the
assertive and the interrogative?

I do, and I also understand the use of rhetorical questions.

So, let's recap again. You say:

- Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating
- All that Google has on me (or you) is a head start

If you don't know Google's trade secrets, how can you expect to have any
credibility asserting that "All Google has that you don't is a head
start, a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less
share value than they had a couple of days ago."?


What I want to know is why you did these things in a simple usenet
discussion. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

No, I'm not. But you certainlly appear to be one of the two.

Ah, the famous Peewee Herman defense -- "I know you are, but what am I?"

Rick

Java Man wrote:

Do you not understand the difference between the
assertive and the interrogative?


I do, and I also understand the use of rhetorical questions.

So, let's recap again. You say:

- Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating
- All that Google has on me (or you) is a head start

If you don't know Google's trade secrets, how can you expect to have any
credibility asserting that "All Google has that you don't is a head
start, a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less
share value than they had a couple of days ago."?

The silly thing about this whole conversation to anyone that knows even
a little about Google's advantage (no it's not that they were first,
there were many others before them) is their ranking algorithms for the
links returned by the searches.

Their page-rank patent (patents?) are valued by Google's users in that
they seem to return the most relevant results and (with some glitches
along the way) have been very resistant to spamming the rankings that
was constantly happening with all the other search engines.

Their "do no evil" mantra, which as of the announced cooperation with
China is no longer more than marketing hoohaw, was, I think, originally
directed at fears Google would alter their algorithms to favor their ad
clients. They managed to keep that stuff in the margins... as far as we
know.

er
--
email not valid


er
--
email not valid

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
I usually use a rollup board when I'm on the road but would not be
adverse to you bringing your own hand-made version, so long as it has
64 squares in alternating colors.

I prefer to play with Staunton style pieces and will bring weighted
versions of same, and would only ask that the pieces are easily
identifiable, if you choose to bring your own.

I travel with a Chronos clock but would be willing to use yours, if
that would make you feel better.

I would prefer that the timekeeping be simple, with no three to five
second pump. Just let the game run for two hours, or forty moves.

Other than that, it's table stakes - best out of three.

Are we agreed?

Sounds good. Call me when you're in the area.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com,
says...
"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."


Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
"Asshole".

Interestingly enough, a search using the terms "Tom Watson" and
"Asshole" turns up even *more* hits (25 vs. 17, to be exact).

In article ,
says...
Tom Watson wrote:
SNIP

You should only be concerned with what I will bring to the board. I
haven't asked for your USCF rating, your FIDE rating, your ELO rating,
because I don't really care. I figure you for a hotshot high school
chess club sort of guy, who is thirty years past his prime,who would
rank about 2000 on the USCF scale.

That makes you meat.

Oh look! It's Tom 'I'm-Leaving-In-A-Huff-Because-I-Am-No-Longer-The-
Undisputed-Sage-Of-The-Wreck' Watson. Tommy, yer nom-de-email slipped
and you revealed your grouchy true identity.

What, it took you this long to recognize the gasbag pretentiousness that
has become his trademark? You're slipping, Tim. I spotted him right off.
:-)

In article , mac davis
wrote:

that clears it up.. no internet access is better than censored access, right?

You're not suggesting that without Google there would be no internet
access in China, are you?

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , mac davis
wrote:

that clears it up.. no internet access is better than censored
access, right?

You're not suggesting that without Google there would be no
internet access in China, are you?


I'm guessing he misspoke. That aside, I have a few questions for
you...

Let's suppose we toss aside the profit motive. Let's pretend that
Google is a genuinely benevolent entity that is entirely removed from
the pesky necessities of raising money or paying bills.

Would you agree that FOR NOW, an agreement to provide censored search
results to the good people of China is better than no agreement at
all?

Would you also agree, that as is often the case with change, change
comes slowly? And it's reasonable to assume that as time progresses,
the level of government censorship in China will likely decrease?

Would you also agree that it's also reasonable to assume that quite a
bit of content intended to be censored will probably make it through
to the Chinese people anyway?

Keeping all this in mind, profit motive aside, would you now agree
that this unpleasant compromise is at least a good step in the right
direction?

Joe Barta

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:00:54 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , mac davis
wrote:

that clears it up.. no internet access is better than censored access, right?

You're not suggesting that without Google there would be no internet
access in China, are you?

no, my bad..
Maybe I should have said no search engine is better than a restricted search
engine?

Censorship is only as good as the people trying to implement it...

you have to know WHAT to block and block all possibilities... a daunting task...

Several tries in the states have failed because of the different meaning of
different words... such as breast.. that would have been blocked by most
censorship tries and as the argument goes, women would not be able to get
information on breast cancer..

I'm sue that there are many creative folks in China that will take advantage of
having Google to get around the censorship..



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Let's suppose we toss aside the profit motive. Let's pretend that
Google is a genuinely benevolent entity that is entirely removed from
the pesky necessities of raising money or paying bills.

While we're at it, let's pretend that the moon really is made of green
cheese, Elvis is alive, and everyone owns flying cars.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Joe
Barta wrote:

Let's suppose we toss aside the profit motive. Let's pretend that
Google is a genuinely benevolent entity that is entirely removed
from the pesky necessities of raising money or paying bills.

While we're at it, let's pretend that the moon really is made of
green cheese, Elvis is alive, and everyone owns flying cars.

You miss the point... the point is to isolate issues of contention. If
you can't do that, then what's the use of further discussion? We each
throw up our hands and walk away thinking the other is just another
dumb clod.

Joe Barta

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

You miss the point... the point is to isolate issues of contention. If
you can't do that, then what's the use of further discussion?

But you want to discuss issues in a context that has no basis in
reality.

To remove the profit motive from the discussion means we're talking
fiction.

Google's actions, like those of Yahoo and Microsoft (and Cisco, if
memory serves) are solidly based in profit. If there was no profit to
be made, Google would have told the Chinese "Look, we're against
censorship and refuse to censor our service. If you choose to firewall
your country and block your citizens from accessing Google, go ahead,
but we refuse to play along."

That's what "Don't be evil" means. That's what people who aren't evil
do.

Instead, Google said "Well, we don't really like the idea, but if
you're prepared to pay us and allow us access to your market in the
future, we can be a *little bit* evil."

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Joe
Barta wrote:

You miss the point... the point is to isolate issues of
contention. If you can't do that, then what's the use of further
discussion?

But you want to discuss issues in a context that has no basis in
reality.

To remove the profit motive from the discussion means we're
talking fiction.

Quite honestly, I can't see why you're having such a hard time doing
this. It's a simple thought excercise.

Imagine a nonprofit entity... they get their money from whoknowswhere.

Can you see any benefit coming out of the nonprofit providing search
results for the Chinese people even though at this time some results
will be censored with a notation stating such on the search results
page?

(IIRC, the search results, if censored, will indeed have a notice on
them. Unfortunately I'm not 100% certain of this and am too lazy to
check at the moment ;-)

Joe Barta

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Quite honestly, I can't see why you're having such a hard time doing
this. It's a simple thought excercise.

Why do a "thought exercise" that isn't based on reality when we have
the actual scenario staring us in the face?

Quite honestly, I can't see why you insist on moving the discussion
from reality to some imaginary scenario that has not, does not and will
not exist.

Profit is the key reason why Google and others are cooperating with the
Chinese Communist Party. Discussing their actions outside of the
context of profit is, as far as I'm concerned, a waste of time.

djb

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Profit is the key reason why Google and others are cooperating
with the Chinese Communist Party. Discussing their actions outside
of the context of profit is, as far as I'm concerned, a waste of
time.

As far as you're concerned it's a waste of time... fair enough.

Joe Barta

In article ,
says...
The silly thing about this whole conversation to anyone that knows even
a little about Google's advantage (no it's not that they were first,
there were many others before them) is their ranking algorithms for the
links returned by the searches.

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Rick