| |
Main
Date: 27 Dec 2006 13:52:46
From: Wayne
Subject: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Try it. I did. I liked it.
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 04:27:01
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Dec 27, 4:52 pm, "Wayne" <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 14:37:24
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:DCYkh.16155$_X.1530@bigfe9...
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
> >> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
> >>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
> >>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
> >>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
> >>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
> >>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
> >>
> >> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
> >> impacts on the world.
> >
> >
> > But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?
>
>
> No, but neither could you. And you're TIME's Person of the Year this year.
>
> As am I. And I couldn't do it either.
>
> Randy
I don't know what Time's rationale was for designating "You" as Person
of the Year, but if it had anything to do with the November elections,
then maybe it wasn't a bad choice.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 17:31:30
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote
>
> I don't know what Time's rationale was for designating "You" as Person
> of the Year, but if it had anything to do with the November elections,
> then maybe it wasn't a bad choice.
Let me enlighten you. (Nothing condescending intended in that rek.)
For what it's worth, I watched the documentary on CNN (owned by TIME-Warner)
that showed the lead-up to TIME's announcement of it's Person of the Year.
The program showed editorial staff meetings in which members of the staff
put names up for consideration and made a case for each one. As the show
unfolded, one gentleman suggested that the originators of YouTube.com ought
to be considered, seeing as how the website had become such a hot thing, and
if not for YouTube.com, the whole controversy surrounding Sen. George Allen
might never have come to light. The fact that it did, arguably, helped to
swing control of the Senate to the Dems giving them BOTH houses of Congress
in the '06 election. Add to that the Michael Richards controversy (not to
mention a video of my golf swing, which is posted on You Tube), and, well,
you have a case for the originators of You Tube being the persons of the
year. OF all the names put forth, I thought this nomination made the most
sense.
Evidently, the idea had some traction with the editorial staff. But they
took it to another level, suggesting that You Tube was just one of many new
forums -- including My Space, all the various blogs, etc.(including, I
suppose, newsgroups like this) -- where it became increasingly obvious that
the "established" media was no longer in control of the flow of information.
Certainly newsgroups like this (and others) have been around since long
before 2006, but 2006 seemed to be the landk year in which this sort of
online flow of information crossed over into the mainstream.
So, in case you haven't seen the cover of TIME, instead of putting a picture
of a person on the cover, they put a computer screen with a piece of mylar
glued to the cover where the monitor's glass would be so you see your own
face in the reflection.
It was an imaginative idea that creatively conveyed the concept they were
seeking to get across, and I applaud the way they did it. More importantly,
I think they got it right in saying that 2006 was a benchk year for
interactive media in which all of us, to varying degrees, helped to set the
agenda for discussion.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 17:28:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
senna@winning.com wrote:
> LeGar wrote:
> > Wayne wrote:
> > > Try it. I did. I liked it.
> > Old and pathetic. Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He=B4s
> > just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> > John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
> > you pathetic failure of a man? L
>
> Good one. Too bad Americans don't understand satire and will believe
> you are being earnest.
I think he WAS being earnest.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 17:25:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Noons wrote:
> > bill-o wrote:
> >> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
> >>
> >> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
> >>
> >
> > dunno: I never read Time...
>
> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections of Time.
> . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965 it was General
> Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005.
> These people are nuts. Not once did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked
> Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is
> in......
Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
for bad.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 20:28:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Noons wrote:
>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>
>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>
>
> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
> for bad.
Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read a
magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives them
a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:17:09
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>>
>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>> for bad.
>
>
> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 19:15:19
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:0dudnQeMXMVJDgjYnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> Noons wrote:
>>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>>
>>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>>
>>>
>>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>>> for bad.
>>
>>
>> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
>> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
>> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
>
> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
> impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>
> Randy
Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the worst
swing ever by someone not in traction?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 14:51:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:15:19 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the worst
>swing ever by someone not in traction?
I suppose if his influence caused most hackers to go get lessons...
But I haven't seen evidence of that.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 04:03:58
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote
>
> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the
> worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by "Golfer of
the Year."
TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to TIME, the
person who had the most impact on the news that year. They've never said
that their Person of the Year is the "most admirable" or "most heroic" or
anything like that. It's never been intended to be a "good guy of the year"
feel-good story. Just an acknowledgement that one person seemed to have had
the most impact on the news that year. Not the most lasting impact. Just
the most imact on the news THAT YEAR.
What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as the
person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a deserving
candidate.
We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the most
influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 10:59:54
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:YNmdnXA1dfvwtgvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>
>> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the
>> worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
>
>
> That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by "Golfer of
> the Year."
>
> TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to TIME,
> the person who had the most impact on the news that year. They've never
> said that their Person of the Year is the "most admirable" or "most
> heroic" or anything like that. It's never been intended to be a "good guy
> of the year" feel-good story. Just an acknowledgement that one person
> seemed to have had the most impact on the news that year. Not the most
> lasting impact. Just the most imact on the news THAT YEAR.
>
> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
>
> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as the
> person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a deserving
> candidate.
>
> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the most
> influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>
> Randy
Time is responsible for the general perception caused by their words, not
just what their own devinition of those words and phrases are. If I wrote
"Jonas Salk is an asshole but I mean that in a good way.", so what, the
words are still there and people will, as demonstrated by the number of
people who have posted, have their/our own perception of what those words
mean. (No I didn't read through this sentence to see if it makes sense.) Go
Rosie, Donald is an Ass Hole and I mean that in a good way.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 17:35:55
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:RCzlh.70949$Zb5.18983@newsfe13.phx...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:YNmdnXA1dfvwtgvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>
>>> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the
>>> worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
>>
>>
>> That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by "Golfer of
>> the Year."
>>
>> TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to TIME,
>> the person who had the most impact on the news that year. They've never
>> said that their Person of the Year is the "most admirable" or "most
>> heroic" or anything like that. It's never been intended to be a "good
>> guy of the year" feel-good story. Just an acknowledgement that one
>> person seemed to have had the most impact on the news that year. Not the
>> most lasting impact. Just the most imact on the news THAT YEAR.
>>
>> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
>>
>> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as the
>> person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a deserving
>> candidate.
>>
>> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the most
>> influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>>
>> Randy
>
> Time is responsible for the general perception caused by their words, not
> just what their own devinition of those words and phrases are. If I wrote
> "Jonas Salk is an asshole but I mean that in a good way.", so what, the
> words are still there and people will, as demonstrated by the number of
> people who have posted, have their/our own perception of what those words
> mean. (No I didn't read through this sentence to see if it makes sense.)
> Go Rosie, Donald is an Ass Hole and I mean that in a good way.
So you're telling us that you think because TIME names a bad guy its "Person
of the Year" that readers of the magazine are so stupid that they'd believe
it's tantamount to TIME naming that person as the "most admirable person of
the year."
This just in: Those who actually READ the magazine know better.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 14:00:22
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:3KKdneLs0dMldAvYnZ2dnUVZ_h6jnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:RCzlh.70949$Zb5.18983@newsfe13.phx...
>>
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:YNmdnXA1dfvwtgvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the
>>>> worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
>>>
>>>
>>> That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by "Golfer
>>> of the Year."
>>>
>>> TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to TIME,
>>> the person who had the most impact on the news that year. They've never
>>> said that their Person of the Year is the "most admirable" or "most
>>> heroic" or anything like that. It's never been intended to be a "good
>>> guy of the year" feel-good story. Just an acknowledgement that one
>>> person seemed to have had the most impact on the news that year. Not
>>> the most lasting impact. Just the most imact on the news THAT YEAR.
>>>
>>> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
>>>
>>> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as
>>> the person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a
>>> deserving candidate.
>>>
>>> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the most
>>> influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>>>
>>> Randy
>>
>> Time is responsible for the general perception caused by their words, not
>> just what their own devinition of those words and phrases are. If I wrote
>> "Jonas Salk is an asshole but I mean that in a good way.", so what, the
>> words are still there and people will, as demonstrated by the number of
>> people who have posted, have their/our own perception of what those words
>> mean. (No I didn't read through this sentence to see if it makes sense.)
>> Go Rosie, Donald is an Ass Hole and I mean that in a good way.
>
>
>
> So you're telling us that you think because TIME names a bad guy its
> "Person of the Year" that readers of the magazine are so stupid that
> they'd believe it's tantamount to TIME naming that person as the "most
> admirable person of the year."
>
> This just in: Those who actually READ the magazine know better.
>
> Randy
A lot of people see the cover and hear the designtion without reading the
cover. It not much different than a bad headline on a newspaper which can be
misleading as well.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 23:21:43
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:2gClh.71913$B42.46110@newsfe12.phx...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:3KKdneLs0dMldAvYnZ2dnUVZ_h6jnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:RCzlh.70949$Zb5.18983@newsfe13.phx...
>>>
>>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:YNmdnXA1dfvwtgvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has the
>>>>> worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by "Golfer
>>>> of the Year."
>>>>
>>>> TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to TIME,
>>>> the person who had the most impact on the news that year. They've
>>>> never said that their Person of the Year is the "most admirable" or
>>>> "most heroic" or anything like that. It's never been intended to be a
>>>> "good guy of the year" feel-good story. Just an acknowledgement that
>>>> one person seemed to have had the most impact on the news that year.
>>>> Not the most lasting impact. Just the most imact on the news THAT
>>>> YEAR.
>>>>
>>>> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as
>>>> the person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a
>>>> deserving candidate.
>>>>
>>>> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the
>>>> most influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Randy
>>>
>>> Time is responsible for the general perception caused by their words,
>>> not just what their own devinition of those words and phrases are. If I
>>> wrote "Jonas Salk is an asshole but I mean that in a good way.", so
>>> what, the words are still there and people will, as demonstrated by the
>>> number of people who have posted, have their/our own perception of what
>>> those words mean. (No I didn't read through this sentence to see if it
>>> makes sense.) Go Rosie, Donald is an Ass Hole and I mean that in a good
>>> way.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're telling us that you think because TIME names a bad guy its
>> "Person of the Year" that readers of the magazine are so stupid that
>> they'd believe it's tantamount to TIME naming that person as the "most
>> admirable person of the year."
>>
>> This just in: Those who actually READ the magazine know better.
>>
>> Randy
>
> A lot of people see the cover and hear the designtion without reading the
> cover. It not much different than a bad headline on a newspaper which can
> be misleading as well.
So you're advocating that TIME adjust their policies to conform with the
wishes of those who don't read?
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 20:29:28
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:KLGdnXBhNdNfpwrYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:2gClh.71913$B42.46110@newsfe12.phx...
>>
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:3KKdneLs0dMldAvYnZ2dnUVZ_h6jnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RCzlh.70949$Zb5.18983@newsfe13.phx...
>>>>
>>>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:YNmdnXA1dfvwtgvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has
>>>>>> the worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by "Golfer
>>>>> of the Year."
>>>>>
>>>>> TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to
>>>>> TIME, the person who had the most impact on the news that year.
>>>>> They've never said that their Person of the Year is the "most
>>>>> admirable" or "most heroic" or anything like that. It's never been
>>>>> intended to be a "good guy of the year" feel-good story. Just an
>>>>> acknowledgement that one person seemed to have had the most impact on
>>>>> the news that year. Not the most lasting impact. Just the most imact
>>>>> on the news THAT YEAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as
>>>>> the person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a
>>>>> deserving candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the
>>>>> most influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Randy
>>>>
>>>> Time is responsible for the general perception caused by their words,
>>>> not just what their own devinition of those words and phrases are. If I
>>>> wrote "Jonas Salk is an asshole but I mean that in a good way.", so
>>>> what, the words are still there and people will, as demonstrated by the
>>>> number of people who have posted, have their/our own perception of what
>>>> those words mean. (No I didn't read through this sentence to see if it
>>>> makes sense.) Go Rosie, Donald is an Ass Hole and I mean that in a good
>>>> way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're telling us that you think because TIME names a bad guy its
>>> "Person of the Year" that readers of the magazine are so stupid that
>>> they'd believe it's tantamount to TIME naming that person as the "most
>>> admirable person of the year."
>>>
>>> This just in: Those who actually READ the magazine know better.
>>>
>>> Randy
>>
>> A lot of people see the cover and hear the designtion without reading the
>> cover. It not much different than a bad headline on a newspaper which can
>> be misleading as well.
>
>
> So you're advocating that TIME adjust their policies to conform with the
> wishes of those who don't read?
>
> Randy
If Time needs to readjust their holy policies so that they don't put
misleading covers on their magazine, then yes, I suggest that the most
revered and sanctified pillar of modern democracy, think about putting out a
magazine that seems to put evil people on a pedeatal, only to be revealed by
buying their magazine.
It's a hook, isn't it? And what a wasted opportunity to put someone
worthwhile on the cover and have a seperate section called . "OTOH, here's
our pick for the person who affected the world in the most negative way."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:14:48
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:QYHlh.72897$uX4.21815@newsfe09.phx...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:KLGdnXBhNdNfpwrYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:2gClh.71913$B42.46110@newsfe12.phx...
>>>
>>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3KKdneLs0dMldAvYnZ2dnUVZ_h6jnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:RCzlh.70949$Zb5.18983@newsfe13.phx...
>>>>>
>>>>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:YNmdnXA1dfvwtgvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we call Charles Barkley "Golfer of the Year" because he has
>>>>>>> the worst swing ever by someone not in traction?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would depend entirely on how you defined what you mean by
>>>>>> "Golfer of the Year."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIME's "Person of the Year" is, and has always been, according to
>>>>>> TIME, the person who had the most impact on the news that year.
>>>>>> They've never said that their Person of the Year is the "most
>>>>>> admirable" or "most heroic" or anything like that. It's never been
>>>>>> intended to be a "good guy of the year" feel-good story. Just an
>>>>>> acknowledgement that one person seemed to have had the most impact on
>>>>>> the news that year. Not the most lasting impact. Just the most imact
>>>>>> on the news THAT YEAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year" as
>>>>>> the person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a
>>>>>> deserving candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the
>>>>>> most influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Randy
>>>>>
>>>>> Time is responsible for the general perception caused by their words,
>>>>> not just what their own devinition of those words and phrases are. If
>>>>> I wrote "Jonas Salk is an asshole but I mean that in a good way.", so
>>>>> what, the words are still there and people will, as demonstrated by
>>>>> the number of people who have posted, have their/our own perception of
>>>>> what those words mean. (No I didn't read through this sentence to see
>>>>> if it makes sense.) Go Rosie, Donald is an Ass Hole and I mean that in
>>>>> a good way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you're telling us that you think because TIME names a bad guy its
>>>> "Person of the Year" that readers of the magazine are so stupid that
>>>> they'd believe it's tantamount to TIME naming that person as the "most
>>>> admirable person of the year."
>>>>
>>>> This just in: Those who actually READ the magazine know better.
>>>>
>>>> Randy
>>>
>>> A lot of people see the cover and hear the designtion without reading
>>> the cover. It not much different than a bad headline on a newspaper
>>> which can be misleading as well.
>>
>>
>> So you're advocating that TIME adjust their policies to conform with the
>> wishes of those who don't read?
>>
>> Randy
>
> If Time needs to readjust their holy policies so that they don't put
> misleading covers on their magazine, then yes, I suggest that the most
> revered and sanctified pillar of modern democracy, think about putting out
> a magazine that seems to put evil people on a pedeatal, only to be
> revealed by buying their magazine.
There's nothing "holy" about their policy. It's just their policy. They
have a right to formulate their policy however they see fit, just as you
have every right to formulate your policy in whatever way you see fit. You
want to publish a magazine that names a "Person of the Year" each year that
celebrates the best of the human condition, I'm all in favor of it.
Nobody's stopping you. And if you defined your magazine's "Person of the
Year" as the "good guy of the year" and someone came along and indicted you
for not acknowledging that some tyrant was a bigger newsmaker than your
Person of the Year, I'd be the first in line to tell them to shut the fuck
up, and remind them that you have every right to define the standards by
which you select your Person of the Year, and that there's no rule that
states it must be the same standards by which TIME names theirs.
What about this is so damn hard to understand?
You do still believe in the Bill of Rights, don't you? You know, that silly
little document that grants freedom of speech, freedom of the press -- you
know, those little inconveniences that seem to annoy you whenever someone
writes something that you'd rather not read. You do still believe in those
freedoms, don't you? Or not? And if not, then what freedoms, exactly, are
we fighting to protect in the Middle East?
Their covers -- or more specifically, their naming of the "TIME Person of
the Year" -- is only misleading (in the way you've implied) to dumb asses
who don't know what it means and don't expend the modicum of time and energy
necessary to read the article to find out.
Now if you believe it's best to assume that the general public is that
stupid, and that publications such as TIME should lower their editorial
standards to the lowest common denominator so that even the dumbest of
people can keep up, then you must have a much lower opinion of the public's
intelligence than I do, and than TIME Magazine does.
Personally, I find this thread terribly revealing about the way certain
people think. I don't mean that as an indictment of you or Head Shot or
anyone else. I just find it a fascinating study in human behavior that
certain people want to try to get others to adhere to their values (like
wishing TIME would re-define what their Person of the Year is supposed to be
so that it conforms to what YOU think it should be). I can think of no more
futile exercise.
You might as well try to convince TIME Magazine's editors that that you can
fly to the moon by flapping your arms (wings). Good luck with that.
Of course if you *were* somehow able to accomplish such a feat, then maybe
they'd name YOU their next "Person of the Year." And I'd certainly want to
read about it.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 22:18:00
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
[snip]
>>>>>>> What part of that is so damn hard to understand?
What makes you think that there is something that I don't understand? No
offense but this isn't like trying to figure out golf.
>>>>>>> Getting back to your question, if you defined "Golfer of the Year"
>>>>>>> as the person with the worst swing, then, yes, I'd say Barkley is a
>>>>>>> deserving candidate.
Apparently Time agreees with you. Do you really think that "Person of the
Year" is a neutral term?
>>>>>>> We should all thank our lucky stars that his swing did not have the
>>>>>>> most influence on other golfers' swings in any given year. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Randy
>> If Time needs to readjust their holy policies so that they don't put
>> misleading covers on their magazine, then yes, I suggest that the most
>> revered and sanctified pillar of modern democracy, think about putting
>> out a magazine that seems to put evil people on a pedeatal, only to be
>> revealed by buying their magazine.
>
>
> There's nothing "holy" about their policy. It's just their policy. They
> have a right to formulate their policy however they see fit, just as you
> have every right to formulate your policy in whatever way you see fit.
> You want to publish a magazine that names a "Person of the Year" each year
> that celebrates the best of the human condition, I'm all in favor of it.
> Nobody's stopping you. And if you defined your magazine's "Person of the
> Year" as the "good guy of the year" and someone came along and indicted
> you for not acknowledging that some tyrant was a bigger newsmaker than
> your Person of the Year, I'd be the first in line to tell them to shut the
> fuck up, and remind them that you have every right to define the standards
> by which you select your Person of the Year, and that there's no rule that
> states it must be the same standards by which TIME names theirs.
That's right. It would be no big deal for Time to rethink their dumb idea of
making people like Adolph Hitler, "Man of the Year".
> What about this is so damn hard to understand?
>
> You do still believe in the Bill of Rights, don't you? You know, that
> silly little document that grants freedom of speech, freedom of the
> press -- you know, those little inconveniences that seem to annoy you
> whenever someone writes something that you'd rather not read. You do
> still believe in those freedoms, don't you? Or not? And if not, then
> what freedoms, exactly, are we fighting to protect in the Middle East?
You have a right to disagree with me.
> Their covers -- or more specifically, their naming of the "TIME Person of
> the Year" -- is only misleading (in the way you've implied) to dumb asses
> who don't know what it means and don't expend the modicum of time and
> energy necessary to read the article to find out.
>
> Now if you believe it's best to assume that the general public is that
> stupid, and that publications such as TIME should lower their editorial
> standards to the lowest common denominator so that even the dumbest of
> people can keep up, then you must have a much lower opinion of the
> public's intelligence than I do, and than TIME Magazine does.
Yes, let's let kids see Sadam Hussein's picture on the front of a magazine
with "Person of the Year" and keep that in their minds for 10 years until
they understand that it was a careless use of the power of the press.
> Personally, I find this thread terribly revealing about the way certain
> people think. I don't mean that as an indictment of you or Head Shot or
> anyone else. I just find it a fascinating study in human behavior that
> certain people want to try to get others to adhere to their values (like
> wishing TIME would re-define what their Person of the Year is supposed to
> be so that it conforms to what YOU think it should be). I can think of no
> more futile exercise.
Try doing one armed push-ups and one legged push-ups at the same time.
> You might as well try to convince TIME Magazine's editors that that you
> can fly to the moon by flapping your arms (wings). Good luck with that.
>
> Of course if you *were* somehow able to accomplish such a feat, then maybe
> they'd name YOU their next "Person of the Year." And I'd certainly want
> to read about it.
>
> Randy
This is about someone's ego but I'm not sure who and if it's a good thing or
a bad thing.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:55:17
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> What makes you think that there is something that I don't understand?
> No offense but this isn't like trying to figure out golf.
Randy is a moron. I cannot believe that anyone can be so stupid that they
think "Man of the Year" is understood to be a neutral term by people who are
looking at a cover and deciding whether or not to buy it. Anyhow - I am
done with him. He is just an annoying tool and I can't find any reason to
continue with him. You have fun spanking the clown - I am out of this one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 13:21:09
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:n1Klh.16684$_X.6412@bigfe9...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> What makes you think that there is something that I don't understand?
>> No offense but this isn't like trying to figure out golf.
>
> Randy is a moron. I cannot believe that anyone can be so stupid that
> they think "Man of the Year" is understood to be a neutral term by people
> who are looking at a cover and deciding whether or not to buy it.
> Anyhow - I am done with him. He is just an annoying tool and I can't find
> any reason to continue with him. You have fun spanking the clown - I am
> out of this one.
I said that people who read TIME know what TIME Magazine's Person of the
Year is.
You are so fucking thick.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:23:28
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:2cGdnRVMLuQIYgrYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:n1Klh.16684$_X.6412@bigfe9...
>> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>>> What makes you think that there is something that I don't understand?
>>> No offense but this isn't like trying to figure out golf.
>>
>> Randy is a moron. I cannot believe that anyone can be so stupid that
>> they think "Man of the Year" is understood to be a neutral term by people
>> who are looking at a cover and deciding whether or not to buy it.
>> Anyhow - I am done with him. He is just an annoying tool and I can't
>> find any reason to continue with him. You have fun spanking the clown -
>> I am out of this one.
>
>
> I said that people who read TIME know what TIME Magazine's Person of the
> Year is.
>
> You are so fucking thick.
>
> Randy
Dang, I've never spanked a clown before. It's kind of homophobic. And I do
admire rodeo clowns. You've got your pants on, don't you?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 16:40:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>>>> What makes you think that there is something that I don't
>>>> understand? No offense but this isn't like trying to figure out
>>>> golf.
>>>
>>> Randy is a moron. I cannot believe that anyone can be so stupid
>>> that they think "Man of the Year" is understood to be a neutral
>>> term by people who are looking at a cover and deciding whether or
>>> not to buy it. Anyhow - I am done with him. He is just an annoying tool
>>> and I
>>> can't find any reason to continue with him. You have fun spanking
>>> the clown - I am out of this one.
>>
>>
>> I said that people who read TIME know what TIME Magazine's Person of
>> the Year is.
>>
>> You are so fucking thick.
>
> Dang, I've never spanked a clown before. It's kind of homophobic. And
> I do admire rodeo clowns. You've got your pants on, don't you?
If he does have his pants down; I would imagine there was not much down
there. Probably something with a size and shape along the lines of a pencil
eraser. People that are as rude as he is on Usenet are usually neutered in
real life.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:41:20
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:13Wlh.15556$641.14371@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>>>>> What makes you think that there is something that I don't
>>>>> understand? No offense but this isn't like trying to figure out
>>>>> golf.
>>>>
>>>> Randy is a moron. I cannot believe that anyone can be so stupid
>>>> that they think "Man of the Year" is understood to be a neutral
>>>> term by people who are looking at a cover and deciding whether or
>>>> not to buy it. Anyhow - I am done with him. He is just an annoying
>>>> tool and I
>>>> can't find any reason to continue with him. You have fun spanking
>>>> the clown - I am out of this one.
>>>
>>>
>>> I said that people who read TIME know what TIME Magazine's Person of
>>> the Year is.
>>>
>>> You are so fucking thick.
>>
>> Dang, I've never spanked a clown before. It's kind of homophobic. And
>> I do admire rodeo clowns. You've got your pants on, don't you?
>
>
> If he does have his pants down; I would imagine there was not much down
> there. Probably something with a size and shape along the lines of a
> pencil eraser. People that are as rude as he is on Usenet are usually
> neutered in real life.
I was going to spank his ass but now, forget the whole thing. Actually I had
a lot of fun bashing Bush with Randy before the election and I don't get
this at all. Btw, Bush thanked the Coast Guard a couple of days ago, for
their participation in Iraq.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 16:49:15
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> I was going to spank his ass but now, forget the whole thing.
> Actually I had a lot of fun bashing Bush with Randy before the
> election and I don't get this at all.
I killfiled the little freak. I was getting too annoyed and had to remind
myself that this is only Usenet and twits like that are never that way in
real life.
> Btw, Bush thanked the Coast
> Guard a couple of days ago, for their participation in Iraq.
I just saw a GREAT documentary yesterday about the USCG's involvement in WW
I, WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam. I was surprised to know just how involved
they are in wars. I am really impressed with the USCG. Those guys rock!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 15:34:30
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:VaWlh.15560$641.1125@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> I was going to spank his ass but now, forget the whole thing.
>> Actually I had a lot of fun bashing Bush with Randy before the
>> election and I don't get this at all.
>
> I killfiled the little freak. I was getting too annoyed and had to
> remind myself that this is only Usenet and twits like that are never that
> way in real life.
>
>
>> Btw, Bush thanked the Coast
>> Guard a couple of days ago, for their participation in Iraq.
>
>
> I just saw a GREAT documentary yesterday about the USCG's involvement in
> WW I, WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam. I was surprised to know just how
> involved they are in wars. I am really impressed with the USCG. Those
> guys rock!
Bush did not thank the National Guard, along with the Army and Air Force,
ines and Navy or some combination. Has the Coast Guard had anything to do
with this war? I guess the have in trying to keep terrorists out of the
country.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 20:25:16
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> Bush did not thank the National Guard, along with the Army and Air
> Force, ines and Navy or some combination. Has the Coast Guard had
> anything to do with this war? I guess the have in trying to keep
> terrorists out of the country.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/coastguard/a/uscgwar.htm
In this capacity, crew members from Coast Guard Cutter Adak captured the
first itime prisoners of war in the conflict. Coast Guard patrol boats
and law enforcement detachments helped intercept and seize Iraqi mine-laying
vessels, ensuring waterways weren't threatened and relief ships could safely
deliver their cargo to the port of Umm Qasr. In addition, the Coast Guard
provided port security in key logistics ports in Kuwait and Iraq and at
Iraqi oil terminals in the northern Arabian Gulf.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2007 14:33:10
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Interesting but that was from 2004. I was strange that President Bush didn't
acknowledge the National Guard, though, but this isn't a good thing for me.
I've got to keep out of politics. It's like an addiction.
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:LpZlh.13599$U12.2233@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> Bush did not thank the National Guard, along with the Army and Air
>> Force, ines and Navy or some combination. Has the Coast Guard had
>> anything to do with this war? I guess the have in trying to keep
>> terrorists out of the country.
>
>
> http://usmilitary.about.com/od/coastguard/a/uscgwar.htm
> In this capacity, crew members from Coast Guard Cutter Adak captured the
> first itime prisoners of war in the conflict. Coast Guard patrol boats
> and law enforcement detachments helped intercept and seize Iraqi
> mine-laying vessels, ensuring waterways weren't threatened and relief
> ships could safely deliver their cargo to the port of Umm Qasr. In
> addition, the Coast Guard provided port security in key logistics ports in
> Kuwait and Iraq and at Iraqi oil terminals in the northern Arabian Gulf.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:43:06
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote
>>
>> You do still believe in the Bill of Rights, don't you? You know, that
>> silly little document that grants freedom of speech, freedom of the
>> press -- you know, those little inconveniences that seem to annoy you
>> whenever someone writes something that you'd rather not read. You do
>> still believe in those freedoms, don't you? Or not? And if not, then
>> what freedoms, exactly, are we fighting to protect in the Middle East?
>
> You have a right to disagree with me.
You didn't answer the question. Why am I not surprised?
Let's try this again: Do you or do you not believe in the Bill of Rights
and all its freedoms?
Or do you believe in censorship?
Methinks we see a hint of what your true answer would be in the next
paragraph:
> Yes, let's let kids see Sadam Hussein's picture on the front of a magazine
> with "Person of the Year" and keep that in their minds for 10 years until
> they understand that it was a careless use of the power of the press.
First of all, TIME is not a "kid's" magazine. I'm sure the editors of
Weekly Reader would not be so bold as to name Saddam Hussein as Man of the
Year, and if they did, they'd probably put "Evil Man of the Year" on the
cover.
Perhaps you'd prefer it if TIME were to dumb down their magazine so even
kids would get it.
But fortunately, there are still some publications that us grown-ups can
read, and which don't talk down to us like we're a bunch of children. I
guess you still only read magazines that let you color in the pictures.
But getting back to your answer, where you assert that this is a "careless
use of the power of the press."
You don't get it, do you? That's the whole point of having freedom of the
press. Because if we didn't have freedom of the press, SOMEONE (you? the
president? someone) would act as the arbiter of what is and what isn't
appropriate for us to read.
Well, guess what. There are countries where there are such arbitors who
decide what's best for the public to consume. Perhaps you'd enjoy living
there, instead.
I am constantly amazed by people in this country who insist that our nation
should fight to protect our freedoms, but then become outraged when someone
actually USES those freedoms to say something they find disagreeable with
their own views, values or opinions, asserting that they're being
"irresponsible."
"Irresponsible?" Just because you don't agree? Puhleeze.
You either believe in the freedoms or you don't.
Evidently, you do only when the person exercising them says something you
find palatable.
They just executed a guy in Iraq last night who shared the same views of
freedom as you do. Only you're too stupid to recognize the similarity.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:35:34
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:AtGdnYqi0auX9wrYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>
>>> You do still believe in the Bill of Rights, don't you? You know, that
>>> silly little document that grants freedom of speech, freedom of the
>>> press -- you know, those little inconveniences that seem to annoy you
>>> whenever someone writes something that you'd rather not read. You do
>>> still believe in those freedoms, don't you? Or not? And if not, then
>>> what freedoms, exactly, are we fighting to protect in the Middle East?
>>
>> You have a right to disagree with me.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question. Why am I not surprised?
>
> Let's try this again: Do you or do you not believe in the Bill of Rights
> and all its freedoms?
>
> Or do you believe in censorship?
>
>
> Methinks we see a hint of what your true answer would be in the next
> paragraph:
>
>> Yes, let's let kids see Sadam Hussein's picture on the front of a
>> magazine with "Person of the Year" and keep that in their minds for 10
>> years until they understand that it was a careless use of the power of
>> the press.
>
>
> First of all, TIME is not a "kid's" magazine. I'm sure the editors of
> Weekly Reader would not be so bold as to name Saddam Hussein as Man of the
> Year, and if they did, they'd probably put "Evil Man of the Year" on the
> cover.
>
> Perhaps you'd prefer it if TIME were to dumb down their magazine so even
> kids would get it.
>
> But fortunately, there are still some publications that us grown-ups can
> read, and which don't talk down to us like we're a bunch of children. I
> guess you still only read magazines that let you color in the pictures.
>
> But getting back to your answer, where you assert that this is a "careless
> use of the power of the press."
>
> You don't get it, do you? That's the whole point of having freedom of the
> press. Because if we didn't have freedom of the press, SOMEONE (you? the
> president? someone) would act as the arbiter of what is and what isn't
> appropriate for us to read.
>
> Well, guess what. There are countries where there are such arbitors who
> decide what's best for the public to consume. Perhaps you'd enjoy living
> there, instead.
>
> I am constantly amazed by people in this country who insist that our
> nation should fight to protect our freedoms, but then become outraged when
> someone actually USES those freedoms to say something they find
> disagreeable with their own views, values or opinions, asserting that
> they're being "irresponsible."
>
> "Irresponsible?" Just because you don't agree? Puhleeze.
>
> You either believe in the freedoms or you don't.
>
> Evidently, you do only when the person exercising them says something you
> find palatable.
>
> They just executed a guy in Iraq last night who shared the same views of
> freedom as you do. Only you're too stupid to recognize the similarity.
>
> Randy
Geez, you really are fucked up about this. Comparing someone who expresses
their opinion about a freely distributed magazine in a democratic country is
like Sadam Hussein? You don't get the difference between government
censorship and an opinion ... but this arguement has been going on for a
long time, through many forums, so if you're trying to get a flame going, it
might be better to pick a different subject. This is old. But just so you
can have a copy in case you forget: When a government restricts free speech,
as in when they force demonstrators to be far away from political
conventions where it is difficult for the media to get interviews and for
the mainstream stories to show the demonstrators, that is censorship of
speech. When some posts an opinion about Time's "Man of the Year" award on
the internet, that is an opinion.
And people who use statements like "You just don't get it." are like the
ones who say "We don't like what you said." There is no absolute truth to
get. Maybe I've got you confused with someone else who seemed to be pretty
rational.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 16:46:44
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> And people who use statements like "You just don't get it." are like
> the ones who say "We don't like what you said." There is no absolute
> truth to get. Maybe I've got you confused with someone else who
> seemed to be pretty rational.
Hopefully by now you are fairly clear on just what kind of loser this Randy
is. I'm thinking he is the kind of insane weirdo that ends up in an Amish
school taping little girls together and raping them before executing them.
He seems like that kind of freak.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 15:32:37
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:y8Wlh.15559$641.1494@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> And people who use statements like "You just don't get it." are like
>> the ones who say "We don't like what you said." There is no absolute
>> truth to get. Maybe I've got you confused with someone else who
>> seemed to be pretty rational.
>
>
> Hopefully by now you are fairly clear on just what kind of loser this
> Randy is. I'm thinking he is the kind of insane weirdo that ends up in an
> Amish school taping little girls together and raping them before executing
> them. He seems like that kind of freak.
Randy is pretty well respected here. He's way off, imo, on this topic, but
he's contributed a lot to this forum. And will continue to, in a better way,
after his spanking, no ass whooping, especially if my mother gets involved.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 20:23:01
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:y8Wlh.15559$641.1494@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>>> And people who use statements like "You just don't get it." are like
>>> the ones who say "We don't like what you said." There is no absolute
>>> truth to get. Maybe I've got you confused with someone else who
>>> seemed to be pretty rational.
>>
>>
>> Hopefully by now you are fairly clear on just what kind of loser this
>> Randy is. I'm thinking he is the kind of insane weirdo that ends up
>> in an Amish school taping little girls together and raping them
>> before executing them. He seems like that kind of freak.
>
> Randy is pretty well respected here. He's way off, imo, on this
> topic, but he's contributed a lot to this forum. And will continue
> to, in a better way, after his spanking, no ass whooping, especially
> if my mother gets involved.
I don't respect him at this point. His behavior was appalling. He is in my
killfile; but I would prefer if he was in a hospital getting much needed
psychiatric attention.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 17:35:02
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Nice try.
Randy
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:y8Wlh.15559$641.1494@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> And people who use statements like "You just don't get it." are like
>> the ones who say "We don't like what you said." There is no absolute
>> truth to get. Maybe I've got you confused with someone else who
>> seemed to be pretty rational.
>
>
> Hopefully by now you are fairly clear on just what kind of loser this
> Randy is. I'm thinking he is the kind of insane weirdo that ends up in an
> Amish school taping little girls together and raping them before executing
> them. He seems like that kind of freak.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:21:32
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:AtGdnYqi0auX9wrYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>
>>> You do still believe in the Bill of Rights, don't you? You know, that
>>> silly little document that grants freedom of speech, freedom of the
>>> press -- you know, those little inconveniences that seem to annoy you
>>> whenever someone writes something that you'd rather not read. You do
>>> still believe in those freedoms, don't you? Or not? And if not, then
>>> what freedoms, exactly, are we fighting to protect in the Middle East?
>>
>> You have a right to disagree with me.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question. Why am I not surprised?
>
> Let's try this again: Do you or do you not believe in the Bill of Rights
> and all its freedoms?
>
> Or do you believe in censorship?
>
>
> Methinks we see a hint of what your true answer would be in the next
> paragraph:
>
>> Yes, let's let kids see Sadam Hussein's picture on the front of a
>> magazine with "Person of the Year" and keep that in their minds for 10
>> years until they understand that it was a careless use of the power of
>> the press.
>
>
> First of all, TIME is not a "kid's" magazine. I'm sure the editors of
> Weekly Reader would not be so bold as to name Saddam Hussein as Man of the
> Year, and if they did, they'd probably put "Evil Man of the Year" on the
> cover.
>
> Perhaps you'd prefer it if TIME were to dumb down their magazine so even
> kids would get it.
>
> But fortunately, there are still some publications that us grown-ups can
> read, and which don't talk down to us like we're a bunch of children. I
> guess you still only read magazines that let you color in the pictures.
>
> But getting back to your answer, where you assert that this is a "careless
> use of the power of the press."
>
> You don't get it, do you? That's the whole point of having freedom of the
> press. Because if we didn't have freedom of the press, SOMEONE (you? the
> president? someone) would act as the arbiter of what is and what isn't
> appropriate for us to read.
>
> Well, guess what. There are countries where there are such arbitors who
> decide what's best for the public to consume. Perhaps you'd enjoy living
> there, instead.
>
> I am constantly amazed by people in this country who insist that our
> nation should fight to protect our freedoms, but then become outraged when
> someone actually USES those freedoms to say something they find
> disagreeable with their own views, values or opinions, asserting that
> they're being "irresponsible."
>
> "Irresponsible?" Just because you don't agree? Puhleeze.
>
> You either believe in the freedoms or you don't.
>
> Evidently, you do only when the person exercising them says something you
> find palatable.
>
> They just executed a guy in Iraq last night who shared the same views of
> freedom as you do. Only you're too stupid to recognize the similarity.
>
> Randy
I do not believe in government censorship and yes I believe in the Bill of
Rights. Or were you asking someone else? This seems to be one area in which
you have a blind spot. Almost everything else seems rational to me. For some
reason you find it personally offensive for people to critisize Time
Magazine's choice to publish a "Person of the Year", which I'm sure isn't
original, but maybe it is ... but which a 99.9% majority of the world would
consider a positive title ... you get what I'm saying. But then again Howard
agrees with you, so maybe it's me that has the blind spot, but as Monk says
in his theme song by Randy Newman " ... but I don't think so."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 17:34:02
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:sVVlh.74235$B42.50434@newsfe12.phx...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:AtGdnYqi0auX9wrYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> You do still believe in the Bill of Rights, don't you? You know, that
>>>> silly little document that grants freedom of speech, freedom of the
>>>> press -- you know, those little inconveniences that seem to annoy you
>>>> whenever someone writes something that you'd rather not read. You do
>>>> still believe in those freedoms, don't you? Or not? And if not, then
>>>> what freedoms, exactly, are we fighting to protect in the Middle East?
>>>
>>> You have a right to disagree with me.
>>
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. Why am I not surprised?
>>
>> Let's try this again: Do you or do you not believe in the Bill of Rights
>> and all its freedoms?
>>
>> Or do you believe in censorship?
>>
>>
>> Methinks we see a hint of what your true answer would be in the next
>> paragraph:
>>
>>> Yes, let's let kids see Sadam Hussein's picture on the front of a
>>> magazine with "Person of the Year" and keep that in their minds for 10
>>> years until they understand that it was a careless use of the power of
>>> the press.
>>
>>
>> First of all, TIME is not a "kid's" magazine. I'm sure the editors of
>> Weekly Reader would not be so bold as to name Saddam Hussein as Man of
>> the Year, and if they did, they'd probably put "Evil Man of the Year" on
>> the cover.
>>
>> Perhaps you'd prefer it if TIME were to dumb down their magazine so even
>> kids would get it.
>>
>> But fortunately, there are still some publications that us grown-ups can
>> read, and which don't talk down to us like we're a bunch of children. I
>> guess you still only read magazines that let you color in the pictures.
>>
>> But getting back to your answer, where you assert that this is a
>> "careless use of the power of the press."
>>
>> You don't get it, do you? That's the whole point of having freedom of
>> the press. Because if we didn't have freedom of the press, SOMEONE (you?
>> the president? someone) would act as the arbiter of what is and what
>> isn't appropriate for us to read.
>>
>> Well, guess what. There are countries where there are such arbitors who
>> decide what's best for the public to consume. Perhaps you'd enjoy living
>> there, instead.
>>
>> I am constantly amazed by people in this country who insist that our
>> nation should fight to protect our freedoms, but then become outraged
>> when someone actually USES those freedoms to say something they find
>> disagreeable with their own views, values or opinions, asserting that
>> they're being "irresponsible."
>>
>> "Irresponsible?" Just because you don't agree? Puhleeze.
>>
>> You either believe in the freedoms or you don't.
>>
>> Evidently, you do only when the person exercising them says something you
>> find palatable.
>>
>> They just executed a guy in Iraq last night who shared the same views of
>> freedom as you do. Only you're too stupid to recognize the similarity.
>>
>> Randy
>
> I do not believe in government censorship and yes I believe in the Bill of
> Rights. Or were you asking someone else? This seems to be one area in
> which you have a blind spot. Almost everything else seems rational to me.
> For some reason you find it personally offensive for people to critisize
> Time Magazine's choice to publish a "Person of the Year", which I'm sure
> isn't original, but maybe it is ...
No, I'm neither defensive or offended by anyone criticizing TIME choice to
publish a "Person of the Year." Frankly, I don't know why I'm speaking up
about this. I neither subscribe to TIME or have any interest in this issue.
Except for the fact that I find it amusing whenever people insist on trying
to impose their values on others.
The thing I find so puzzling is why someone would question TIME's choice of
who they name "Person of the Year" based on one's own set of criteria for
what a Person of the Year ought to be, when they know full well (or maybe
they didn't at the beginning of this thread, but they surely do by now) that
TIME's criteria is something else entirely. What's the point? To try to
get TIME to change their criteria and change how they select a Person of the
Year? By posting this drivel in a newsgroup about golf? Gimme a break.
The only logical reason is that they're just wanting to argue.
Furthermore I find it puzzling why anyone who claims to support the Bill of
Rights (including Freedom of the Press) would critize TIME's criteria for
naming a Person of the Year. You either support a free press or you don't.
If you want a newsmagazine to name a Person of the Year based on their good
deeds, then start your own damn newsmagazine and do that.
It's one thing to disagree with TIME's selection. I support anyone's right
to criticize. But it's entirely another thing to expect TIME to comply with
one's criteria for the selection when, if they have an active brain stem,
they surely must know that TIME is under no obligation to do so.
> but which a 99.9% majority of the world would consider a positive title
> ... you get what I'm saying.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. But I disagree with your premise that 99.9%
believe it's a positive title. What you and Head Shot refuse to acknowledge
(stubbornness?) is that TIME's readers know full well what TIME's Person of
the Year is -- it's the newsmaker who had the most impact on the news that
year, good or bad. No one with an I.Q. above their shoe size could possibly
believe that TIME named Adolph Hitler its Person of the Year in a previous
year based on his good deeds. To assume otherwise gives little credit to
the intelligence of the public.
You and Head Shot have said that the cover implies that the Person of the
Year is a good person, and that one ought not have to read the magazine to
find out otherwise. This assertion tends to indicate that the two of you
want to judge a book (or magazine) by its cover. Didn't your mothers teach
you ANYTHING? Didn't she teach you that you can't judge a book (or
magazine) by its cover? Or is this sort of deep thinking beyond the
capacity of the two of you?
> But then again Howard agrees with you, so maybe it's me that has
> the blind spot, but as Monk says in his theme song by Randy Newman
> " ... but I don't think so."
(Turning to a more civil approach): Honestly, I don't think either you or
Head Shot have blind spots. And I don't think either of you are stupid
(despite some of my facetious reks). I do, however, think you're both
terribly stubborn (and dare I say you've met your match in that regard).
You refuse to acknowledge that TIME's Person of the Year selection is
something their readers are already quite familiar with, and know full well
is intended merely as an acknowledgement of who the person was in a given
year who had the most impact on the news.
Honestly, *if* the ONLY purpose of a magazine cover was to sell copies of
the magazine, TIME would do far better to put a nude picture of some
starlet, instead of putting a mirror-like image of YOU (and ME).
So I would argue that the cover of these Person of the Year issues is merely
to draw attention to who the selection was. You see, the truth is -- and
you have to be a reader of TIME to fully appreciate this -- TIME's
announcement of their Person of the Year is often met with some eager
anticipation, especially by its avid readership. If you don't read TIME,
then you might not know this. But TIME's annual announcement of its Person
of the Year is something many of their readers look forward to finding out
at this time each year. The proof of that is found in the coverage given to
TIME's annual announcement, not only by CNN, which is owned by TIME-Warner,
but by virtually all other news outlets. Besides, if TIME's annual
announcement weren't such a cultural phenomenon, there surely wouldn't be as
much discussion about it...here...and elsewhere.
The other thing both you and Head Shot stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is
that TIME has hooked the two of you in -- hook, line and sinker. By getting
both of you to debate their selection with me or anyone else -- on whatever
you wish to base your arguments -- you both give free publicity to their
Person of the Year issue. I'm sure TIME appreciates your efforts on their
behalf. :-)
TIME is entitled to base their selection of Person of the Year on any
criteria they wish to use. As a supporter of a free press, you surely must
acknowledge this. You may *wish* they'd use a different criteria -- like
using it to recognize someone who did the most good deeds that year. But
that's not what they've decided the designation of Person of the Year is
intended to be. It's intended to identify the person they feel had the most
impact on the news that year. TIME is a *news* magazine, not strictly a
"feel-good, shine a light on nice people doing nice things" magazine. If it
were, then Head Shot's and your idea of selecting a Person of the Year based
on your "good guy" criteria would make more sense. But since TIME is a news
magazine, their choice to designate a Person of the Year the way they do
makes perfect sense to most people -- especially to those who read TIME.
Plus, if you think that only spotlighting good deeds is the best way to sell
a magazine, you obviously have never noticed how many people stop traffic on
the highway to turn and look at a wreck.
You're free to have a differing opinion. As Head Shot stated earlier, you
can always vote with your wallet. If you have a problem with TIME's
editorial policies, then don't buy the magazine. Millions of others will
buy plenty of copies.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 15:31:04
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
[snip]
>> I do not believe in government censorship and yes I believe in the Bill
>> of Rights. Or were you asking someone else? This seems to be one area in
>> which you have a blind spot. Almost everything else seems rational to me.
>> For some reason you find it personally offensive for people to critisize
>> Time Magazine's choice to publish a "Person of the Year", which I'm sure
>> isn't original, but maybe it is ...
>
>
> No, I'm neither defensive or offended by anyone criticizing TIME choice to
> publish a "Person of the Year." Frankly, I don't know why I'm speaking up
> about this. I neither subscribe to TIME or have any interest in this
> issue. Except for the fact that I find it amusing whenever people insist
> on trying to impose their values on others.
>
> The thing I find so puzzling is why someone would question TIME's choice
> of who they name "Person of the Year" based on one's own set of criteria
> for what a Person of the Year ought to be, when they know full well (or
> maybe they didn't at the beginning of this thread, but they surely do by
> now) that TIME's criteria is something else entirely. What's the point?
> To try to get TIME to change their criteria and change how they select a
> Person of the Year? By posting this drivel in a newsgroup about golf?
> Gimme a break. The only logical reason is that they're just wanting to
> argue.
For me, expressing an opinion is a good thing. I'm not sure that it is worth
this much space, as you agree, no?
> Furthermore I find it puzzling why anyone who claims to support the Bill
> of Rights (including Freedom of the Press) would critize TIME's criteria
> for naming a Person of the Year. You either support a free press or you
> don't. If you want a newsmagazine to name a Person of the Year based on
> their good deeds, then start your own damn newsmagazine and do that.
I don't get this. It's not ok to critisize a magazine? I don't think you can
argue against someone expressing an opinion about the cover of a magazine.
> It's one thing to disagree with TIME's selection. I support anyone's
> right to criticize. But it's entirely another thing to expect TIME to
> comply with one's criteria for the selection when, if they have an active
> brain stem, they surely must know that TIME is under no obligation to do
> so.
I don't expect Time to do anything and if I did, who cares what I expect? I
probably won't, a couple of months from now, even remember this. It bothers
me and I think it does because when I heard that Time picked Hitler for "Man
of the Year", I thouht it was because of the good things he did in Germany,
which no one disputes. And the fact that Lindberg and many other people were
anti-Jewish affected my perception. And that the death camps were pretty
much ignored for a long time is another. I thought that Time was at the
time, praising Hitler because that was the misheld belief of many people in
the 30s.
>> but which a 99.9% majority of the world would consider a positive title
>> ... you get what I'm saying.
>
>
> Yeah, I get what you're saying. But I disagree with your premise that
> 99.9% believe it's a positive title. What you and Head Shot refuse to
> acknowledge (stubbornness?) is that TIME's readers know full well what
> TIME's Person of the Year is -- it's the newsmaker who had the most impact
> on the news that year, good or bad. No one with an I.Q. above their shoe
> size could possibly believe that TIME named Adolph Hitler its Person of
> the Year in a previous year based on his good deeds. To assume otherwise
> gives little credit to the intelligence of the public.
> You and Head Shot have said that the cover implies that the Person of the
> Year is a good person, and that one ought not have to read the magazine to
> find out otherwise. This assertion tends to indicate that the two of you
> want to judge a book (or magazine) by its cover. Didn't your mothers
> teach you ANYTHING? Didn't she teach you that you can't judge a book (or
> magazine) by its cover? Or is this sort of deep thinking beyond the
> capacity of the two of you?
Bend over. It's time for a spanking. And my mother is going to help me do
it.
>> But then again Howard agrees with you, so maybe it's me that has
>> the blind spot, but as Monk says in his theme song by Randy Newman
>> " ... but I don't think so."
>
>
> (Turning to a more civil approach): Honestly, I don't think either you or
> Head Shot have blind spots. And I don't think either of you are stupid
> (despite some of my facetious reks). I do, however, think you're both
> terribly stubborn (and dare I say you've met your match in that regard).
> You refuse to acknowledge that TIME's Person of the Year selection is
> something their readers are already quite familiar with, and know full
> well is intended merely as an acknowledgement of who the person was in a
> given year who had the most impact on the news.
>
> Honestly, *if* the ONLY purpose of a magazine cover was to sell copies of
> the magazine, TIME would do far better to put a nude picture of some
> starlet, instead of putting a mirror-like image of YOU (and ME).
You know that no one said it was the 'only' reason. There is some kind of
logical fallacy to your twisting, or slightly bending of the content, and
you know it.
> So I would argue that the cover of these Person of the Year issues is
> merely to draw attention to who the selection was. You see, the truth
> is -- and you have to be a reader of TIME to fully appreciate this --
> TIME's announcement of their Person of the Year is often met with some
> eager anticipation, especially by its avid readership. If you don't read
> TIME, then you might not know this. But TIME's annual announcement of its
> Person of the Year is something many of their readers look forward to
> finding out at this time each year. The proof of that is found in the
> coverage given to TIME's annual announcement, not only by CNN, which is
> owned by TIME-Warner, but by virtually all other news outlets. Besides,
> if TIME's annual announcement weren't such a cultural phenomenon, there
> surely wouldn't be as much discussion about it...here...and elsewhere.
To me it's Doublespeak or whatever that George Orwell novel called it. Do
you not find it offensive that the word "decadent" is being used in a
positive way by ad agencies?
> The other thing both you and Head Shot stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is
> that TIME has hooked the two of you in -- hook, line and sinker. By
> getting both of you to debate their selection with me or anyone else -- on
> whatever you wish to base your arguments -- you both give free publicity
> to their Person of the Year issue. I'm sure TIME appreciates your efforts
> on their behalf. :-)
As you have pointed out, "The world will little note, nor long remember what
we say here..."
> TIME is entitled to base their selection of Person of the Year on any
> criteria they wish to use. As a supporter of a free press, you surely
> must acknowledge this. You may *wish* they'd use a different criteria --
> like using it to recognize someone who did the most good deeds that year.
> But that's not what they've decided the designation of Person of the Year
> is intended to be. It's intended to identify the person they feel had the
> most impact on the news that year. TIME is a *news* magazine, not
> strictly a "feel-good, shine a light on nice people doing nice things"
> magazine. If it were, then Head Shot's and your idea of selecting a
> Person of the Year based on your "good guy" criteria would make more
> sense. But since TIME is a news magazine, their choice to designate a
> Person of the Year the way they do makes perfect sense to most people --
> especially to those who read TIME.
"Most Influential Person of the Year", "Most Infamous Person of the Year",
"Despot of the Year"
> Plus, if you think that only spotlighting good deeds is the best way to
> sell a magazine, you obviously have never noticed how many people stop
> traffic on the highway to turn and look at a wreck.
You're using that "only" trick again.
> You're free to have a differing opinion. As Head Shot stated earlier, you
> can always vote with your wallet. If you have a problem with TIME's
> editorial policies, then don't buy the magazine. Millions of others will
> buy plenty of copies.
>
> Randy
Actuall I like Time and I will continue to buy it as the spirit moves me,
but I don't like that title "Person of the Year". For me person is a good
word, as is human, and I don't want it to be associated any more with Saddam
Hussein than is necessary.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
> impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have to
read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as a good
guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 22:37:33
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "R&B" wrote:
>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
>> impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>
> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have to
> read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as a
> good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture didn't
belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was captured for
killing JFK.
News is news. Not all of it is good news.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 19:19:07
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:3vGdnWETvoB2QwjYnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> "R&B" wrote:
>>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
>>> impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>>
>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have
>> to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as
>> a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>
> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture
> didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was captured
> for killing JFK.
>
> News is news. Not all of it is good news.
>
> Randy
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 23:03:17
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> "R&B" wrote:
>>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the
>>> largest impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>>
>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>
> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture
> didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was
> captured for killing JFK.
OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said "MAN OF
THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right back to me when
you come up with that link.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 03:53:37
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:Uxllh.12740$U12.3222@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>> news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the
>>>> largest impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>>>
>>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>>
>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture
>> didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was
>> captured for killing JFK.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said "MAN OF
> THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right back to me
> when you come up with that link.
But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
Your words: "Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way."
I simply pointed out in mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald that dirtballs are
given front page coverage all the time. It's the nature of the news
business. Not all news is happy-slappy. Putting their picture on the front
page doesn't validate what they did. It merely shines a light on it.
Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person of the
Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the Year" or
"Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems, based upon your
objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's simply not. Deal with
it. TIME has always said that their "Person of the Year" was chosen based
upon how much influence they had on the newsworthy events of that given
year.
You want a news magazine that celebrates only the achievements of someone
each year who is a POSITIVE influence on the news and names them their
"Person of the Year?" Then you should launch your own magazine. I'm sure
there are lots of people who would buy it.
But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in TIME
about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have reacted to it
here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has written *favorable*
articles about these people. Clearly, that's not true in all cases.
Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a tyrant, dictator, or some other
kind of troublemaker, TIME has chronicled it. It's not like they singled
out Adolf Hitler as their Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about
him.
The simple truth is, sometimes the year's biggest newsmakers are not good
guys.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 10:55:44
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:OIqdnezGhtZitQvYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:Uxllh.12740$U12.3222@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> "R&B" wrote:
>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>> news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the
>>>>> largest impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>>>>
>>>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>>>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>>>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>>>
>>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture
>>> didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was
>>> captured for killing JFK.
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said "MAN
>> OF THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right back to
>> me when you come up with that link.
>
>
> But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
>
> Your words: "Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a
> way."
>
> I simply pointed out in mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald that dirtballs are
> given front page coverage all the time. It's the nature of the news
> business. Not all news is happy-slappy. Putting their picture on the
> front page doesn't validate what they did. It merely shines a light on
> it.
>
> Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person of
> the Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the Year"
> or "Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems, based upon
> your objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's simply not. Deal
> with it. TIME has always said that their "Person of the Year" was chosen
> based upon how much influence they had on the newsworthy events of that
> given year.
>
> You want a news magazine that celebrates only the achievements of someone
> each year who is a POSITIVE influence on the news and names them their
> "Person of the Year?" Then you should launch your own magazine. I'm sure
> there are lots of people who would buy it.
>
> But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in TIME
> about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have reacted to
> it here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has written *favorable*
> articles about these people. Clearly, that's not true in all cases.
> Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a tyrant, dictator, or some
> other kind of troublemaker, TIME has chronicled it. It's not like they
> singled out Adolf Hitler as their Person of the Year and wrote a puff
> piece about him.
>
> The simple truth is, sometimes the year's biggest newsmakers are not good
> guys.
>
> Randy
The people who read the articles aren't misinformed. It's the ones who only
see or hear about the cover. Can't Time come up with a better title for the
times when they publicize evil people?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 13:32:52
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>> "R&B" wrote:
>>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>> picture didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he
>>> was captured for killing JFK.
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said
>> "MAN OF THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right
>> back to me when you come up with that link.
>
>
> But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
We are talking SPECIFICALLY about Time Magazine Man of the Year. Have you
not been following this thread at all? Do you have attention deficit
disorder? Seriously? Time Man of the Year. We were never talking about
any other magazine, newspaper, or any other front page header.
> Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person
> of the Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the
> Year" or "Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems,
> based upon your objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's
> simply not. Deal with it. TIME has always said that their "Person
> of the Year" was chosen based upon how much influence they had on the
> newsworthy events of that given year.
95% of the time, Time Magazine put a hero as Time Man of the Year. And
speaking of dealing with things - I have every right to not purchase Time
because I disagree with who they have selected for Man of the Year. So you
deal with it.
> But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in
> TIME about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have
> reacted to it here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has
> written *favorable* articles about these people. Clearly, that's not
> true in all cases. Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a
> tyrant, dictator, or some other kind of troublemaker, TIME has
> chronicled it. It's not like they singled out Adolf Hitler as their
> Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about him.
We all vote with our wallets. I voted that I don't like their approach; by
not purchasing the rag. I don't have to make my own magazine - I just move
on to the magazines I prefer.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 17:34:22
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:6hylh.15130$AY1.12334@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>>> picture didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he
>>>> was captured for killing JFK.
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said
>>> "MAN OF THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right
>>> back to me when you come up with that link.
>>
>>
>> But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
>
> We are talking SPECIFICALLY about Time Magazine Man of the Year. Have you
> not been following this thread at all? Do you have attention deficit
> disorder? Seriously? Time Man of the Year. We were never talking about
> any other magazine, newspaper, or any other front page header.
>
>
>> Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person
>> of the Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the
>> Year" or "Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems,
>> based upon your objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's
>> simply not. Deal with it. TIME has always said that their "Person
>> of the Year" was chosen based upon how much influence they had on the
>> newsworthy events of that given year.
>
> 95% of the time, Time Magazine put a hero as Time Man of the Year. And
> speaking of dealing with things - I have every right to not purchase Time
> because I disagree with who they have selected for Man of the Year. So
> you deal with it.
>
>
>> But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in
>> TIME about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have
>> reacted to it here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has
>> written *favorable* articles about these people. Clearly, that's not
>> true in all cases. Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a
>> tyrant, dictator, or some other kind of troublemaker, TIME has
>> chronicled it. It's not like they singled out Adolf Hitler as their
>> Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about him.
>
> We all vote with our wallets. I voted that I don't like their approach;
> by not purchasing the rag. I don't have to make my own magazine - I just
> move on to the magazines I prefer.
Relax, Head Shot. No one is holding a gun to your head insisting that you
purchase TIME. Certainly not me.
All I'm saying is that you don't get the purpose behind their naming a
Person of the Year (you keep calling it "Man of the Year," which is not
correct). Their purpose is merely to acknowledge one person as having had
the largest impact on the news that year, good or bad.
If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine. But stop hoping that they'll
conform to your editorial style and turn their "Person of the Year"
acknowledgement into what YOU want it to be. That's just silly. And
pointless.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:36:11
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> All I'm saying is that you don't get the purpose behind their naming a
> Person of the Year (you keep calling it "Man of the Year," which is
> not correct). Their purpose is merely to acknowledge one person as
> having had the largest impact on the news that year, good or bad.
All I am saying is it's misleading. They don't have a "good" or a "bad"
associated with it; but 95% of the time it's a good guy; so it becomes
misleading.
> If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine. But stop hoping that
> they'll conform to your editorial style and turn their "Person of the
> Year" acknowledgement into what YOU want it to be. That's just
> silly. And pointless.
I don't want them to conform. Never once did I say that.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:30:02
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:dTIlh.16672$_X.9262@bigfe9...
> "R&B" wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that you don't get the purpose behind their naming a
>> Person of the Year (you keep calling it "Man of the Year," which is
>> not correct). Their purpose is merely to acknowledge one person as
>> having had the largest impact on the news that year, good or bad.
>
> All I am saying is it's misleading. They don't have a "good" or a "bad"
> associated with it; but 95% of the time it's a good guy; so it becomes
> misleading.
So let me get this straight.
After all this discussion...after all this explanation of what TIME means
when it calls someone "Person of the Year," you still think it's misleading.
Well, then, you're either a complete imbecile, or you just think we've been
making this stuff up.
I can assure you it's not misleading to anyone who reads TIME.
Personally, I'd rather see TIME maintain their high level of intelligent
journalism, rather than dumbing-down their magazine (and its cover) for
thick-headed dumb asses like you who don't get it even after having it
explained to you a dozen times.
How the hell do you cross the street without getting run over?
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 15:09:41
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling
|
\"R&B\" wrote:
.snippit...
>
> How the hell do you cross the street without getting run over?
>
> Randy
He doesn't!
;^)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:51:58
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather see TIME maintain their high level of
> intelligent journalism, rather than dumbing-down their magazine (and
> its cover) for thick-headed dumb asses like you who don't get it even
> after having it explained to you a dozen times.
>
> How the hell do you cross the street without getting run over?
You better hope to god that you don't talk to people like that in real life;
you worthless fucking tool. Because god help you if you ever said anything
like that to me in person. God you are a fucking idiot. ^K
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 13:59:12
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:c4OdnTy3Hs_GdAvYnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:6hylh.15130$AY1.12334@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> "R&B" wrote:
>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>>>> picture didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he
>>>>> was captured for killing JFK.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said
>>>> "MAN OF THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right
>>>> back to me when you come up with that link.
>>>
>>>
>>> But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
>>
>> We are talking SPECIFICALLY about Time Magazine Man of the Year. Have
>> you not been following this thread at all? Do you have attention deficit
>> disorder? Seriously? Time Man of the Year. We were never talking about
>> any other magazine, newspaper, or any other front page header.
>>
>>
>>> Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person
>>> of the Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the
>>> Year" or "Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems,
>>> based upon your objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's
>>> simply not. Deal with it. TIME has always said that their "Person
>>> of the Year" was chosen based upon how much influence they had on the
>>> newsworthy events of that given year.
>>
>> 95% of the time, Time Magazine put a hero as Time Man of the Year.
>> And speaking of dealing with things - I have every right to not purchase
>> Time because I disagree with who they have selected for Man of the Year.
>> So you deal with it.
>>
>>
>>> But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in
>>> TIME about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have
>>> reacted to it here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has
>>> written *favorable* articles about these people. Clearly, that's not
>>> true in all cases. Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a
>>> tyrant, dictator, or some other kind of troublemaker, TIME has
>>> chronicled it. It's not like they singled out Adolf Hitler as their
>>> Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about him.
>>
>> We all vote with our wallets. I voted that I don't like their approach;
>> by not purchasing the rag. I don't have to make my own magazine - I
>> just move on to the magazines I prefer.
>
>
>
> Relax, Head Shot. No one is holding a gun to your head insisting that you
> purchase TIME. Certainly not me.
>
> All I'm saying is that you don't get the purpose behind their naming a
> Person of the Year (you keep calling it "Man of the Year," which is not
> correct). Their purpose is merely to acknowledge one person as having had
> the largest impact on the news that year, good or bad.
>
> If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine. But stop hoping that
> they'll conform to your editorial style and turn their "Person of the
> Year" acknowledgement into what YOU want it to be. That's just silly.
> And pointless.
>
> Randy
He was expressing his opinion, which I agree with, but not as forcefully.
That is not silly nor pointless, stating your opinion.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 23:20:47
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:YeClh.71912$B42.68750@newsfe12.phx...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:c4OdnTy3Hs_GdAvYnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>> news:6hylh.15130$AY1.12334@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>>>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>>>>> picture didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he
>>>>>> was captured for killing JFK.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said
>>>>> "MAN OF THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right
>>>>> back to me when you come up with that link.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
>>>
>>> We are talking SPECIFICALLY about Time Magazine Man of the Year. Have
>>> you not been following this thread at all? Do you have attention
>>> deficit disorder? Seriously? Time Man of the Year. We were never
>>> talking about any other magazine, newspaper, or any other front page
>>> header.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person
>>>> of the Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the
>>>> Year" or "Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems,
>>>> based upon your objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's
>>>> simply not. Deal with it. TIME has always said that their "Person
>>>> of the Year" was chosen based upon how much influence they had on the
>>>> newsworthy events of that given year.
>>>
>>> 95% of the time, Time Magazine put a hero as Time Man of the Year. And
>>> speaking of dealing with things - I have every right to not purchase
>>> Time because I disagree with who they have selected for Man of the Year.
>>> So you deal with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in
>>>> TIME about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have
>>>> reacted to it here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has
>>>> written *favorable* articles about these people. Clearly, that's not
>>>> true in all cases. Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a
>>>> tyrant, dictator, or some other kind of troublemaker, TIME has
>>>> chronicled it. It's not like they singled out Adolf Hitler as their
>>>> Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about him.
>>>
>>> We all vote with our wallets. I voted that I don't like their approach;
>>> by not purchasing the rag. I don't have to make my own magazine - I
>>> just move on to the magazines I prefer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Relax, Head Shot. No one is holding a gun to your head insisting that
>> you purchase TIME. Certainly not me.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that you don't get the purpose behind their naming a
>> Person of the Year (you keep calling it "Man of the Year," which is not
>> correct). Their purpose is merely to acknowledge one person as having
>> had the largest impact on the news that year, good or bad.
>>
>> If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine. But stop hoping that
>> they'll conform to your editorial style and turn their "Person of the
>> Year" acknowledgement into what YOU want it to be. That's just silly.
>> And pointless.
>>
>> Randy
>
> He was expressing his opinion, which I agree with, but not as forcefully.
> That is not silly nor pointless, stating your opinion.
It has about the same potential for having any meaningful effect as barking
at the moon.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:37:16
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> He was expressing his opinion, which I agree with, but not as
>> forcefully. That is not silly nor pointless, stating your opinion.
>
> It has about the same potential for having any meaningful effect as
> barking at the moon.
If you think anything posted on usenet is going to have a profound affect on
your life you are in need of medicine adjustments.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 20:24:39
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Whatever you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is most important that
you do it.
-Gandhi
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:stadnSaH8cEXpwrYnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:YeClh.71912$B42.68750@newsfe12.phx...
>>
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:c4OdnTy3Hs_GdAvYnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6hylh.15130$AY1.12334@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>>>>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>>>>>> picture didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he
>>>>>>> was captured for killing JFK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said
>>>>>> "MAN OF THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right
>>>>>> back to me when you come up with that link.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's not what you said you were objecting to.
>>>>
>>>> We are talking SPECIFICALLY about Time Magazine Man of the Year. Have
>>>> you not been following this thread at all? Do you have attention
>>>> deficit disorder? Seriously? Time Man of the Year. We were never
>>>> talking about any other magazine, newspaper, or any other front page
>>>> header.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person
>>>>> of the Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the
>>>>> Year" or "Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems,
>>>>> based upon your objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's
>>>>> simply not. Deal with it. TIME has always said that their "Person
>>>>> of the Year" was chosen based upon how much influence they had on the
>>>>> newsworthy events of that given year.
>>>>
>>>> 95% of the time, Time Magazine put a hero as Time Man of the Year. And
>>>> speaking of dealing with things - I have every right to not purchase
>>>> Time because I disagree with who they have selected for Man of the
>>>> Year. So you deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in
>>>>> TIME about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have
>>>>> reacted to it here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has
>>>>> written *favorable* articles about these people. Clearly, that's not
>>>>> true in all cases. Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a
>>>>> tyrant, dictator, or some other kind of troublemaker, TIME has
>>>>> chronicled it. It's not like they singled out Adolf Hitler as their
>>>>> Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about him.
>>>>
>>>> We all vote with our wallets. I voted that I don't like their
>>>> approach; by not purchasing the rag. I don't have to make my own
>>>> magazine - I just move on to the magazines I prefer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Relax, Head Shot. No one is holding a gun to your head insisting that
>>> you purchase TIME. Certainly not me.
>>>
>>> All I'm saying is that you don't get the purpose behind their naming a
>>> Person of the Year (you keep calling it "Man of the Year," which is not
>>> correct). Their purpose is merely to acknowledge one person as having
>>> had the largest impact on the news that year, good or bad.
>>>
>>> If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine. But stop hoping that
>>> they'll conform to your editorial style and turn their "Person of the
>>> Year" acknowledgement into what YOU want it to be. That's just silly.
>>> And pointless.
>>>
>>> Randy
>>
>> He was expressing his opinion, which I agree with, but not as forcefully.
>> That is not silly nor pointless, stating your opinion.
>
>
>
> It has about the same potential for having any meaningful effect as
> barking at the moon.
>
> Randy
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 00:23:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have to
>read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as a good
>guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
Which example are you referring to:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html ?
It wasn't at all misleading to Americans in 1939.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 21:13:05
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>
> Which example are you referring to:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html ?
>
> It wasn't at all misleading to Americans in 1939.
I was thinking more of Khomeini. I wasn't alive in 39. But my point
remains.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 04:04:54
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:zWjlh.12707$U12.2888@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28 -0500, "Head Shot"
>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>>
>> Which example are you referring to:
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html ?
>>
>> It wasn't at all misleading to Americans in 1939.
>
> I was thinking more of Khomeini. I wasn't alive in 39. But my point
> remains.
Meaning.......anything that happened before you were born doesn't count?
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 13:34:47
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:zWjlh.12707$U12.2888@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28 -0500, "Head Shot"
>>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>>>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>>>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>>>
>>> Which example are you referring to:
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html ?
>>>
>>> It wasn't at all misleading to Americans in 1939.
>>
>> I was thinking more of Khomeini. I wasn't alive in 39. But my point
>> remains.
>
>
> Meaning.......anything that happened before you were born doesn't
> count?
No - meaning that I didn't see that magazine. Don't twist things - you are
wasting my time. I am against Time Magazine using bad guys as "Man of the
Year". I think it sucks enough that I won't buy their magazine. If you
don' like it, buy two and make believe one was for me. I don't give a crap
if you do that. They just won't get my dollars when I am buying my
subscriptions.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 00:07:30
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction between
infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>>
>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>> for bad.
>
>
> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:17:40
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Only if dolts who read it can't tell the difference.
Randy
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:5Z4lh.48392$Zb5.25809@newsfe13.phx...
>
> If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction
> between infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.
>
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> Noons wrote:
>>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>>
>>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>>
>>>
>>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>>> for bad.
>>
>>
>> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
>> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
>> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 15:15:57
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:07:30 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction between
>infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.
Did you read the issues you are referring to?
Maybe the rotten part is in users who are willing to make such values
without doing the research.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 19:10:50
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:m5cap21ouo13vmmsc3t09idirre65anlgl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:07:30 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction
>>between
>>infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.
>
> Did you read the issues you are referring to?
>
> Maybe the rotten part is in users who are willing to make such values
> without doing the research.
Making someone famous and calling him/her "Person of the Year" is silly to
me. Publicity to despots is a problem. I didn't say that the article was
biased towards an evil person, just that the title "Person of the Year"
isn't appropriate for people like Hitler. Should computer users and Mother
Theresa share the same category as Hitler?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 14:49:23
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:10:50 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>Making someone famous and calling him/her "Person of the Year" is silly to
>me. Publicity to despots is a problem. I didn't say that the article was
>biased towards an evil person, just that the title "Person of the Year"
>isn't appropriate for people like Hitler.
They are already famous. It's a bad idea to pretend they don't
exist.
We ignored Saddam Hussein for a long time - maybe he would be alive
now without that kind of publicity.
>Should computer users and Mother
>Theresa share the same category as Hitler?
You mean the category "Person"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 10:53:42
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:3sucp2lmpeba8j4v9f5ct047jnpv258k6m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:10:50 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Making someone famous and calling him/her "Person of the Year" is silly to
>>me. Publicity to despots is a problem. I didn't say that the article was
>>biased towards an evil person, just that the title "Person of the Year"
>>isn't appropriate for people like Hitler.
>
> They are already famous. It's a bad idea to pretend they don't
> exist.
>
> We ignored Saddam Hussein for a long time - maybe he would be alive
> now without that kind of publicity.
>
>>Should computer users and Mother
>>Theresa share the same category as Hitler?
>
> You mean the category "Person"?
HB is one of the more reasonable posters so I have to conclude that this is
one of those things that people have do just disagree about. For me "Person
of the Year" indicates some kind of conttibution to humanity. But other
disagree. No bigee.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:23:51
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote
>
> For me "Person of the Year" indicates some kind of conttibution
> to humanity.
That would be "Humanitarian of the Year."
The "TIME Magazine Person of the Year" has *always* been designated as the
person who TIME Magazine's editorial staff felt had the largest impact on
the news that year. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And anyone who has read TIME in the last half-century, or not lived with
their head in the sand, knows this.
Personally, I'm all in favor of someone naming a "Humanitarian of the Year."
Such a thing deserves recognition.
A quick Google search for "Humanitarian of the Year" reveals that many do
recognize a "Humanitarian of the Year."
So tell me again why TIME should want to do something that seemingly
everyone and their mother already does?
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:40:04
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote
>>
>> For me "Person of the Year" indicates some kind of conttibution
>> to humanity.
>
>
>
> That would be "Humanitarian of the Year."
I did not know you get to decide what "Person of the Year" has to mean. I
thought each and every person could decide for themselves; and some could
further decide they find the cover sometimes misleading. But hey -
apparently you are God and Man no longer has free will. Why didn't you
save my people from the Holocaust?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:22:14
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote
>>>
>>> For me "Person of the Year" indicates some kind of conttibution
>>> to humanity.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be "Humanitarian of the Year."
>
>
> I did not know you get to decide what "Person of the Year" has to mean.
I don't. And neither do you. It's TIME Magazine, so only TIME gets to
decide what it means when it's presented in TIME Magazine. They've made it
clear to readers for over 50 years that their Person of the Year is the one
they deem to have had the greatest impact on the news each year. The fact
that you refuse to accept this as fact simply draws attention to your own
thick-headedness.
> I thought each and every person could decide for themselves;
You can also decide for yourself that an apple is a vegetable. But you'd be
wrong.
The TIME Magazine Person of the Year is the person their editorial staff
believes had the greatest impact on the news that year. You may WISH that
they'd define their Person of the Year as something else. But they don't,
and everyone who's read their magazine in the last 50 years knows this.
> and some could further decide they find the cover sometimes misleading.
It's only misleading to thick-headed morons who don't read, or who insist on
believing that their Person of the Year is something it's not. It's been
explained to you here over and over, and yet you continue to insist on using
your own definition for TIME's Person of the Year. What does that say about
you? I'm just asking.
> But hey - apparently you are God and Man no longer has free will.
Look, drama queen, I didn't make up the fact that TIME has said for over a
half-century that their Person of the Year is nothing more and nothing less
than the man or woman whom their editorial staff believes is the person who
had the most impact on the news that year.
You can *wish* that they'd define their Person of the Year as something that
more closely conforms to your ideal for what the Person of the Year ought to
be. But since you're not on their editorial board, and since you don't have
your own magazine to publish, you don't get a vote.
> Why didn't you save my people from the Holocaust?
"Your people," if they're anything like you, must surely be doomed to
extinction by their own lack of intelligence.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:48:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> For me "Person of the Year" indicates some kind of conttibution
>>>> to humanity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be "Humanitarian of the Year."
>>
>>
>> I did not know you get to decide what "Person of the Year" has to
>> mean.
>
>
> I don't. And neither do you. It's TIME Magazine, so only TIME gets
> to decide what it means when it's presented in TIME Magazine.
Actually, no. We each individually get to decide what "person of the year"
means.
> You can also decide for yourself that an apple is a vegetable. But
> you'd be wrong.
That makes no sense at all. You should buy some.
> The TIME Magazine Person of the Year is the person their editorial
> staff believes had the greatest impact on the news that year. You
> may WISH that they'd define their Person of the Year as something
> else. But they don't, and everyone who's read their magazine in the
> last 50 years knows this.
Nope. They don't know until they read the articles inside. The cover does
not state whether the person is revered or reviled.
> Look, drama queen, I didn't make up the fact that TIME has said for
> over a half-century that their Person of the Year is nothing more and
> nothing less than the man or woman whom their editorial staff
> believes is the person who had the most impact on the news that year.
The cover says the person is revered or reviled?
> "Your people," if they're anything like you, must surely be doomed to
> extinction by their own lack of intelligence.
You know nothing about me. Luckily though; people like you do not matter
in the big scheme of things. You clearly think everyone should hold your
exact views; and your limited IQ keeps you from realizing that there is
more than one view to any subject.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 08:43:29
From: James Farrar
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:28:35 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>>
>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>> for bad.
>
>
>Sure; that's the position they are taking now.
That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:19:48
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
James Farrar wrote:
> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
what I have an issue with.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:26:49
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote ...
> James Farrar wrote:
>> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
>
> Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
> the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
> distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
> see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
> what I have an issue with.
So basically what you're saying is you'd like TIME to dumb-down their
magazine for people (like you, I guess) who judge a book (or magazine) by
its cover...and don't read.
Brilliant.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:41:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote ...
>> James Farrar wrote:
>>> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
>>
>> Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to
>> dig into the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they
>> were given the distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the
>> magazine rack; all you see is "man of the year" and a photo of the
>> guy in sharp dress. That's what I have an issue with.
>
>
>
> So basically what you're saying is you'd like TIME to dumb-down their
> magazine for people (like you, I guess) who judge a book (or
> magazine) by its cover...and don't read.
>
> Brilliant.
If you think that a magazine cover is not for the purpuse of increasing
sales; and think that people are required to look past the cover whether
they like the cover or not; you are a complete imbecile. I am sorry;
there is no nice way to put that for you.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:23:55
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote
>
> If you think that a magazine cover is not for the purpuse of increasing
> sales; and think that people are required to look past the cover whether
> they like the cover or not; you are a complete imbecile. I am sorry;
> there is no nice way to put that for you.
If you think that most people who read TIME don't know that their Person of
the Year is intended as an acknowledgement of who had the most impact on the
news that year, then you're the imbecile.
Or you can't read.
I'm not sure which.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 02:49:58
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote
>>
>> If you think that a magazine cover is not for the purpuse of
>> increasing sales; and think that people are required to look past
>> the cover whether they like the cover or not; you are a complete
>> imbecile. I am sorry; there is no nice way to put that for you.
>
>
>
> If you think that most people who read TIME don't know that their
> Person of the Year is intended as an acknowledgement of who had the
> most impact on the news that year, then you're the imbecile.
It's not about people who read TIME; you idiot. It's about people who look
at a cover and decide to read or not read it. And when a cover has Hitler
and "Man of the Year", they might chose NOT to read it. God, you are a
fucking moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 14:26:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:49:58 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>It's not about people who read TIME; you idiot. It's about people who look
>at a cover and decide to read or not read it. And when a cover has Hitler
>and "Man of the Year", they might chose NOT to read it. God, you are a
>fucking moron.
Do magazine covers that have controversial people on the cover sell
more poorly than those with nice people on the cover?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:50:08
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:49:58 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not about people who read TIME; you idiot. It's about people
>> who look at a cover and decide to read or not read it. And when a
>> cover has Hitler and "Man of the Year", they might chose NOT to
>> read it. God, you are a fucking moron.
>
> Do magazine covers that have controversial people on the cover sell
> more poorly than those with nice people on the cover?
I am not a keting analyst. You need to ask a firm that does those
studies.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 18:26:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:50:08 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>>> It's not about people who read TIME; you idiot. It's about people
>>> who look at a cover and decide to read or not read it. And when a
>>> cover has Hitler and "Man of the Year", they might chose NOT to
>>> read it. God, you are a fucking moron.
>>
>> Do magazine covers that have controversial people on the cover sell
>> more poorly than those with nice people on the cover?
>
>I am not a keting analyst. You need to ask a firm that does those
>studies.
Without being a keting analyst myself, my assumption is that
controversy sells.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 13:54:47
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> Do magazine covers that have controversial people on the cover sell
>>> more poorly than those with nice people on the cover?
>>
>> I am not a keting analyst. You need to ask a firm that does those
>> studies.
>
> Without being a keting analyst myself, my assumption is that
> controversy sells.
I agree with that statement. But that does not mean that as a consumer,
you do not have a right to be offended that some democidal dictator is made
Man of the Yea. Further, in a free society of consumers; this Man of the
Year title could further help you decide not to buy the rag and read the
articles held within; irrespective of article content. Fuck Randy's
insults and tirades about everybody that disagrees with his perspective
being a moron. I killfiled him for that. I hope not everybody in our Golf
group is so derogatory in their opposition to other people's views.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 22:36:39
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:Svglh.12632$U12.6691@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> James Farrar wrote:
>> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
>
> Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
> the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
> distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
> see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
> what I have an issue with.
That's how I feel too.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 19:12:49
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:Svglh.12632$U12.6691@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> James Farrar wrote:
>> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
>
> Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
> the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
> distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
> see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
> what I have an issue with.
That's how I feel too.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 00:21:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:48 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
>
>Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
>the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
>distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
>see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
>what I have an issue with.
This year, all we saw was a shiny cover.
But do you think the cases that are given as examples of their most
egregious were cases where people said "Oh, Hitler must be a nice
guy"? In 1939, we didn't need to read the small print:
1939: Joseph Stalin
Paved the way for Hitler's war by signing secret pact with old enemy
1938: Adolf Hitler
His figure strode over Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror.
The cover had Hitler playing a hymn of hate.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 14:39:19
From: Noons
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Try it. I did. I liked it.
> >
> >
> > try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>
> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>
dunno: I never read Time...
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Noons wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>
>>>
>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>
>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>
>
> dunno: I never read Time...
You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections of Time.
. In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965 it was General
Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005.
These people are nuts. Not once did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked
Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is
in......
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 23:30:59
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>
>You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections of Time.
>. In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965 it was General
>Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005.
>These people are nuts. Not once did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked
>Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is
>in......
While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
impacts on the world.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 18:41:07
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>
> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
> impacts on the world.
But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:16:03
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:DCYkh.16155$_X.1530@bigfe9...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
>> impacts on the world.
>
>
> But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?
No, but neither could you. And you're TIME's Person of the Year this year.
As am I. And I couldn't do it either.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:21:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:DCYkh.16155$_X.1530@bigfe9...
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
>>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In
>>>> 1965 it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah
>>>> Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once
>>>> did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three
>>>> times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>>
>>> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
>>> impacts on the world.
>>
>>
>> But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?
>
>
> No, but neither could you. And you're TIME's Person of the Year this
> year.
> As am I. And I couldn't do it either.
I can with Madden 2007. I played on easy mode the other day and the
Falcons beat the Saints 226 to nothing. Vick threw for a dozen passes and
ran for a dozen more. Even Rossum returned about 6 punts for TD's.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 08:56:47
From:
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
LeGar wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > Try it. I did. I liked it.
> Old and pathetic. Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He=B4s
> just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
> you pathetic failure of a man? L
Good one. Too bad Americans don't understand satire and will believe
you are being earnest.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 08:03:02
From: ML
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
Hello and welcome to yesterday!
--
ML
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 07:36:49
From: drew
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
LeGar wrote:
Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He=B4s
> just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency of
the most powerful nation on earth.
What more do I want? Nothing. That really tops it for me.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 23:31:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On 28 Dec 2006 07:36:49 -0800, "drew" <drew@technologist.com > wrote:
>
>We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency of
>the most powerful nation on earth.
By beating out other elite white men who didn't know how to get rural
votes.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 18:41:38
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 07:36:49 -0800, "drew" <drew@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency
>> of the most powerful nation on earth.
>
> By beating out other elite white men who didn't know how to get rural
> votes.
And having a brother who hooked him up with some chad scam.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 10:44:32
From: hoover
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Just like Carter and Clinton.
"drew" <drew@technologist.com > wrote in message
news:1167320209.832702.283990@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
LeGar wrote:
Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He´s
> just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency of
the most powerful nation on earth.
What more do I want? Nothing. That really tops it for me.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 06:23:59
From: LeGar
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
Old and pathetic. Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He=B4s
just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
you pathetic failure of a man? L
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 18:00:12
From: The Grand Beckoning
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On 27 Dec 2006 13:52:46 -0800, "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Try it. I did. I liked it.
Then don't try "Bandaid purple heart".
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 14:57:02
From: Damon Hynes
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
<flounder >"This is so cool!"</flounder>
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 17:46:37
From: The Vicar
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
"Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1167256366.803577.195560@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
i'm no Bush fan but i have to say you're a couple of years late to the
party.
>
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 14:03:08
From: Noons
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 09:05:06
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au > wrote:
> > Try it. I did. I liked it.
>
>
> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 14:02:32
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Javier_Gonz=E1lez_Nicolini?=
Subject: Re: Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?
|
Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
Welcome to 2003-2004.
|
|
