From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/18/2026 10:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:10:59 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/18/2026 8:27 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:48:49 -0000 (UTC), Tara    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Feb 18, 2026 at 10:34:49?AM EST, "Noah Sombrero"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:07:27 +0000, Julian    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Twitter ? or X if you must ? is essential for bypassing traditional   
   >>>>>> institutions   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> At the time of writing, the British Government is apparently preparing   
   >>>>>> legislation that many expect will lead to Twitter, formally known as   
   >>>>>> ?X?, being blocked. Officially this is because the platform?s in-built   
   >>>>>> AI language model allows users to manipulate images of third parties so   
   >>>>>> it appears that they are wearing nothing but lingerie. Yet critics,   
   >>>>>> including the US government,  regard it as a thinly-disguised attempt to   
   >>>>>> censor a primary forum of opposition. Either way, millions of people   
   >>>>>> across the country are now faced with the horrifying ? and, for many,   
   >>>>>> unprecedented ? prospect of actually having to do their jobs in order to   
   >>>>>> stave off boredom.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Stave off boredom.  There is something to that.  Naked people always   
   >>>>> were a tititlation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> everything will be abused (or used) in some way if given enough freedom.   
   I use   
   >>>> X to (once in a while) read what people I am interested in say what they   
   have   
   >>>> to say. And I've never seen a naked person on X. Maybe because I'm not   
   >>>> interested in seeing a naked person on X.   
   >>>   
   >>> Understood.  You are discerning.  Many others are not.  And it is the   
   >>> others that drive the enterprise.   
   >>>   
   >> And, you would know this how?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>> The whole thing falls apart for me when I consider that there is no   
   >>> truth requirement, and no way for you or even x to really know that   
   >>> people are who they say they are.  Why leave yourself open to that?   
   >>>   
   >> Why would their name matter? You appropriated your handle impersonating   
   >> an immigrant guy nodding off under a snow bank. LOL   
   >   
   > Actually there is a story behind that.  It relates to a time in the   
   > late 80's/early 90's when I ran a BBS.  I called it Noah's Kitchen and   
   > I was the sysop, noah sombrero.  Noah's kitchen had to be a magical   
   > place because it was where all of god's creatures got fed without   
   > consuming any.   
   >   
   >>> Do you imagine that important, interesting people are busy?   
   >>>   
   >> Get real. These people get paid to post their views online.   
   >   
   > And these important, intelligent people are short of cash?  Can't   
   > think of any better way to pick up a few bucks?   
   >   
   > More likely, they pay somebody else to do that.  Or the accounts are   
   > simply fake.   
   >   
   >>> That they might not get a lot out of spending time entertaining us   
   >>> with their twits?>   
   >> Using X to see people naked requires a search, Senor.   
   >>   
   >> Otherwise, you read your feed - your favorite tweeters. It's all about   
   >> bias confirmation.   
   >   
   > How did you get so truthy?  Not that you don't traffic in such   
   > confirmations.   
   >   
   My guess is that all the writers at the NY Times, posting tweets on X,   
   are on paid staff, or at lest getting paid for free lance work. YMMV.   
    >   
   >>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But you think x has some other use.  It is a primary forum of   
   >>>>> opposition.  Which would be good if only such opposition could be   
   >>>>> true.  But a toxic mix of naked people and lies?  What possible use is   
   >>>>> that, other than rescuing people from boredom?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> For the large majority of the population however, the idea of banning   
   >>>>>> the social media site is a complete non-issue. Supposedly, around 40 per   
   >>>>>> cent of British adults access the platform monthly, but this figure   
   >>>>>> seems implausibly high. Most prefer one or more of either Facebook,   
   >>>>>> Instagram or TikTok. Since it was acquired by Elon Musk in 2022, Twitter   
   >>>>>> must have seemed to those who don?t use it to have been nothing but   
   >>>>>> trouble. Those still relying on the BBC or the papers for their news   
   >>>>>> have been drip-fed continuous stories about ?misinformation? and online   
   >>>>>> abuse.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What the broadcasters and the newspapers won?t tell their viewers and   
   >>>>>> readers, however, is that their reporters, producers, editors and   
   >>>>>> directors positively live on the site...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://thecritic.co.uk/why-twitter-matters/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)