From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/18/2026 3:21 PM, Julian wrote:
> On 18/02/2026 20:56, Dude wrote:
>> 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.
> The NYT maintains several X accounts and it's staff,
> like every other professional media organisation, have
> an account, being as an essential work tool, on expenses.
>
Apparently, the Sombrero guy thinks the NYT tweets on X news feeds are
fake. Maybe he's thinking the comments are by the staff are fake too.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
