From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:06:42 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   What I think is that ny times is smart enough not to charge   
   subscribers $90 a year and then give content away on x.  I give you no   
   such credit though.   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)