From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/19/2026 7:09 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 22:43:06 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/18/2026 9:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:24:33 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2/18/2026 5:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 23:21:23 +0000, 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And you think the nyt is giving away their news.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> All news should be free. Free because its yours.   
   >>>   
   >>> I suspect they charge me to see it because they don't agree with you.   
   >>>   
   >> I suspect it's the opinion pieces you're paying for. The NYT probably   
   >> gets most of their news from reading the new wire from AP.   
   >   
   > They have correspondents in most places.  Never have I seen them   
   > credit ap.  International reputations don't come cheap.   
   >   
   > The big news this morning is former prince andrew has been arrested,   
   > so says their london correspondent.   
    >   
   Apparently, Andrew was arrested for being a rude boy!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)