From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/19/2026 11:39 AM, Tara wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2026 at 1:25:31 PM EST, "Dude" wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
> He was arrested for misconduct due to a breach of confidentiality during his
> position as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and
> Investment from 2001 until July 2011.
>
> "The latest files released by the US Department of Justice appear to show the
> former prince forwarded sensitive government documents and commercial
> information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein."
> -BBC
>
The question is, did they just not have appropriate evidence before the
Epstein files were partially released?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
