From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/19/2026 4:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:59:04 -0800, Dude wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Yizzit that indictments could not be brought before public release?
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
