Great misunderstanding (or lack of caring) regarding usenet and Google

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by woo, Nov 17, 2005.

  1. woo

    woo Guest

    A company archiving chit chats and private questions, answers and discussions
    (personal interests online) is Orwellianism and a crime against humanity (not just a
    privacy violation, worldwide).
     
    woo, Nov 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. woo

    Safalra Guest

    I think equating *private* discussion and the *public* usenet is more
    Orwellian. "War is Peace. Private is Public. Windows is Linux."
     
    Safalra, Nov 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. woo

    woo Guest

    Unity is fascism.

    Hello. What people do in their homes?
    http://itrp3-11acr.com/Graphics/Colorado Springs7.jpg

    http://gallery.nahoo.net/albums/sheonasbirthday/06_What_s_so_funny.sized.jpg
    http://gallery.nahoo.net/sheonasbirthday/17_G

    http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~emcdonald/desktop/desktop_3-25-03_heidi_klum_1.jpg

    Ay man. Personal interests. Turn to usenet. Specialized, personal interest discussion forums.
    Forget "public". Americans think "public", Europeans think personal. Try to understand
    it. Personal questions. Personal opinion answers. Chit chat. Archiving that, at global scales,
    is crimes against humanity. This is a world presidential discussion.

    Greetings away, wishing you happy, thank you correspondence, all well, and you vice prez.
    Handshake, photos.

    See in Europe, little people think personal, and politicians think public.
    But in the US Bush thinks personal, and the little people think public.
    See the problem is that if Bush would think public, he would be a dictator.
    But that does not apply to current European leaders, who think public as
    they don't think like say Stallin used to. They think Democratically.
    Photos...

    In a kingdom, everybody has to play a role, as a King plays a role, and in a
    Kingdom, people live in a Kingdom. There, the public has to be a public,
    and they are expected to be the public. Without others playing roles,
    the King's role would be meaningless.
    Clapping...

    The public doesn't have to be the public at all times. There can be people
    turning to usenet for personal interests. He doesn't have to abide to the
    public, he doesn't have to have a role to contribute to the public. He may
    have a personal question, and that's all. He, is unique. He doesn't even
    have to care about the netiquette. 200 pages about turning to usenet,
    asking a question and getting replies. To that he does not need a netiquette.
    He turns to a specific interest forum, and asks a question. A question that
    may relate to his work, or a question that may be of his personal interest.
    Him and others may chat about the subject, of possibly common interests,
    as others can see it, yet of personal interests of the people involved in
    the discussions. The idea that everyone can see it, so they can contribute
    is true, but a usenet forum is a specific place of a special interest topics.
    If you perceive a forum as a net street, we have an instant Orwellian
    problem. Thank you, I have no further comments, maybe one:

    Mandatory contribution oriented thinking is a role. Beware. Kingdom.
    Empire.
     
    woo, Nov 20, 2005
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.