Lol. Amusing Daniel. It's baiting but I'll indulge. You were the one who wrote an article calling Lyons "Uncredible" yet the bulk of your article is bunk. And let's not forget this isn't the first time you've been caught stirring the pot with innuendo, heresay and outright lies.
Yes I do find Lyons slightly more credible than yourself because at least Lyons can make posts without using sockpuppet aliases.
unless Lyons has a copy of the email "I produced the email that Levy had sent to the business editor of Newsweek and gave it to Howard Kurtz at CNN" - which Lyons did not present in his riposte - the detailed 4/7/10 Kurtz summary of that Newsweek scenario absolutely destroys his claim.
Lyons' can't even admit he is one of the staunchest nay-sayers of Apple there is. It's probably a tie between Lyons and Dvorak for Top Nay-Sayer. I mean, sheesh. Come on. It's one thing to skirt the question but this guy totally denies the obvious. Lyons is a smart enough guy but he's hell bent against Apple so there is no trusting him when he suggests that he's objective. Some of his "Fake Steve Jobs" was hilarious and some was even slightly insightful (when he made his Fake Steve Jobs talk about the tech industry happenings from outside of Apple). But mostly "Fake Steve Jobs" was meant to portray Apple and Steve Jobs in a bad light.
But it's not Lyons fault that the FTC hid the truth about Google's manipulation of its search results and it's strongarm tactics against the hapless. There had to be a back room agreement or something.
Google sez it's the machine that done it but obviously that's not always the case. Google meddles when it shouldn't but gets free passes.
99% of mobile malware is on android but who's riled up? Apple gets a sniffle and it's a huge deal. Front Page - in 200 languages. It's wierd shit like this that makes it easy to think there is plenty of manipulation of all kinds of stuff going on. I mean, a free pass on malware? And we have how many commenters here sticking up for Google? No wonder it's not hard to take 90 plus percent of DEDs article as absolutely true and the remaining 10% is probably true. Googlers try way too hard and there seems to be too many here on an Apple website. It's overflow. An onslaught really. And constant. I think you all have an alarm network and work in concert. You come in veritable droves when DED writes. Like Pavlovian dogs who have been Pavlovian dogs for too long.
You need to launch "incognito" mode to see the real search result. Google News re-arrange news items based on your click history. It is possible DED clicks on Apple related articles more often so Google moved non-Apple news downward.
Yep, give me a search engine that doesn't do it (like Google was 10 years ago) and im on it. WHY the hell does someone think that because I have "googled" for eg. "apple" that I might not be interested in something else instead?!?!
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185355/google-news-buries-news-of-googles-ftc-investigation-under-daniel-lyons-fluff-updated-with-response/40#post_2696461" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>winstein2010</strong> <a href="/t/185355/google-news-buries-news-of-googles-ftc-investigation-under-daniel-lyons-fluff-updated-with-response/40#post_2696461"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p>You need to launch "incognito" mode to see the real search result. Google News re-arrange news items based on your click history. It is possible DED clicks on Apple related articles more often so Google moved non-Apple news downward.</p></div></div><p><br />Yep, give me a search engine that doesn't do it (like Google was 10 years ago) and im on it. WHY the hell does someone think that because I have "googled" for eg. "apple" that I might not be interested in something else instead?!?! Those idiots should be shot.</p><p> </p><p>Search engines should have a "mindless drone" / "sheep" mode for those<strong> instead </strong>that don't want to think...</p>
And then how would they make money and exist. Without ads they would just be a money pit.
(1) Google Bubbles results. So, if you already read AI you are more likely to see this article. So, yes, you might see those articles, but others won't (look up "bubbling" in search if you don%u2019t know what it is). (2) Use DuckDuckGo for unbubbled result. If you want a wider range of sources, bubbling is your enemy. (3) Lyon%u2019s last parting shot about being homophobic & anti-semitic are in his own head. Nowhere in this article is sexuality nor Religion mentioned.
(1) Google Bubbles results. So, if you already read AI you are more likely to see this article. So, yes, you might see those articles, but others won't (look up "bubbling" in search if you don%u2019t know what it is).
(2) Use DuckDuckGo for unbubbled result. If you want a wider range of sources, bubbling is your enemy.
(3) Lyon%u2019s last parting shot about being homophobic & anti-semitic are in his own head. Nowhere in this article is sexuality nor Religion mentioned.
Isn't "bubbling" a good thing then for the most part, finding more pertinent results for you personally? I've used DDG off and on but to be honest it takes longer to find some of the information I'm actually searching for. Some things DDG can't find at all. If you really want to avoid personalized results in Google Search use incognito mode. You can still search for stuff DDG isn't capable of finding/displaying but without the filtering.
(3) Lyon%u2019s last parting shot about being homophobic & anti-semitic are in his own head. Nowhere in this article is sexuality nor Religion mentioned.
You might want to re-read Lyon's response. He's not saying that DED's article was homophobic or anti-semitic, but some of the abuse he has received on social media because of DED's article has been.
Regardless of what you think of Lyons, that is unacceptable.
I did read it. Just because it's heavily referenced doesn't mean it's valid.
The interval between me posting the link and your initial "tinfoil hat" comment was 6 minutes so it would be impossible to have read it in that time, unless you'd read it elsewhere of course, which is possible though unlikely given your comment. Given the nature of the mainstream media to act as a mouthpiece for the corporate and government viewpoint; given Joseph Goebbels' comment "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play"; given that William Colby, former director of the CIA said “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” why do Ahmed's ideas seem like you would need a "tinfoil hat"?
The interval between me posting the link and your initial "tinfoil hat" comment was 6 minutes so it would be impossible to have read it in that time, unless you'd read it elsewhere of course, which is possible though unlikely given your comment. Given the nature of the mainstream media to act as a mouthpiece for the corporate and government viewpoint; given Joseph Goebbels' comment "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play"; given that William Colby, former director of the CIA said “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” why do Ahmed's ideas seem like you would need a "tinfoil hat"?
If there's any truth in there I would think either Mr Snowden or WikiLeaks would confirm it. Particularly Mr Snowden as he has the facts
The interval between me posting the link and your initial "tinfoil hat" comment was 6 minutes so it would be impossible to have read it in that time, unless you'd read it elsewhere of course, which is possible though unlikely given your comment. Given the nature of the mainstream media to act as a mouthpiece for the corporate and government viewpoint; given Joseph Goebbels' comment "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play"; given that William Colby, former director of the CIA said “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” why do Ahmed's ideas seem like you would need a "tinfoil hat"?
apart from I'm a speed reader, which costs me a small fortune in books. I had all ready read that article.
If there's any truth in there I would think either Mr Snowden or WikiLeaks would confirm it. Particularly Mr Snowden as he has the facts
No, Snowden wouldn't necessarily know the details, because it's based on a complicated interlocked history, not on day-to-day operations. Ahmed has done his homework putting together a picture of the interlocking, which is all unclassified. It's the kind of chessboard thinking that only a few "investigative journalists" have the mind and patience for.
The article has the ring of truth, since all the figures are in the public record. Ahmed's career would be totally on the line with this piece (I am just starting part two). Of course, one has no idea if his details or even general emphasis is absolutely correct, only instinct.
Comments
DED on Dan Lyons, circa 2009:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/18/dan-lyons-paul-thurrott-the-fake-and-the-phony/
So far I've read the first paragraph, and I'm looking forward to the rest. I have always had my suspicions from the very beginning.
We know.
Lol. Amusing Daniel. It's baiting but I'll indulge. You were the one who wrote an article calling Lyons "Uncredible" yet the bulk of your article is bunk. And let's not forget this isn't the first time you've been caught stirring the pot with innuendo, heresay and outright lies.
Yes I do find Lyons slightly more credible than yourself because at least Lyons can make posts without using sockpuppet aliases.
unless Lyons has a copy of the email "I produced the email that Levy had sent to the business editor of Newsweek and gave it to Howard Kurtz at CNN" - which Lyons did not present in his riposte - the detailed 4/7/10 Kurtz summary of that Newsweek scenario absolutely destroys his claim.
deal with that.
I've been seeing this error a lot lately. The compound noun "breakout," as in "breakout box," should be separated when it's used as a verb compound.
"Break out the atropine, the guy OD'd"—much better.
Same with adjectives and nouns though, sometimes. He's a backdoor man; the NSA installed a back door. But I think the latter is a losing battle.
But it's not Lyons fault that the FTC hid the truth about Google's manipulation of its search results and it's strongarm tactics against the hapless. There had to be a back room agreement or something.
Google sez it's the machine that done it but obviously that's not always the case. Google meddles when it shouldn't but gets free passes.
99% of mobile malware is on android but who's riled up? Apple gets a sniffle and it's a huge deal. Front Page - in 200 languages. It's wierd shit like this that makes it easy to think there is plenty of manipulation of all kinds of stuff going on. I mean, a free pass on malware? And we have how many commenters here sticking up for Google? No wonder it's not hard to take 90 plus percent of DEDs article as absolutely true and the remaining 10% is probably true. Googlers try way too hard and there seems to be too many here on an Apple website. It's overflow. An onslaught really. And constant. I think you all have an alarm network and work in concert. You come in veritable droves when DED writes. Like Pavlovian dogs who have been Pavlovian dogs for too long.
You need to launch "incognito" mode to see the real search result. Google News re-arrange news items based on your click history. It is possible DED clicks on Apple related articles more often so Google moved non-Apple news downward.
Yep, give me a search engine that doesn't do it (like Google was 10 years ago) and im on it. WHY the hell does someone think that because I have "googled" for eg. "apple" that I might not be interested in something else instead?!?!
(2) Use DuckDuckGo for unbubbled result. If you want a wider range of sources, bubbling is your enemy.
(3) Lyon%u2019s last parting shot about being homophobic & anti-semitic are in his own head. Nowhere in this article is sexuality nor Religion mentioned.
(3) Lyon%u2019s last parting shot about being homophobic & anti-semitic are in his own head. Nowhere in this article is sexuality nor Religion mentioned.
You might want to re-read Lyon's response. He's not saying that DED's article was homophobic or anti-semitic, but some of the abuse he has received on social media because of DED's article has been.
Regardless of what you think of Lyons, that is unacceptable.
I did read it. Just because it's heavily referenced doesn't mean it's valid.
The interval between me posting the link and your initial "tinfoil hat" comment was 6 minutes so it would be impossible to have read it in that time, unless you'd read it elsewhere of course, which is possible though unlikely given your comment. Given the nature of the mainstream media to act as a mouthpiece for the corporate and government viewpoint; given Joseph Goebbels' comment "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play"; given that William Colby, former director of the CIA said “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” why do Ahmed's ideas seem like you would need a "tinfoil hat"?
I take my hat off to you KiltedGreen. And it’s not a tinfoil one.
Well put: I think you nailed that one.
Second that.
The interval between me posting the link and your initial "tinfoil hat" comment was 6 minutes so it would be impossible to have read it in that time, unless you'd read it elsewhere of course, which is possible though unlikely given your comment. Given the nature of the mainstream media to act as a mouthpiece for the corporate and government viewpoint; given Joseph Goebbels' comment "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play"; given that William Colby, former director of the CIA said “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” why do Ahmed's ideas seem like you would need a "tinfoil hat"?
apart from I'm a speed reader, which costs me a small fortune in books. I had all ready read that article.
No, Snowden wouldn't necessarily know the details, because it's based on a complicated interlocked history, not on day-to-day operations. Ahmed has done his homework putting together a picture of the interlocking, which is all unclassified. It's the kind of chessboard thinking that only a few "investigative journalists" have the mind and patience for.
The article has the ring of truth, since all the figures are in the public record. Ahmed's career would be totally on the line with this piece (I am just starting part two). Of course, one has no idea if his details or even general emphasis is absolutely correct, only instinct.