Having Fun WIth MOSR

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
You might remember this little post from MOSR, right before the January MacWorld:'

le wearable computer?



"..From one reader's submission: I talked to a old college buddy of mine earlier today. His wife works for a downtown Palo Alto company called "Danger, Inc." (which sounds kind of corny to me, but the company really exists ). He claims that big announcement on Monday is that Apple is acquiring Danger. The company makes an integrated "hiptop" device that combines the functions of an organizer, wireless phone, music player and instant messaging. The device won't be shipping for several months yet, but Jobs will be showing a functioning prototype unit (which hasn't yet been redesigned to match Apple's consumer look)...."



<a href="http://mosr.com/index.php?view=recent"; target="_blank">http://mosr.com/index.php?view=recent</a>;



Anyway, the source of that rumor was me and a friend, both in Pennsylvania, who were bored with the sorry state of the Mac Rumors scene. So when we came across the Danger Device, and saw that Steve Wozniak was on the board, we thought, "My, what a plausible rumor to start! and who knows? it might actually come true!"



So if you want a rumor published on MOSR.com, all you have to do is get an accomplice, or at least a second email address, and give it a spin (like the Woz connection), and make up an explanation of your own semi-insider status. You might not have to do all that even.



Anyway, the point being, that while nobody should believe anything on MOSR, it is at least a fun site. I'm not saying Ryan even believed it, and I doubt he believes the ipod with the CD drive, but hey, its entertaining, and easy to be included.



[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: RansomRiot ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    haha i remember that rumor!
  • Reply 2 of 28
    Lol, I remember it to. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 3 of 28
    Heheheh -- well done. I almost did something similar (almost... ).

    The fabricated rumour I never got around to finishing was basically a

    rehash of the "1.2-1.6 Ghz G5 with 400 Mhz FSB" rumors. However, I

    included a special and seemingly random string of 16 letters at the

    bottom, ostensibly for "identifying myself to a work colleague" as a

    signature or suchlike (i forget.)



    The "random string of 16 letters" was actually (try it in terminal.app!):



    $ echo -n "mosr is gullible, well done"|md5sum|cut -c 1-16



    See? We all can be pricks from the comfort of our own home





    [EDIT: Shouldn't have quoted Ransom's whole message!]



    [ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Mac Sack Black ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 28
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    That doesn't only apply to MOSR, any rumor site out there is based on this kind of "facts" every now and then. If you want tangible rumors, all you have to do is stop the bogus postings/rumors yourself, and eventually there might be a bit with some truth behind it.

    You always get what you deserve.



    G-News
  • Reply 5 of 28
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Well said, G-News.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    Creating a rumor requires no effort and none of the rumor sites make a serious effort to "valideate" rumors near as I an tell. I wrote an anonymous email to Nick dePlume at Think Secret regarding Live Motion 2.0 It was included in a story about the upcoming release of Go Live 6. Suddenly I was referred to as "an industry insider." Only in this case, the rumor happened to be true. It wasn't really even a rumor. Adobe was showing Live Motion 2 at the DV Expo in December. Just that no legitimate press had reported it.
  • Reply 7 of 28
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The state of rumors is pathetic. They're 99.99% invented by the sites themselves, and the other .1 % might be pranks. MOSR et al, deserve it. They do no work, but try to pass of their stuff as rumored (by whom?) or insider. HAHHAHA! They wouldn't even know where to start looking for contacts in an opticians office. They stink, and they get what they deserve, not us. Reasonable people know it's BULL. About the only sites that regularly get stuff right are As the Apple Turns and MacMinute, and people always say they suck cause their info/predictions are so conservative. Meader and his site, SpyMac, and the others all want to pretend to have inside info, but they haven't got anything. We still give them way more hits than they deserve, so if they aren't ever going to give us anything real, we owe them at least a little ball-breaking in return.



    Well done pranksters! They absolutely deserve it, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>The state of rumors is pathetic. They're 99.99% invented by the sites themselves, and the other .1 % might be pranks. MOSR et al, deserve it. They do no work, but try to pass of their stuff as rumored (by whom?) or insider. HAHHAHA! They wouldn't even know where to start looking for contacts in an opticians office. They stink, and they get what they deserve, not us. Reasonable people know it's BULL. About the only sites that regularly get stuff right are As the Apple Turns and MacMinute, and people always say they suck cause their info/predictions are so conservative. Meader and his site, SpyMac, and the others all want to pretend to have inside info, but they haven't got anything. We still give them way more hits than they deserve, so if they aren't ever going to give us anything real, we owe them at least a little ball-breaking in return.



    Well done pranksters! They absolutely deserve it, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's 100.09%
  • Reply 9 of 28
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Fur Q!
  • Reply 10 of 28
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Ooops. missed a decimal place. damn! well you get the point. iDome, that's a whole lot laughs in one post. Fur-Q 2! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 11 of 28
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    SteveS: On the nose.



    Doesn't it strike some of you as rather hypocritical to complain (loudly) about how rumor sites are ALWAYS wrong about everything they post, and then snicker about how easy it is to get them to post your own fiction? Does it not occur to you that perhaps there is a connection?
  • Reply 12 of 28
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    I never come on here claiming to know anything but there are rare times when I do hear something from people who are in the know. Apple w/ Danger is not that far fecthed and actually not that far away. Whether Apple buys them or not is still up for debate but if Apple doesn't buy them look for a very very close partnership.



    &lt;clause&gt; NO, I am not the one who wrote in to MOSR with that info.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    I sent stuff to Spymac about G5s at MWSF. Posted too.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    stevessteves Posts: 108member
    I'm not sure why people feel the need to brag or congratulate one another about fooling a rumor site. It's already been established how easy it is to do. I've passed on a rumor to MOSR a couple years ago, only, the rumor happened to be true. I didn't try to fool them in order to get kicks in some juvenile way. I did it to share with others that like advanced information in this sort of thing.



    I also don't understand why people think rumor sites are accountable for any sort of "factual journalism". By definition, they are RUMOR sites! It's their job to share the rumors, even if they don't think it's true. In defense of MOSR, much of the crap posted is generally not considered to be factual by Meader anyway.



    I'm just glad that people here no longer consider "Apple Insider" any sort of reliable information anymore (like atat, macminute, etc.). I like the forums here at AI, but as far as rumors go, they hardly ever post and are ALWAYS wrong. I'm still waiting for Sahara



    The point is, you're not a hero for fooling a rumor site, anyone can do it. Instead, you're just creating false hopes by the people that don't know you're kidding. This also leads to boring Macworld Expos because nothing can live up to the false, outragous expectations.



    Sorry for venting...



    Steve
  • Reply 15 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by SteveS:

    <strong>I'm not sure why people feel the need to brag or congratulate one another about fooling a rumor site. It's already been established how easy it is to do. I've passed on a rumor to MOSR a couple years ago, only, the rumor happened to be true. I didn't try to fool them in order to get kicks in some juvenile way. I did it to share with others that like advanced information in this sort of thing.



    I also don't understand why people think rumor sites are accountable for any sort of "factual journalism". By definition, they are RUMOR sites! It's their job to share the rumors, even if they don't think it's true. In defense of MOSR, much of the crap posted is generally not considered to be factual by Meader anyway.



    I'm just glad that people here no longer consider "Apple Insider" any sort of reliable information anymore (like atat, macminute, etc.). I like the forums here at AI, but as far as rumors go, they hardly ever post and are ALWAYS wrong. I'm still waiting for Sahara



    The point is, you're not a hero for fooling a rumor site, anyone can do it. Instead, you're just creating false hopes by the people that don't know you're kidding. This also leads to boring Macworld Expos because nothing can live up to the false, outragous expectations.



    Sorry for venting...



    Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Word.



    <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />





    -mithral
  • Reply 16 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by TJM:

    <strong>SteveS: On the nose.



    Doesn't it strike some of you as rather hypocritical to complain (loudly) about how rumor sites are ALWAYS wrong about everything they post, and then snicker about how easy it is to get them to post your own fiction? Does it not occur to you that perhaps there is a connection? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, but that's the point. These rumor sites should be taking pains to verify that the people they're communicating with are legit, rather than just posting whatever drivel shows up in their mail.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:

    <strong>



    Yeah, but that's the point. These rumor sites should be taking pains to verify that the people they're communicating with are legit, rather than just posting whatever drivel shows up in their mail.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uhm.. Why? They're rumor sites, and as far as I can tell they are done as hobbies. Why should they care about accuracy -- it's not like they get financially rewarded for the accuracy of their stories.

    Plus, how could they verify anything.. TS has an anonymous mailing form, bored kids on AI like to try to "fool them".. It's silly. It's been said already, but if you wan't rumor sites to be more accurate it really starts here. Do us all a favor and stop sending them stuff you know is fake. Start your own rumor page if you're really that bored.



    [ 03-01-2002: Message edited by: CharlieBrownGirl ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>The state of rumors is pathetic. They're 99.99% invented by the sites themselves, and the other .1 % might be pranks. MOSR et al, deserve it. They do no work, but try to pass of their stuff as rumored (by whom?) or insider. HAHHAHA! They wouldn't even know where to start looking for contacts in an opticians office. They stink, and they get what they deserve, not us. Reasonable people know it's BULL. About the only sites that regularly get stuff right are As the Apple Turns and MacMinute, and people always say they suck cause their info/predictions are so conservative. Meader and his site, SpyMac, and the others all want to pretend to have inside info, but they haven't got anything. We still give them way more hits than they deserve, so if they aren't ever going to give us anything real, we owe them at least a little ball-breaking in return.



    Well done pranksters! They absolutely deserve it, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I really don't agree with you. With the exception of MOSR, it is obvious that the owners of the rumor sites put a great deal of work in their sites. And for what? To entertain us and so we can constantly bad mouth them? Sorry, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    &gt;Uhm.. Why? They're rumor sites, and as far as I can tell they are done as

    hobbies. Why should they care about accuracy



    ... so they don't post bullshit perhaps? duh. Some here -- yourself

    included -- seem to believe that rumor sites shouldn't have to put

    themselves out in the name of accuracy. Precisely why is that, hrmm? Why

    should MOSR and friends be excused from accuracy? Because it's free? Why

    don't they rather get off the web entirely? MOSR's (for example) not

    completely free, they do have reader sponsorships, as if anyone would pay

    (some idiots do, actually), they can't even send their BS-o-grams with any

    reliability since they have constant smtpd problems. Meader, you're an

    embarrassment; get off the web.





    &gt; -- it's not like they get financially rewarded for the accuracy of their

    stories. Plus, how could they verify anything..



    This is a sticking point for some. But seeing as MOSR (for example) has

    been around for a while, and presumable has had at least a few actual

    insiders over the years, they should keep track of them in particular and

    restrict posted rumors to them, or at least, give an indication that

    they're a trusted insider.





    &gt; TS has an anonymous mailing form, bored kids on AI

    like to try to "fool them".. It's silly. It's been said already, but if

    you wan't rumor sites to be more accurate it really starts here. Do us all

    a favor and stop s ending them stuff you know is fake. Start your own

    rumor page if you're really that bored.



    You seem to have missed the point. There certainly are leaky vessels out

    there, but despite what MOSR and friends would have you think, posting BS

    isn't going to help. The sites make absolutely no effort whatsoever to

    verify the slightest detail of their moles. And the worst of BS rumors

    still gets through (e.g. Windows iTunes at yourdailymac iirc weeks ago).
  • Reply 20 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:

    <strong>

    ... so they don't post bullshit perhaps? duh. Some here -- yourself

    included -- seem to believe that rumor sites shouldn't have to put.. &lt;big snip&gt;

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Mac Slack:

    OK, you do have some valid points. But would you really be happier if, for example, MOSR shut down? I personally wouldn't -- it provides me entertainment many nights.



    I guess that's where we differ: I expect rumor sites to post fabricated stories based on shreds of truth. To me, they are like tabloids.



    It is a shame about MOSR's "reader sponsors" or whatever they are called. That particular aspect is rather alarming, but it is only MOSR that tries to get money from their readers in that way.



    And no, I don't think they should not be responsible for accuracy. I do believe, however, that accuracy is inherently much harder to achieve for rumor sites. If a true industry insider is going to send information, they will (I'm assuming) use as much smoke and mirrors as possible to hide their identity. Even Sherlock would have trouble validating the source of certain rumors. Thus, the time involved in verifying rumors would be impossible to do unless you were able to dedicate much time to this without geting paid.



    But as you said, sites like MOSR have been around a long time -- they could easily only post information from "verified" insiders, but would that not decrease:

    a) the fun of the wildly outrageous rumors?

    b) more importantly; the frequency of updates.



    Now because I look at rumor sites as entertainment, these two points are important to me.



    For many of you, it seems you would rather have one update a month (or whatever) of probable rumors.



    So it just depends on how you look at it I suppose.



    Look forward to hearing your input
Sign In or Register to comment.