eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (01/05/90)
igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: >In the end, the net just does not matter. Sure, it's fun. Sure, >it passes the time whilst your neat kernel hacks are compiling. >Or the machine is rebooting after the panic(). But is it going >to change the world? Or even make you happier? I doubt it. i hate to plug Time magazine -- but their recent editorial (posted in soc.rights.human) made some good points. information/communication technologies (perhaps including usenet) are indeed changing the world. TV and fax have been instrumental in a number of the 80s' civilian uprisings against totalitarianism. as communication improves further, it might become more and more difficult for totalitarian governments to hide, and thus continue, their abuses. i hope... -- /* eli@spdcc.com ; 617-932-5598 */
szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (seth.zirin) (01/05/90)
In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >i hate to plug Time magazine -- but their recent editorial >(posted in soc.rights.human) made some good points. LIFE is for people that can't read. TIME is for people that can't think. Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (01/06/90)
In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: But is it going to change the world? information/communication technologies (perhaps including usenet) are indeed changing the world. TV and fax have been instrumental in a number of the 80s' civilian uprisings against totalitarianism. Of communications technologies, Usenet itself may not change the world, but its technology is in use in several projects with extremely far-reaching social implications. news.groups, etc. are decidedly ephemeral, but some uses of the technology have eternal implications.
karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (01/06/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM wrote: |In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM| eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: ||i hate to plug Time magazine -- but their recent editorial ||(posted in soc.rights.human) made some good points. | | LIFE is for people that can't read. | TIME is for people that can't think. | |Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered |a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. This is quite a facile pronouncement for someone who's sneering at people who "can't think". Which media watch groups have reported this? What do they mean by "LEFTIST"? Are we all expected to recoil in horror when we see this characterization? Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com (415) 323-9000 karish@forel.stanford.edu
hougen@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dean Hougen) (01/06/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: > > LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. > >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending TIME or LIFE, but ... You can hardly rebut a point made by another poster through simple name-calling or slandering. (Even of his or her sources.) I thought that might be the one thing learned here from the recent posting by the author (about the US invasion of Panama) who could only yell "Hey pal!" and "Fuck you." It appears nothing was learned by some of the readers of this group. (BTW, LIFE and TIME may be poor sources, but at least they are real sources. Citing unnamed "media watch groups" is like citing "some real smart guy that you should listen to," without telling us who he is or what his credentials are. Appeals to athority are weak; appeals to nameless athority are lifeless.) Dean Hougen -- "Time. Time, Time. See whats become of me."
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/06/90)
From: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (seth.zirin) >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. A little rigid, aren't we? But thanks for letting me know that there are ``media watch groups'' out there making sure we don't make any mistakes. > LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. And it's safe to assume that ``media watch groups'' are for people who can't do either? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (01/07/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: -In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: - - LIFE is for people that can't read. - TIME is for people that can't think. - -Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered -a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. If TIME is leftist, then I'm Attila the Hun. TIME is about as middle of the road as they come now. All it contains is the current Received Wisdom (i.e., establishment claptrap), served up in written sound bites with nice pictures. TIME is essentially television reduced to the printed page. About all the average American brain can handle these days, it seems... -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109
gadfly@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Gadfly) (01/07/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (seth.zirin) writes: > LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. > > Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered > a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. Media watch groups are for people who can neither read nor think. If they consider Time to be "leftist" (this had me rolling on the floor hysterically), they must be somewhere to the right of the KKK. *** *** Ken Perlow ***** ***** 06 Jan 90 ****** ****** 17 Nivose An CXCVIII ***** ***** gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM ** ** ** ** ...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
michaelb@mikebat.UUCP (Michael R. Batchelor) (01/07/90)
> LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. > > Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered > a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. While Time is not exactly a pillar of conservative thought they can surprise you once in a while. Only a few weeks ago the guest editorial was by some guy named Richard Nixon. Mr. Nixon is NOT noted for his liberal sympathies. -- Michael Batchelor / KA7ZNZ uunet!wshb!mikebat!michaelb Ships don't come in; they're built. -- (I don't know who said it.)
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (01/09/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. As are `U.S. News and World Report' (the Rev. Gump Snorkel, President- for-Life of the League for Accuracy in Media and Thumping Commies, calls USN&WR `Pravda West'), and `Soldier of Fortune' (referred to by no less a worthy than Oswald M. Flork, Grand High Skinhead, as `Willie Horton's kind of magazine). Of course, there are those who prefer to argue issues on their merits, but we true-blue right-wingers prefer to call them liberals and leftists, and to say of them that their mothers wear army boots. -- \ Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and \ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist." /\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge / \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) (01/10/90)
In article <6198@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: > In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: > >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered > >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. > > As are `U.S. News and World Report' (the Rev. Gump Snorkel, President- etc. etc. Could someone please post something in intelligible english explaining what all this is about. Thanks in advance, Dennis Allard allard@isi.edu
dcolkm@tness7.UUCP (Lou Montgomery ) (01/11/90)
In article <11296@venera.isi.edu> allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes: >In article <6198@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: >> In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: >> >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >> >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. >> >> As are `U.S. News and World Report' (the Rev. Gump Snorkel, President- > >etc. etc. > >Could someone please post something in intelligible english explaining >what all this is about. > >Thanks in advance, >Dennis Allard allard@isi.edu Well Dennis, I'll try. You see, this started because most of the otherwise decent people reading and posting to misc.misc wouldn't know a Communist plot if they were standing on the grave of V.I. Lenin. Nor would they know a Communist if Alger Hiss beat them about the head and shoulders with a hammer and sickle. This because they have not been taught to think for themselves. Whatever the sock-cucking professor said at the University of DUH!! is obviously so and anyone who sees it differently is a backwoods breaker of mules. On board so far? Now Tammy jumps in with a dumb question which precipitates some real comedy-loving guy to invite the wrath of Khan by posting his very real fantasy of murder and mayhem he would love to inflict upon some hapless female from eight to eighty years old in the hope of getting back at his mother for being such a strumpet and not giving him the attention he damn well deserved. Still with me? Then you come along and get me into all this shit so that you may now sit back and enjoy yourself while I get the shit flamed out of me. That just about covers it, don't you think?