Are Multiply 'News' groups, news?
Yes
No
More cowbell
Death to America
I collect cheeses
It's the bankers' fault
Namaste
Yes
4
No
1
More cowbell
2
Death to America
0
I collect cheeses
1
It's the bankers' fault
1
Namaste
0
Here is a quote from the replies on my personal blog -
"I don't participate in news groups or sites on Multiply because they aren't news. They are an "out of context" cut and paste of someone else's blog post or news site. I prefer to read and participate at real news sites and not blogging or social networking sites. I RSS feed the ones of interest to my Feeder. Others, I subscribe to.
I may read some blog posts, but since they are usually peppered with opinions, as will the replies to it, I don't have the need to know what everybody else thinks, nor the need for others to know or care what I think either. Sometimes no comment is necessary and that's where the ones who have the most to say will speak. It just doesn't interest me since it brings out the worst of the worst along with the best of the best. I can get the best of the best without having to weed through the worst to get to it."
I've been going through my old blogs and making copies, putting this and that into storage. I'm as yet undecided, but I want to have the option available to quit Multiply for as long as I need to, should I deem that necessary. In that event, there's too much writing etc to lose and certainly I want to see that this group remains well moderated - they easily deteriorate once the owner leaves. Who will check the moderation of new members daily when I'm gone?
So... I move to 'storage'. The Pigeonhole stays open, but emptied. I hand it over, sans-personal message-history and other parts, to my co-moderators here, and they can do what they will with the password. This won't happen very soon, it will take some tweaking... but this is what will happen eventually. SLG remains as it was, I can disappear, and return if I want. Kosher!
In the course of looking through those old blogs, I discovered this quote.
What do you think?
I'm inclined toward bias because of who it was said it, but on the whole I think I disagree with part of that. Sure, we don't have our own reporters on site from Capitol Hill to Katmandu, and even if some of our writing is original, or some of our writers professional outside of here, we are essentially an amatuer outfit, right? We do not break original scoops - news here has come from another source already, which may have broken it, or it may be third-or-more-hand.
But.
The fact remains I have repeatedly heard - "I read / saw / heard nothing at all about this from my mainstream source, thanks, this is the first I've heard about it" As long as I keep hearing that, we are news to somebody. And surely, am I right in thinking our purpose is the sharing of information, as well as entertainment? South America, Scandinavia and East Asia will all have different news editors and sources, feeding them slightly different perspectives on what's happening around the globe. So by coming together, each of us gets a fuller picture. And of course, it can't be denied, we are a little bit 'conspiracy theory', among other things. It's not only about upfront breaking news.
I'm not so arrogant as to think you could set this as your homepage and get your news primarily from SLG... I tried it, trust me. But I am hopeful that the fire can keep being poked, and one day, if someone comes to say 'thanks, I never read CNN or AFP anymore, I just come here'... I won't be surprised.
Are news groups 'news'?
...I'm sure there's an 'H' in Katmandu.
I may read some blog posts, but since they are usually peppered with opinions, as will the replies to it, I don't have the need to know what everybody else thinks, nor the need for others to know or care what I think either. Sometimes no comment is necessary and that's where the ones who have the most to say will speak. It just doesn't interest me since it brings out the worst of the worst along with the best of the best. I can get the best of the best without having to weed through the worst to get to it."
I've been going through my old blogs and making copies, putting this and that into storage. I'm as yet undecided, but I want to have the option available to quit Multiply for as long as I need to, should I deem that necessary. In that event, there's too much writing etc to lose and certainly I want to see that this group remains well moderated - they easily deteriorate once the owner leaves. Who will check the moderation of new members daily when I'm gone?
So... I move to 'storage'. The Pigeonhole stays open, but emptied. I hand it over, sans-personal message-history and other parts, to my co-moderators here, and they can do what they will with the password. This won't happen very soon, it will take some tweaking... but this is what will happen eventually. SLG remains as it was, I can disappear, and return if I want. Kosher!
In the course of looking through those old blogs, I discovered this quote.
What do you think?
I'm inclined toward bias because of who it was said it, but on the whole I think I disagree with part of that. Sure, we don't have our own reporters on site from Capitol Hill to Katmandu, and even if some of our writing is original, or some of our writers professional outside of here, we are essentially an amatuer outfit, right? We do not break original scoops - news here has come from another source already, which may have broken it, or it may be third-or-more-hand.
But.
The fact remains I have repeatedly heard - "I read / saw / heard nothing at all about this from my mainstream source, thanks, this is the first I've heard about it" As long as I keep hearing that, we are news to somebody. And surely, am I right in thinking our purpose is the sharing of information, as well as entertainment? South America, Scandinavia and East Asia will all have different news editors and sources, feeding them slightly different perspectives on what's happening around the globe. So by coming together, each of us gets a fuller picture. And of course, it can't be denied, we are a little bit 'conspiracy theory', among other things. It's not only about upfront breaking news.
I'm not so arrogant as to think you could set this as your homepage and get your news primarily from SLG... I tried it, trust me. But I am hopeful that the fire can keep being poked, and one day, if someone comes to say 'thanks, I never read CNN or AFP anymore, I just come here'... I won't be surprised.
Are news groups 'news'?
...I'm sure there's an 'H' in Katmandu.
News groups are another form of news. Unfiltered, unverified, but still news. Missing (usually) the big picture, whatever the hell that is, and drawing heavily on the details a particular poster is privy to.
AntwortenLöschenIn some cases it can cut through the filter of the main news channels (the recent posts about the typhoon in the Philippians for example), and tell you what is really happening on the ground, and what the local problems are.
Many times in any endeavor I may partake no matter how endeared I am to it...I'll hit a wall.
AntwortenLöschenMy love for the subject or topic doesn't diminish..
I may simply require quiet time....I call them mental hygiene days.
To stop and smell the roses.Go for a walk in the rain.Or simply sit in the park with a good book[ fiction] and watch the scantily clad women stroll by.That recharges my batteries every time lol
News groups are the old farts sitting around the potbelly stove at the general store.
AntwortenLöschenNews groups are the skin temperature of a society.
News groups are what we think about the news, they define the socially acceptable response. Your job is to choose the right society.
Lately everything bad seems to point to the bankers in the end .
AntwortenLöschenThe idea that there are 'real' news sites amused me.
AntwortenLöschenPls take this as a compliment...but I think from some perspectives...the amateur is more trust able than the professional. I like this site. Congrats
AntwortenLöschenatleast here we are not relying on those media corporates.
AntwortenLöschenDoes anyone think the quote - "I don't need to know what everyone else thinks" - as seen above, demonstrates wilful ignorance? Dogmatic thinking? Personally, I find it an extremely disappointing outlook, but the rest of what they say makes some sense. How one can form opinions at all without bouncing ideas around with a few other perspectives and challenging your own preconceptions, I've no idea...
AntwortenLöschenYes...it is dogmatic. But in a global mind like nowadays I am sure they will be like a frog under the coconut buttocks...which only know their own world,become stupid but very satisfied with what they get. Let them be...they already get their portion and as long as they are satisfied of that dogma...what else shall we do?
AntwortenLöschenThankyou, that's an expression I've not heard before :)
AntwortenLöschenActually it is the saying words from Eastern cultures to call someone whom very satisfied with his/her own world and think that he/she is the center of universe...where as he/she is only staying under the coconut buttocks...like a frog..he..he..he
AntwortenLöschenYes there is.
AntwortenLöschen