New Definition of Spamming

By -
Many anti-Ron-Paul web sites are complaining that Paul supporters are "spamming" Internet polls. What is that supposed to mean? These people admit that Paul supporters, as far as they can tell, are not voting multiple times. Nor are they sending Viagra ads to the pollsters. No, what these people mean is that way too many Paul supporters are showing up to vote for him, in other words, "spamming" now means "voting for someone we don't like"! They may protest that, no, they mean that there are organized efforts on the Internet to send Paul voters to the polling site. Granted. But so what? Isn't that what campaigns do, you know, organize people to support their candidate? If the Paul campaign is doing that particularly well on the Internet, that means they should be silenced?

Comments

  1. Bill6:30 PM

    I couldn't have said it any better myself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:07 AM

    I have known for several years that the media people are liars. They think they have the right to order the American people to believe their lies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:51 PM

    Gene, You sound suspiciously like a supporter of Ron Paul...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Godwhacker10:27 PM

    Our opinions aren't sanctioned by the mammon, so we are just supposed to keep quite.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:43 PM

    Ron Paul R[evoL]ution!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jerm5:23 AM

    The US media is 99.9% owned by huge global corporation who are looting America. The New World Order is looking to take total control. A revolution might be around the corner. I'm ready. Vote Ron Paul

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Houser5:32 PM

    Dugg, with some predictable results:

    http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/New_Definition_of_Spamming

    ReplyDelete
  8. Colleen Ryor12:19 AM

    Tell me about it. That's why some left-wingers are so incredibly annoying. They cry freedom of speech, etc., but are usually the first to silence anyone they disagree with. The best part is that they think they are so tolerant. Quelle blague...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous3:14 AM

    939025112

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous3:14 AM

    http://www.36375990.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3:14 AM

    1167526119

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous3:14 AM

    [url=http://www.616190689.com]616190689[/url]

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3:49 PM

    Thanks for article!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous2:11 AM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9:36 AM

    Glad to read articles like this. Thanks to author!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:38 PM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more