Google loves... [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

iGav

Dec 5, 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
even if you do regular search, that page comes up first. Pretty damn funny, but also I'm I bit surprised they did it...:D

D

Google are always up to stuff like this, I think they like their anti-establisment status shall we say... and they play upto it perfectly, they also have mucho respect in the Tech industry, so they can get away with it, as for some reason isn't doesn't seem malicious when they do it, more for a giggle.

I was only reading early that they keep changing their ranking algorithms to keep the revenues coming in.... heheheh, they're pretty rock n' roll if you ask me!!

he latest changes made by Google to the way it ranks Web pages have drawn a strong reaction from the search engine marketing (SEM) community, underlining its dominance in the market.

SEM companies are paid by advertisers to ensure that their clients' sites appear high up in results returned by search engines when users type in keywords related to their businesses.

Google frequently changes the way it ranks pages, leading SEM companies to perform what's called a 'Google dance' as they rush to update their strategies in order to ensure their clients remain well-placed against keywords.

The recent global change made by Google to its algorithm is apparently aimed at eliminating over-optimised pages - that is, pages which appear over-keen to please search engine spiders.

Some have suggested Google has deliberately caused turmoil in its natural listings to boost sales of its paid-for products, such as AdWords, before the busy Christmas e-tailing season. Google denies this.

At agency Design Haus, consultant Chris Laas said, "This could prove disastrous to the small business depending on search engines for most of its traffic and revenue at this time of the year."

But he added that Google's changes were aimed at improving user experience and there was "a small list of changes you can apply to bring back the traffic".

At agency Tamar, commercial director Neil McCarthy observed the changes had only been applied to the busiest keywords. "It's introduced the new filter and removed 63 of the top 100 results for the term 'car insurance'," he said.

In a statement, Google said, "We're constantly changing its algorithms to improve the overall quality and accuracy of its search results. This is why it's common to see movement in the ranking of sites on search results pages."

radhak

Dec 5, 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by medea
Actually in case you didn't know all the "I'm Feeling Lucky" search does is bring you to the first site on the search for that term, if in two weeks another site bumps up to the no.1 spot then that site would replace the George W. one when clicking on I'm feeling lucky.
yes, but funny that this page does not have either of the two words, not even as any meta, or whatever, so how does it make the results at all, let alone the top? definitely one of google's giggle.

:D

wdlove

Dec 5, 2003, 01:23 PM

I don't really find it funny. It is really sad that the office of the presidency is no longer respected. I tried a regular search and found out how the connection occurred. It was a quote of Gephardt, it takes one to know one. My prayer is that after the re-election of President Bush, the office can once again be restored. As Lieberman said, "This time it will be a clear winner with the most votes."

http://www.amiserablefailure.com/plugin/template/gephardt/220/*

jelloshotsrule

Dec 5, 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
My prayer is that after the re-election of President Bush, the office can once again be restored.

after the re-election of bush, meaning, once someone else is elected in 2008? maybe..

someone like nader would restore that respect.

mactastic

Dec 5, 2003, 01:42 PM

I'd settle for after the re-defeat of Bush.;)

ExoticFish

Dec 5, 2003, 01:58 PM

the presidency is no longer respected because the man who was elected is too erratic to have so much power.

i though clinton did a fabulous job, but the media can't leave peoples private lives to themselves. i don't agree with someone cheating on their wife, but the guy did good things for the economy.

macphisto

Dec 5, 2003, 02:10 PM

What I don't get is why everyone has to bag on and complain about Bush. Yes, he is human and is not perfect, but he has been a great President.

kaosfere

Dec 5, 2003, 02:10 PM

This has nothing to do with a Google agenda. It's merely an inadvertant Google bomb.

macphisto

Dec 5, 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by ExoticFish
the presidency is no longer respected because the man who was elected is too erratic to have so much power.

i though clinton did a fabulous job, but the media can't leave peoples private lives to themselves. i don't agree with someone cheating on their wife, but the guy did good things for the economy.

Actually, Clinton did a horrible job, and there are lots of things that the liberal media never even bothered to report.

And the last time I checked, the economy is doing pretty darn good right now.

And since when has the President had power over consumer spending and the economy. That would be Alan Greenspan.

mactastic

Dec 5, 2003, 02:30 PM

You mean there's a few things the conservative/corporate media don't report.;)

x86isslow

Dec 5, 2003, 02:54 PM

of note on media in america:
(by market cap; in usd)

viacom: 67B
aoltimewarner: 74B
general electric/(M$)nbc: 292.19B(GE) +281.66B(m$)
foxnews: 24.3B
disney:43.5B

B=billion

the media in this country is for the most part, conservative. these are big companies led in general by rich wasps. don't tell me that micro$uck (lawsuit was dropped after conservatives took power) is liberal

if you mean print media, then there may be a balance.. the boston globe is 'liberal' and of course dishrags like the herald litter the city too.:rolleyes:

vniow

Dec 5, 2003, 03:05 PM

Uh oh, I smell a thread movement coming....

mactastic

Dec 5, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by vniow
Uh oh, I smell a thread movement coming....

Movement huh... no wonder you can smell it!

You PPPers and your sense of smell.:p

Chad4Mac

Dec 5, 2003, 04:00 PM

You might think I'm a little crazy, but I wrote Google to complain about the search. Here's their "automated" response:

Thank you for your note about our search results.

The particular case you refer to is the result of the dynamic nature of
the Internet and Google's reliance on the web's link structure as part of
our search calculation. The order and contents of Google search results
are completely automated. No one hand picks a particular result for a
given search query. Nor does Google ever insert jokes or send
messages by changing the order of results. Occasionally, when a particular
website is the subject of public attention, other sites begin linking to
it. This may elevate its importance as gauged by our ranking software,
which assigns a PageRank value based in part on who links to a given page.

Higher ranking in Google results may lead to more awareness, which may
lead to more links and so on. One side effect of not using an editorial
viewpoint to determine the ranking of results is that anomalies like this
occasionally occur. We view such occasions as opportunities for us to
learn more about how the web works and how to improve our algorithms for
all searches in the future.

Thanks for taking the time to write to us.

Regards,
The Google Team

I just think that it is in bad taste -- Repub or Dem -- to place a president in this light based off a Internet search. If Google is messing around, that's really in poor taste. If not, they should move his bio from there.

Just my opinion,

Chad4Mac

macphisto

Dec 5, 2003, 04:03 PM

The thread has been moved! :)

Last time I checked, Hollywood was still predominately liberal, as well as somewhat liberal Ted Turner (AOL TimeWarner), and most of the nightly news casts still favor the left.

;)

Just a general observation. Speaking of fun media, what do you all think of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. :D

zimv20

Dec 5, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by radhak
yes, but funny that this page does not have either of the two words, not even as any meta, or whatever, so how does it make the results at all, let alone the top? definitely one of google's giggle.

:D

google doesn't work like other search engines. an effect of this is that the search terms themselves don't have to be on the popular page, but rather on the page that has the link to the popular page.

as mentioned, it was the dick gephardt quote, about bush, that had the term 'miserable failure'.

zimv20

Dec 5, 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by macphisto

Last time I checked, Hollywood was still predominately liberal

there are a couple distinctions you're not making:

1. news vs. entertainment
2. producers of entertainment vs. owners of media conglomerates

mactastic

Dec 5, 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by macphisto
The thread has been moved! :)

Last time I checked, Hollywood was still predominately liberal, as well as somewhat liberal Ted Turner (AOL TimeWarner), and most of the nightly news casts still favor the left.

And the last time I checked, Wall Street was still predominately conservative.

pseudobrit

Dec 5, 2003, 07:11 PM

And last I checked, Google uses a complex, secret, patented algorithm to deliver dynamic search results.

Which means Google could be manned by the most leftist staff in the world but their computers would still judge the pecking order.

wwworry

Dec 6, 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by macphisto
What I don't get is why everyone has to bag on and complain about Bush. Yes, he is human and is not perfect, but he has been a great President.

I'll tell you why Bush stinks:

He's a lier.

I'll post my list of Bush lies later. It's a long one.

Chad4Mac

Dec 6, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
I'll tell you why Bush stinks:

He's a lier.

I'll post my list of Bush lies later. It's a long one.

Yeah, he's a lier :rolleyes:

Start posting...

...then you can post all the lies of all the other Presidents.

Chad4Mac

zimv20

Dec 6, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Chad4Mac

...then you can post all the lies of all the other Presidents.

fwiw, i cannot accept an argument that because past presidents have lied, it's okay. nor the implication that all lies are created equal.

are you willing to excuse bush's lies because lying is not unique, or do you think he's above board on all matters?

Chad4Mac

Dec 6, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
fwiw, i cannot accept an argument that because past presidents have lied, it's okay. nor the implication that all lies are created equal.

are you willing to excuse bush's lies because lying is not unique, or do you think he's above board on all matters?

First, identify Bush's lies. If he is lying, on any point of interest, and someone has proof that he is lying, well, then, start the impeachment process.

If Bush lies so much, then why hasn't he been impeached?

Clinton lied, he was impeached...so why hasn't Bush?

Chad4Mac

Rower_CPU

Dec 6, 2003, 08:33 PM

When was the last time Bush was placed under oath? Hmmm?

zimv20

Dec 6, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Chad4Mac
First, identify Bush's lies. If he is lying, on any point of interest, and someone has proof that he is lying, well, then, start the impeachment process.

so you don't think he's lying, but are open to the possibility.

If Bush lies so much, then why hasn't he been impeached?

Clinton lied, he was impeached...so why hasn't Bush?

1. clinton was impeached by a republican-controlled congress
2. clinton was under investigation by a tireless independent prosecutor w/ seemingly limitless funds -- note there is no longer such a prosecutor
3. it's easier for people to get up in arms about a blowjob than complicated financial dealings, etc. for some reason
4. for the comparison to be close to valid, bush has to be put on the stand to even have a chance at perjuring himself

using an impeachment as proof of lying has got it backwards, imo. there're many other factors that go into the ramifications of a president's actions.

Chad4Mac

Dec 6, 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
When was the last time Bush was placed under oath? Hmmm?

Ha, ha. That's funny. The last time he was under oath...

It might be hard to believe these days that a president isn't lying to the public. We have been programed to think -- thanks to the last administration -- that lying is a norm.

Thanks God we have a president that couldn't lie his why though anything.

Chad4Mac

Chad4Mac

Dec 6, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
so you don't think he's lying, but are open to the possibility.

1. clinton was impeached by a republican-controlled congress
2. clinton was under investigation by a tireless independent prosecutor w/ seemingly limitless funds -- note there is no longer such a prosecutor
3. it's easier for people to get up in arms about a blowjob than complicated financial dealings, etc. for some reason
4. for the comparison to be close to valid, bush has to be put on the stand to even have a chance at perjuring himself

using an impeachment as proof of lying has got it backwards, imo. there're many other factors that go into the ramifications of a president's actions.

1) Do not forget that the Republican congress represents a portion of the population of the united states. If any president lies, I want someone there to press for action.
2) No such thing as independent prosecutors anymore?
3) What "financial dealing?"
4) He hasn''t been put on stand because he hasn't bold-faced lied to the american public...

Expalin the ramifications that go into a presidents actions?

I don't mean to argue, but I think that it is easier to say that someone lied as oppossed to actually prooving it.

If Bush is lying, put your money were your mouth is...in the nicest way possible.

Chad4Mac

zimv20

Dec 6, 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Chad4Mac

I think that it is easier to say that someone lied as oppossed to actually prooving it.

it's even easier to shirk your duty as a citizen to be informed. you act as if the reality of bush lying is somehow predicated on my ability to prove it to you.

what are your news sources?

Chad4Mac

Dec 6, 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
it's even easier to shirk your duty as a citizen to be informed. you act as if the reality of bush lying is somehow predicated on my ability to prove it to you.

what are your news sources?

Wait...wait. It's very easy to say that someone is lying. Can you prove that Bush is lying?

What does my news sources have to with your inability to answer my questions -- and prove that bush is lying.

What has Bush lied about?

Chad4mac

zimv20

Dec 6, 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Chad4Mac
Can you prove that Bush is lying?

not w/o clearance.

look, all i or anyone else can do is present evidence. we'll each draw our own conclusions. this forum is full of evidence. the papers are full of evidence.

for some people, nothing short of bush standing up and saying 'i lied' will convince them. i don't know if that's you or not.

for me, the PNAC (http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000047.html) documents are very telling when compared to how bush's administration has played out.

familiarize yourself w/ them, if you haven't already, then ask yourself if something seems fishy about the way the administration deals w/ the middle east.

pseudobrit

Dec 7, 2003, 01:56 AM

2) The office of independent prosecutor has been abolished.

3) Halliburton. Enron. PNAC.

4) Bush is not on trial because he's told his lies through his office, not through his own lips. Having had the least number of press conferences and TV appearances of any President facilitates his ability to cover his actions and lies with the lies of many others.

You said it yourself. He couldn't lie his way through anything. So he just doesn't answer questions that aren't pre-approved and have scripted, teleprompted answers.

He gets on TV four days a week for fifteen minutes and reads a stale, canned speech at another photo-op while trying to look important. I've been following since day one.

Perhaps never having been legitimately elected to his office has something to do with his lack of confidence.

whocares

Dec 7, 2003, 02:41 AM

Well I thought it was damn funny. Some of you guys need to loosen up a tad. Have a prune :p
It's a good sign of democracy when petty jokes can be made on your leaders. And having a laugh at their expense doesn't necessarily mean any disrespect.

BTW, anyone paid a visit the White House website?

White House (http://www.whitehouse.com)

An oldie but goldie :D

I by no means want to be disrespectfull towards the presidency of the US, but I feel being disrespectful to Bush is ok because he is disrespectful to the whole goddamn world :mad:

Flame away!

vwcruisn

Dec 7, 2003, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by whocares
I feel being disrespectful to Bush is ok because he is disrespectful to the whole goddamn world :mad:

Flame away!

so true

Sayhey

Dec 7, 2003, 03:01 PM

The BBC has pickup on the Google story:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm)

I see a conservative boycott of google in the making! If they can stop a miniseries on Reagan, why not censor our search engines?

zimv20

Dec 7, 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
The BBC has pickup on the Google story:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm)

that's really interesting to see how few sites it takes to hit the #1 google link.

Stelliform

Dec 7, 2003, 10:24 PM

....

Stelliform

Dec 7, 2003, 10:25 PM

...

NP3

Dec 7, 2003, 11:30 PM

interesting read for you media conglomerate people:
http://www.liberalslant.com/mediaownership.htm

I'd also like to point out that business opportunities will often come before conservative/liberal.

pseudobrit

Dec 7, 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Stelliform
In this forum saying that makes you a hero. :rolleyes:

Another member irrationally frustrated by the liberal snakepit?

:rolleyes:

Stelliform

Dec 8, 2003, 12:25 AM

....

whocares

Dec 8, 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Stelliform
In this forum saying that makes you a hero. :rolleyes:

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Sad that you think I would state my opinion just to be a "hero". I state what I think, well, because it's what I think. If you disagree that's fine, but maybe bring some argumentation to your replies :rolleyes:

Stelliform

Dec 8, 2003, 02:33 PM

....

zimv20

Dec 8, 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Stelliform
I stand by my opinion that this forum is a liberal political forum.

for the past couple months, yeah. i can't remember if you were posting here in march, but go have a look at the archives. quite a difference :-0

whocares

Dec 8, 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Stelliform
I was just saying that you wouldn't get flamed. If anything you would get praised. I assumed you were fairly new to these forums if you thought that you would get flamed for saying anti-Bush comments. If my assumption was wrong I apologize, but I stand by my opinion that this forum is a liberal political forum.

Thanx for the clarifications, your post sure seems a lot less 'agressive' now. I don't participate much in the P&W Forums and the little I see always seem very 'un-liberal' to me. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I honestly thought some people would get upset and flame away at my political opinions like in the past. Good to know I'm wrong (sometimes) :p

judith

Dec 8, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
for the past couple months, yeah. i can't remember if you were posting here in march, but go have a look at the archives. quite a difference :-0

Perhaps this is because the conservatives consistently maintain their position/views, and lib's opinions ebb and flow depending on current events, their mood that day, barometric pressure fluctuations, etc. ?
Perhaps....;)

mactastic

Dec 8, 2003, 05:22 PM

Plus we've had at least one of the more vocal conservative posters here lose their cool and go out in a blaze of profanity laced name-calling. Although sometimes they just make up new names and come back...

zimv20

Dec 8, 2003, 06:20 PM

Ugg

Dec 8, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Plus we've had at least one of the more vocal conservative posters here lose their cool and go out in a blaze of profanity laced name-calling. Although sometimes they just make up new names and come back...

Hmmm, that's a good point, how many liberals around here have been banned? Is it that conservatives are more likely to be type As or is it that they are just more confrontational?

zimv20

Dec 8, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Ugg
Hmmm, that's a good point, how many liberals around here have been banned? Is it that conservatives are more likely to be type As or is it that they are just more confrontational?

or are the troublemakers just the same two people? :-)

pseudobrit

Dec 8, 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by judith
Perhaps this is because the conservatives consistently maintain their position/views, and lib's opinions ebb and flow depending on current events, their mood that day, barometric pressure fluctuations, etc. ?
Perhaps....;)

A liberal by definition is open minded and their opinions are subject to change. Mine do because I constantly question myself and what I believe.

I guess some people will see this dynamic personality as a bad thing.

Stelliform

Dec 8, 2003, 10:12 PM

....

judith

Dec 8, 2003, 10:42 PM

I agree.
I used to participate more often in the political threads, but rather than go-off on a tangent (as seems to be assumed of me as conservative in opinion), I've opted to avoid them all together. Having been diverted to this one in particular from the Google thread in Community Discussion.
Hate to shatter anyone's "conservatives are more confrontational" theories, but for each person who has 'gone-off' in discussions, countless others have quietly decided to avoid engaging in it; having come here for tech matters, news, or just plain friendly exchange of conversation, which unfortunately, seems a rarity amongst the political discussions.

pseudobrit

Dec 8, 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by judith
friendly exchange of conversation, which unfortunately, seems a rarity amongst the political discussions.

Maybe that's because many people tend to stereotype others when asserting political stances, which isn't a friendly thing to do:

Perhaps this is because the conservatives consistently maintain their position/views, and lib's opinions ebb and flow depending on current events, their mood that day, barometric pressure fluctuations, etc. ?

Tit for tat.

judith

Dec 9, 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit

Tit for tat.

Pseudo:

Allthough I would prefer your comments directed at me go unacknowledged, I felt in all fairness, I would explain my position, and ask if we might simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Sure, you say tit for tat now.
When you came onto a (fun, constructive) thread offering nothing at all productive, only an inflamatory statement about people in the south, and how that area wasn’t a good market for Apple, it was a good market for, and I quote: “dick pills”. I was deeply offended by that!

I attempted a logical, and more productive discourse by providing demographic, income per capita, and other geographic marketing information of true value in basing an opinion on viable markets for Apple. I thought perhaps I could be swayed in my opinion of your statement, should you have elaborated further, and in a productive fact-based manner. Or maybe it was meant jokingly, I thought. (as was the ebb and tide comment - this really shouldn't have been all that difficult to discern)

You continued to insult me, and southerners in general, and
as I recall, I called you a jerk (with sincerity!) To which, you ran off to tell teacher. (mod)

Now in tit for tat fashion, you could have backed-up your insults with just one fact proving southerners are a bunch of non-computer using, dick-pill popping, rednecks! But alas, no facts to support this end can be found. In fact, Apple is indeed opening stores thoughout the south including, that’s right NASCAR central: North Carolina!
I guess not only myself, but Apple, and millions of others agree that this is in fact a viable market for their products.

If not for this exchange, certainly ever since you went and tattled on me for personally attacking you (by calling you a jerk), I have deliberatley avoided direct communication with you.

I would appreciate your return of the favor in kind.

I'll be so presumptuous as to expect you will want the last word....

zimv20

Dec 9, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by judith
“dick pills”. I was deeply offended by that! [...] I called you a jerk

errrrr.... was all this deleted? i don't recall seeing any of it.

Sayhey

Dec 9, 2003, 02:40 AM

Stelliform and judith,

speaking as someone who views liberals from the other side of the spectrum (they always seem to be to the right of my politics), I have to say I love having intelligent conservative voices in this forum. If someone can abide by the rules, they should be welcome.

If someone comes on these forums with, for example, a cheerleading approach to Bush's politics, they will get a response from many folks here who don't agree. That doesn't mean that a reasoned argument from the conservative side will not be respected and discussed. In fact, on some traditional conservative issues, such as balanced budgets or civil liberities, you might find an awful lot of liberals and lefties who agree.

judith

Dec 9, 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
errrrr.... was all this deleted? i don't recall seeing any of it.
Yep, but there's enough of what's left of it to get the *jist* of the discussion here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47545)

Sayhey: much appreciated. A quality debate can be quite the productive learning experience!

I do apologize if I caused offense in poking fun, I like to do that from time to time to lighten the air, I do try to make it obvious and appearent when I'm j/k. I also realize that we are not all mind readers here, and depending on one's current state of mind, this can by misinterpreted. I'm prepared to take the heat, but also hopelessly sarcastic!:rolleyes:

zimv20

Dec 9, 2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by judith
Yep, but there's enough of what's left of it to get the *jist* of the discussion here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47545)

ah -- i thought all this had happened in this thread. confusion is easing, thank you.

mactastic

Dec 9, 2003, 09:44 AM

If you are going to be involved here you have to make the distinction between the ideologues and those who are willing to listen on both sides. I could easily make accusations that all conservatives are like Jonapete. I could extrapolate that all conservatives are, like him abrasive, unwilling to listen to reason and logic, and a blind follower of GWB as well as crude, vulgar and willing to sink to the level of personal insults. But I realize that he is not necessarily representative of the broad spectrum of the conservatives who post here, who by and large are just as nice and intellegent as the broad spectrum of liberals. After being here a while you get to know who the blusterers are and who the people who enjoy a good debate with an open mind are. Saying they exist only on one side or another is just not true, nor conducive to a productive debate.

pseudobrit

Dec 9, 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by judith
I'll be so presumptuous as to expect you will want the last word....

Okay.

I never insulted Southerners, you just presumed I was.

****ing drop it already.

mactastic

Dec 9, 2003, 09:34 PM

And Last Word has it by a nose, with Snotty Retort coming up on his heels... at the finish line its Last Word by a sneering lip!

Both of you drop it. Please.

pseudobrit

Dec 9, 2003, 09:43 PM

I had dropped it. Quite some time ago actually. Like after the original posts were removed. I don't know why it keeps being revived.

g5man

Dec 9, 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
If you are going to be involved here you have to make the distinction between the ideologues and those who are willing to listen on both sides. I could easily make accusations that all conservatives are like Jonapete. I could extrapolate that all conservatives are, like him abrasive, unwilling to listen to reason and logic, and a blind follower of GWB as well as crude, vulgar and willing to sink to the level of personal insults. But I realize that he is not necessarily representative of the broad spectrum of the conservatives who post here, who by and large are just as nice and intellegent as the broad spectrum of liberals. After being here a while you get to know who the blusterers are and who the people who enjoy a good debate with an open mind are. Saying they exist only on one side or another is just not true, nor conducive to a productive debate.

Not to pick a fight. But if you were to read your own post, you might come to a conclusion that you are contradicting yourself.

Your interpretation of "willing to listen to both sides" means that one would have to agree with what you say, otherwise the person is not listening.

And personal insults are thrown with such ease that most don't even pick up on them or simply ignore them. Those on the left tend to be a little more sophisticate in this area but also much more sensative.

Minds are rarely changed in political debates, but rather life experiences do that. Forums such as these are used much more for entertainment or to make work more enjoyable. They do influence a few, BTTM come to mind. Speaking of him, I have not heard from him.

I have noticed a few conservatives come and go as they pick up on the negativity and underlying tension found in most political forums but more prevalent here.

pseudobrit

Dec 10, 2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by g5man
Forums such as these are used much more for entertainment or to make work more enjoyable.

We already know you're here for the wrong reasons. Thanks for making it crystal clear.

3rdpath

Dec 10, 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by g5man

I have noticed a few conservatives come and go

such as ovi, sanfelipe, bond003 ?

oh, the irony. :rolleyes:

mactastic

Dec 10, 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by g5man
Your interpretation of "willing to listen to both sides" means that one would have to agree with what you say, otherwise the person is not listening.

Maybe having to agree with you is your definition of "willing to listen to both sides", but it's not mine. Please refrain from defining what I mean for me. When I say "willing to listen to both sides" it doesn't mean we have to agree, or come to any kind of consensus here. All it means is that I don't call others names, I don't ridicule their personal views, and I'm not here to pick fights. Sorry if that's what you think liberals do.

And personal insults are thrown with such ease that most don't even pick up on them or simply ignore them. Those on the left tend to be a little more sophisticate in this area but also much more sensative.

See, there you go with the lame "conservatives are better people because they don't insult with the sophistication and thin-skin of a liberal" crap. Not very productive to make sweeping generalizations of your opponents is it? Or are all conservatives that way?:p