dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits
reply to tubbynet

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by tubbynet:

said by DataRiker:

you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant
...
google absolutely wants something in return
i'm sorry. i've bolded all the parts of your post that lead me to not listen...

sorry.

q.
You assumed a contradiction because your not a careful reader.

You have only been here a short time, and you give off an awful presence. Your posts are always argumentative and never helpful.

Firstly, giving a hollow implication to one of the most respected members of our site is not a good start. His credibility, unlike yours has been cemented many times over.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

said by DataRiker:

Guess you have never heard of the Gates foundation?
yes. i have actually. but lets talk about relevancy here.
you said that my statement was not only wrong, but irrelevant. you then went on to explain that google wanted something in return. in this context, my statement was highly relevant and supported by your position.
i stopped listening because of the contradiction. it was not assumed (hence the reason it was bolded).

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

said by tubbynet:

said by DataRiker:

Guess you have never heard of the Gates foundation?
yes. i have actually. but lets talk about relevancy here.
you said that my statement was not only wrong, but irrelevant. you then went on to explain that google wanted something in return. in this context, my statement was highly relevant and supported by your position.
i stopped listening because of the contradiction. it was not assumed (hence the reason it was bolded).

q.
Yes your statement was wrong and irrelevant. You have still assumed my point, most incorrectly I might add.

Your whole statement is a overly broad, unfalsifiable statement. Usually used unknowingly by people who think they are smarter than everyone else.

By the way, the words "nobody" and "google" are not the same thing, thus disproving your whole "contradiction".


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by DataRiker:

Yes your statement was wrong and irrelevant. You have still assumed my point, most incorrectly I might add.
as you see it, since it has the unintended consequence of being misunderstood.

you seem to think i am wrong in stating what i did, and that you feel that google is doing this for the "feel good feeling". i tend to take the view that (while their are islolated instances of "general good") *corporations* donate because they have some vested interest. there are good corporations and there are good and benevolent individuals, but on the whole, i'd assume that my position is more relevant and much more common than the one that you are trying to suppose. if it wasn't, then why are there all of these corporate funded lobbyingconsumer interest groups? corporations have a vested interest in saving their bottom line. i'm not saying its wrong, but i'm saying that you can't get lost in the topic of the argument; you have to understand what this may lead to and who is supporting it.

call me cynical, call me a corporate shill; it doesn't matter.

if you choose to think that google is funding these "net neutrality thinktanks" for their own good and the fact that they are "looking out for the consumer", then thats your choice. however, in thinking that, you must ask yourself, why are there so many people who are up in arms over google's tracking/ad/privacy policies because they are far-reaching?

again, i support my position wholeheartedly. your posting of a contradiction against my argument only leads support to what i was saying in the first place.
your posts will do nothing to change that.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


Random_nut

@vsnl.net.in
reply to DataRiker

said by DataRiker:

said by tubbynet:

said by DataRiker:

By the way, the words "nobody" and "google" are not the same thing, thus disproving your whole "contradiction".
priceless - i was going to write that almost verbatim

This is the third time you beat me too it !


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to tubbynet

Still missed my point. What is relevant here is how they are funding, not why.

The why is debatable, the how is not. The fact that you don't understand the difference is pretty it telling.

Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in, nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).

My alleged contradiction is nothing but your inability to read and/or think critically.

From my original post out:

but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.



tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

said by DataRiker:

Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in
right, and most do because they have a vested interest in the outcome of what is being lobbied for.

nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).
i never said google was astroturfing (pot, meet kettle). in fact, while funchords See Profile is not an official spokesman, if google was "astroturfing" his group, i'm pretty sure they'd want to keep it a secret, or at least hide it from a pretty popular site for people interested in the sort of thing that is being "astroturfed".

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times.



tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

said by DataRiker:

Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times.
apparently you *assumed* that by having a vested interest in the outcome, i meant astroturfing.

but you are more than welcome to criticize *my* comprehension ability.



q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

During your original statement you supposed that if somebody is investing money for a cause there must be some return ( you did use the general construct "you")

My response was this:

"The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant"

Which is true. Again a counter example would be the Gates foundation. (there are countless, but that's an easy one)

Now on to the troubling part for you, my next statement:

In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.

I did notice your convenient omission of "In this case"

Something tells me you comprehended my original point just fine but rather then debate on the merits you took the low road.

Expand your moderator at work