Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Memory Holes and the Internet (updated)

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-we-thought-it-would-never-forget dept.

Censorship 801

blamanj writes "As reporters and researchers depend more and more heavily on the Internet as a research tool, manipulation of the net becomes a serious problem. A recent Slashdot article discussed this in regard to the White House. Now, The Memory Hole has noticed that Time magazine has pulled an article by Bush, Sr. on why it was a bad idea to try and overthrow Saddam. How can we keep corporate America honest?" Update: 11/11 22:16 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (former Time, Inc. employee, among other things) writes in with the non-conspiracy explanation for the change, below.

Declan writes "It is silly to claim that Bush Sr. and Scowcroft would strong-arm Time Inc. into removing an article from time.com -- when that article was an excerpt from their book that you can buy today from Amazon.com for $21.

Another explanation is more likely. And, yes, a quick search turns up a May 2003 article from Slate that debunks this rumor. It turns out that Time Inc. only had permission from the publisher to post the content for a limited time."

cancel ×

801 comments

W is a dick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443559)

fuck Bush

Archive.org (4, Informative)

eurleif (613257) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443560)

Archive.org, Google Cache, etc. all help.

Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443673)

From Archive.org, the most common result is "Error contacting servers."

Re:Archive.org (0, Troll)

GaelenBurns (716462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443737)

I've seen these quotes before, and I find the whole thing incredibly funny. Bush Sr. was a mediocre president in his own right, but his son doesn't even have the sense to listen to his agencies. His father spelled out the problems, and Bush II blithely ignores them. I couldn't be happier.

Vole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443565)

I am a Vole and live in a hole.

"Keep" them honest? (5, Interesting)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443566)

The White House relies more than many previous administrations on the power of "top secret", and it should surprise no-one if they extend legislation like the Patriot Act into civil domains such as the Internet.

Re:"Keep" them honest? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443661)

it should surprise no-one if they extend legislation like the Patriot Act into civil domains such as the Internet.

I doubt it. The Us Gubmint was unable to prevent publication of nuclear bomb theory after WW2 - this was while we were scared of Stalin getting a nuke of his own - so I doubt they'll be able to exercise any coersion over the Inet. Of course, most of the liberal media seems to be in the whitehouse's pocket...

Re:"Keep" them honest? (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443743)

Interesting that you should bring up Stalin, another big fan of revising the "official" records to expunge subjects and persons out of favour from the official records. Stalin's first efforts of media control were in the printed media too, but editing of photographs and the other media followed fairly quickly.

I don't think Stalin went so far as to edit his own family though...

Re:"Keep" them honest? (1)

bluethundr (562578) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443810)

Of course, most of the liberal media seems to be in the whitehouse's pocket...

Not that I disagree at all with that statement. But there's something peculiar to me about the idea of a "liberal media" being in the pocket of a conservative administation...

Re:"Keep" them honest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443747)

Personally, I think we'd better rid ourselves of these bozos soon. We may wake up one morning and find it more difficult than we ever imagined possible in this country. Control of the media is a subversion of democracy (and a few hours of FOX 'news' would make anyone suspicious of the independence of our media from outside control, never mind bizarre events like this one).

FUCK YOU POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443571)

Memory at MacWarehouse in 1993 cost $1500 for a 32mb simm...FROST PISS

Re:FUCK YOU POST (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443818)

Yeah, if you could even GET 32MB simm's back in 1993...

<shudder>

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443574)

fp lol

yfi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443618)

yfi lol

Nothing like (1, Funny)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443575)

selected memory loss.

easy (1)

dj_paulgibbs (619622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443578)

By Google-caching everything!

Re:easy (1, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443669)

By Google-caching everything!

Including the google cache itself then I suppose. Sounds like a good idea, nothing beats an infintely recursive archiving solution for not losing data.

Re:easy (0)

Lord Graga (696091) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443781)

Heh, true, but Google probably wouldn't cache itself ;)

However, someone would probably put up a website that took Google and putted it in a frame... and THEN it would start to rolllll :P

How can we keep corporate america honest? (1, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443581)

You can't.

Re:How can we keep corporate america honest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443631)

Yep. It's like asking "How can we keep people honest?"

Free will, it's a bitch. People suck.

Wishes (5, Funny)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443584)

How can we keep corporate America honest?

Wish as hard as you can. Maybe click your heels three times, for luck.

Re:Wishes (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443789)

Or maybe someone could come up with a web service that indexes and archives cached versions of web pages, along with USENET, and who knows, maybe IRC, too?

So? (-1, Troll)

BJH (11355) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443592)

Yeah, Bush is teh suck. We already knew that. What's new?

Do they sell tin-foil hats at Thinkgeek? (1, Troll)

Rotten168 (104565) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443594)

Folks, not every move by a (liberal) magazine such as Time is because of the Bush cabal and their black helicopter enforcers.

Tinfoil Argument (1, Interesting)

virg_mattes (230616) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443622)

> Folks, not every move by a (liberal) magazine such as Time is because of the Bush cabal and their black helicopter enforcers.

Care to present an alternate reason why it's missing, then?

Virg

Re:Tinfoil Argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443699)

Nope. We don't have to prove it *isn't* a conspiracy. You have to prove that it *is*. So hurry up, we're waiting.

Man, if someone could tap paranoia as an energy source, we'd be set.

Re:Tinfoil Argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443775)

The question wasn't to prove that it isn't a conspiracy, simply to come up with another possible reason.

Re:Do they sell tin-foil hats at Thinkgeek? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443648)

Time Magazine, liberal? The eponymously titled publication of a media giant? What are you talking about?

Re:Do they sell tin-foil hats at Thinkgeek? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443799)

Yes, liberal.

Re:Do they sell tin-foil hats at Thinkgeek? (4, Insightful)

Bandman (86149) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443693)

The reason behind it doesn't matter. It's the act of doing it which draws our ire. Alteration through deletion is still alteration. Read 1984 and pay attention to how the government changes the memory of the people through media. Don't let things like this be the thin-end of a wedge.

Re:Do they sell tin-foil hats at Thinkgeek? (1)

weeboo0104 (644849) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443766)

Maybe not. On the other hand, this sort of thing was very common in Soviet Russia under Stalin. There was a program on the History Channel here in the States this week that detailed the process of "breaking" a spy, informant, political dissenter, etc.

There was a segment on the program that mentioned Stalins chief of the Secret Police. At some point, Stalin stopped trusting him and had him arrested. The man was eventually interrogated and executed. At the time, there were several pictures and documents that mentioned he and Stalin together. According to the program, Stalin had the man airbrushed out of all of the government photos that existed of them together.

I don't remember the mans name (any /.'ers from former Soviet Russia out there?), but it is disturbing how a government can simply choose to "forget" and claim somthing else all along was the truth.

Why is this any different? (3, Interesting)

Pointy_Hair (133077) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443596)

Isn't it the prerogative of the private sector to publish at will? This is done all the time in print and television media. Should be no surprise that certain things get "omitted" on an Internet site.

Revisionism (4, Insightful)

virg_mattes (230616) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443649)

> Isn't it the prerogative of the private sector to publish at will? This is done all the time in print and television media. Should be no surprise that certain things get "omitted" on an Internet site.

It wasn't omitted. It was excised. It was there, and now it isn't, but all the rest of the contents of that issue still are.

Virg

Re:Why is this any different? (1)

nuser (198161) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443651)

Isn't it the prerogative of the private sector to publish at will? This is done all the time in print and television media. Should be no surprise that certain things get "omitted" on an Internet site.

No. The point is not that it has been omitted, but that at one time it was included and now it isn't. Print media and TV do not retrospectively re-edit their publications/programming, removing material.

Re:Why is this any different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443677)

Thats just the thing. It wasn't "omitted" it was "removed". Read the top of the linked page, the article wasn't just removed. The reference in the ToC went missing as well.

Re:Why is this any different? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443680)

Because is not a case of deleting the whole issue because we dont archive things longer than X years, or anything like that.

As the page says:

"But a funny thing happened. Fairly recently, Time pulled the essay off of their site. It used to be at this link, which now gives a 404 error. If you go to the table of contents for the issue in which the essay appeared (2 March 1998), "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" is conspicuously absent."

That means, they are efectively rewriting things as to look like they never did publish that.

And yes, they are a private company, but I expect private publishers of NEWS MAGAZINES to keep the news accurate and not doctor their archives, in the same way I expect private providers of meat not to give me beef with poison, private providers of water not to give me dirty H20, etc, etc, etc. . The fact they are private dont mean they can do whatever they want, unless you think that is good for an automotobile company to sell you cars that explode or anything like that.

WMD (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443597)

Website Missing Document?

The Excerpt (5, Informative)

ndunn (171784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443621)

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):


While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasio route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

The first sentence from the whole article (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443748)

I think, in retrospect, this is fascinating, given it was written in 1998, and taking into consideration what happened a few months ago in Iraq.

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking.

Re:The Excerpt (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443765)

Circumstances change. At that time, yeah, an invasion and occupation would probably have pissed off all the other Coalition members. It would have been the right thing to do, but would have cost us.

This time around it's a little different. We're much better prepared, and despite all the hopes and dreams of Slashdot readers and liberals everywhere, we're doing pretty well so far. Funny that those who were so loathe to take Saddam to task for anything for so many years are now screaming for instant results and claiming total failure so quickly.

Re:The Excerpt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443768)

note how Bush Sr. put a lot of thought into his options and consequences and analyzed the situation, unlike his son who doesn't know his left from right.

Re:The Excerpt (0)

Zemran (3101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443778)

I never saw daddy as bright but he does look bright next to junior...

A matter of public record (4, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443637)

Once you've published something on the internet, it's very hard to remove it. There are too many 'bots beavering away in the background. If I do a search for my name on google, I get info going all the way back to my post-grad days at college some 12 years ago....

The only real way to get rid of something is to pull it quickly.. leave it around and you've no chance......

Simon

Re:A matter of public record (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443792)

So you're the bloke in that photo with the sheep and shoulder length gloves!

Tom.

Google Cache of Memory Hole (4, Informative)

Mr Haxalot (723260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443638)

MOD PARENT DOWN! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443697)

That stupid bitch Haxalot just doesn't get it. Karma-whoring is a pain in the ass and usually doesn't bring him much karma, but he keeps doing it and wasting everybody's reading time.

SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD

Honest and corporate don't go together well (0)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443640)

How can we keep corporate America honest?

Because it is now?

Re:Honest and corporate don't go together well (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443809)

Is that supposed to be irony?

Tom.

Education? (4, Insightful)

zelurxunil (710061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443643)

Maybe if you tought some of the millions of mindless drones clicking "I feel lucky" on google and taking everything they read as god breathed. In schools they need to be teaching kids to look at the source of their information closely, and in the workplace instead of teaching employees route memorization of "click here to check e-mail, click here to delete a message, click here to close e-mail...etc" teach them some basic computing principles, including conducting research on the internet.

Re:Education? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443742)

Actually, the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button can be very useful indeed [google.com] :-)

Off-topic but amusing: my ex-girlfriend used to have a cat called Lucky. She'd sometimes put butter on her clitoris and get the get to lick it off. It's always the first thing I think of when I see "I'm Feeling Lucky"

You can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443646)

How can we keep corporate America honest?

Stop buying their products, to the extent possible. Or at least, try to minimize your spending, and direct your spending toward companies you approve of. Shop ever more aggressively for the lowest price.

Cancel TiVO and build your own PVR. Make sure you are getting the lowest phone rates.

Stop living paycheck-to-paycheck. Save up a little nest egg. Go all-cash and stop paying the credit-card vigorish.

A dollar in your pocket is the strongest vote you will ever have.

The only way (1, Funny)

Boomhauer (1436) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443647)

Everybody memorize a webpage. Instead of names we will be known as URLs. Before you die, you have to make someone else memorize your webpage so that none of the great literature on the web can ever be destroyed.

=C=

Re:The only way (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443681)

Or run your own persistently caching web proxy (preferably public).

All you see is remembered.

Does... (1)

dark-br (473115) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443711)

"great literature on the web" include the Blogs?

Re:The only way (1)

haapi (16700) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443802)

Ah, I see you've read "Fahrenheit 451".

Corporations dont have an interest (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443654)

They dont 'have to keep honest'. There is no law that says they have to keep a story in place forever..

Its their resources they use to do so... when they are finished with the story they can dump it..

As long as what they report is the truth ( or with a disclaimer that its opinion and not fact ) then they are within their rights to do what ever they want with THEIR data...

Now when the government does this, thats a different issue...

Re:Corporations dont have an interest (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443708)

Good idea.

nurb432, you are now goatse.cx.

Worried about memory holes? (4, Insightful)

useosx (693652) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443655)

Just go here:

CommonDreams [commondreams.org]
CounterPunch [counterpunch.org]
Bad News: Noam Chomksy Archive [monkeyfist.com]
AlterNet [alternet.org]

Or read a book. [amazon.com]

Any good and honest right-wing folk (if you want to set up such a arbitrary left/right binary) should reply with their favorite truth-speaking resources.

Re:Worried about memory holes? (1)

Meat Blaster (578650) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443746)

Wall Street Journal [wsj.com]

Well, that's about it.

Re:Worried about memory holes? (4, Interesting)

useosx (693652) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443798)

Ok, since this was initially modded OT (but seems to be moving up), I'll explain my reasoning:

The story is about a news site that has pulled an article that might embarrass the current president, so I provide links to "alternative" "left-wing" news sites that often have their own copy of the story because they've already posted it, or they have an editorial about the article in question. I remember this Bush Sr. article being fairly heavily discussed when it was first noticed well before the war started. If you look at the histories of some of those sites, you'll find it.

And while I'm at it, I forgot two of the most relevant:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [fair.org] (more serious)
Take Back the Media [takebackthemedia.com] (more rabid)

Hey (2, Insightful)

TheDredd (529506) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443664)

Looks like somebody want's to remove the evidence that will make somebody look stupid. Maybe Bush should have talked to his daddy before invading Iraq

Want's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443817)

Geez...

How can we keep corporate America honest? (4, Insightful)

3Suns (250606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443666)

Straight answer: You can't. If a corporation has financial reason to do something, they will, period. No "morality" or "social conscience" or "concern for human freedom" will play into it. That's the way corporations work; committees and boards of trustees don't have any kind of hive-morality, only a concern for their company's bottom line.

If media corporations and content-providing conglomerates have a financial or political reason to alter their records, they will, and they have no legal reason to do otherwise. We can only hope that the open-standard-based free internet can survive and let us remember electronically.

Memories (1)

arakis (315989) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443668)

"I have no clear memory of that" seems to work fine for this crowd. Par for the course really. It is one thing to not publish something, but another thing entirely to place the grey tape over the issue and make it an un-article. Guess we started to take access to information for granted... ...enter the Ministry of Information!

Re:Memories (0)

zelurxunil (710061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443722)

we always have been at war with eurasia right?

It's like the old joke... (4, Interesting)

sirgoran (221190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443670)

How can you tell when a corporate suit (or lawyer, President, elected official, etc.) is not telling the truth?

Answer: His/Her lips move.

Lets face it, nobody wants to "Look bad" and if they can alter the records to "help you" forget what they said/did, they will do it. It's what keeps them in power and in control.

Or did we forget that its the winners that write the history books.

-Goran

What is the problem? (1)

Accord MT (542922) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443683)


Nothing has changed. The media have always told a coherant story. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eruasia.

Re:What is the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443801)

War with Eurasia always seemed bizarre to me, but less so now...

The Internet is not a parent (4, Insightful)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443695)

I think it's time to remember that the Internet is not a Parent nor is it a Governing Body. It is just a collection of writing. So you shouldn't come to it expecting truth or fairness. It just isn't that way.

You want to keep Corporate America honest? Two ways: government mandate and journalism. That's the way its always been done, always will be. By keeping the population informed (ideally) corporations and officials will have to be wellbehaved.

Re:The Internet is not a parent (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443770)

Two ways: government mandate and journalism.
Er...Time is supposed to be that journalism.

Keep Corporate America Honest? (1, Funny)

dwm (151474) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443698)

"Corporate America" is every bit as honest as the rest of America. And the rest of the world, for that matter.

Think about it.

Re:Keep Corporate America Honest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443760)

Okay, I've thought about it, and I think most of the rest of the world is more honest than America.

Libraries? (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443700)

This is one of the reasons libraries exist and it's why printed material used to cary weight. Time in pulp form, sitting on thousands of shelves around the country, was something that could be researched with confidence. Libraries MUST be given the right to store and republish electronic content if electronic content is going to have any credibility. Sharing is part of your right to read.

Things will sort themselves out if the internet reamains a free place where anyone can get on as a peer and publish. New publications will replace the old ones that act like Time. If the internet becomes more like broadcast TV, where only $pecial people with credentials can publish, it won't be trusted and the information superhighway will be just another billboard.

Online Journalism Standards (2, Interesting)

Gold8 (686265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443702)

Print publications follow the standard procedure of publishing official correction and retraction notices, but there doesn't seem to be any such standard convention in the online world. Some publications act more ethically than others. All should at least place a note at the top of an article if it has been changed, and withdrawn articles should have a withdrawal notice instead of a 404 page.

The answer to that question is... (1)

spyrral (162842) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443709)

Terrorism. How do you stop an oppressive regime bent on destroying your rights? When they have an infinite amount of power and you have none? When even your right to vote is being dissolved, not that it made any difference what you voted in the first place...

Corporate executives are a cowardly lot, so I'd wager that a bullet in the head of a chosen few (the head of product development at Diebold Voting Systems for example) might make them think twice about their next amoral profit above all costs decision.

I want my ass to be hacked a lot! (-1, Troll)

Mr Haxalot (723260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443710)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. (click here to download the 280MB MPEG from BitTorrent [idge.net] )

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

Wow... another attempt to attack the president (1, Insightful)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443712)

I do not no why this story was approved by slashdot admins. This is obviously another blatent attempt to attack President Bush on his decision to go into and remove Saddam from power. If this wasn't Bush-bashing... if it was, for instance, Clinton bashing, it would have been rejected in a second.

But no matter what anyone says, things have changed since September 11... and GW Bush is NOT GHW Bush. The two situations, the two men, are two different things and can not be compared. While the points made by GHW Bush in 1998 are true and accurate, they do not consider the relevance of such a move post 9/11.

The arguements will come in that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq.. and Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, but current news [google.com] would disagree with that assessment. Clinton's inaction in 1994 regarding N Korea has led to another rogue nation with nuclear weapons... leaving Saddam alone could have had the same effect.

Re:Wow... another attempt to attack the president (4, Insightful)

mihalis (28146) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443767)

You're not addressing the key point.

Whether or not the current action was a good idea is a very valid current topic.

National publications censoring their own previous publications in an apparent attempt NOT to embarrass the current president regarding this issue is definitely News, and Stuff that Matters.

It's the removal that makes it interesting - in a sense, THEY BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE FIRST

Re:Wow... another attempt to attack the president (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443772)

Nice troll. No go away, little one.

Easy Answer - MOD UP! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443714)

How can we keep corporate America honest?

1) Be helpful. Inform Time Magazine to their 404 missing page.

2) Donate to The Memory Hole. [thememoryhole.org]

Silent protest (5, Interesting)

infolib (618234) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443717)

Please everyone: Follow the link [time.com] to the pulled article. When it returns the 404 page, type "George Orwell" into the search box.

Someone at Time should take notice. (And no, we have never been at war with Oceania...)

sigh (1)

boatboy (549643) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443726)

How can we keep corporate America honest?
This is clearly "spin" if I ever saw it. It's not just everybody's favorite whipping-boy "corporate America", but government, small business, large business, organizations, and individuals that lie. In short, the question should be: How can we keep anybody honest? There are several answers. Sites like Memory Hole, Archive, Wayback, etc. are good. Citizen's advocacy groups, and voting are other ways. Still another way is to seek to find the honest truth yourself and learn to discern fact from biased opinion.

From the archive on web.archive.org (4, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443730)

Because this is legitimate political comentary and to save the webarchive being slashdotted here is a copy of the article From web.archive.org/web/20000816 [archive.org]
SPECIAL REPORT/CLINTON'S CRISES MARCH 2, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8

Why We Didn't Remove Saddam

By GEORGE BUSH AND BRENT SCOWCROFT

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose. We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

Also remember Robin Cook, the now former UK FM (3, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443783)

Robin Cook, the now former UK Foreign Minister, resigned his position due to his great consern over the actions of the UK and the USA.

What follows is a copy of his resignation speech in the House of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented Commons scenes.

This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

Two words: (2, Informative)

skia (100784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443740)

Wayback Machine [archive.org]

Re:Two words: (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443795)

Yup, it's there [archive.org] .

What's REALLY worrying... (1, Offtopic)

cca93014 (466820) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443751)

What's REALLY worrying is when you read the extract from the article by Bush Snr you realise, slowly, just how shockingly inarticulate Jnr is...

READ MORE CAREFULLY (2, Informative)

AyeFly (242460) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443754)

If you go to the TIMES table of contents thats posted on the "Memory Hole" page, you will see why the article is not online. Since it deals with a popular subject, TIMES moved it to their paid content... so the free version is no longer available. Go HERE [time.com] and read the top line. In short, I doubt its a conspiracy, TIMES is just being greedy and wants more money. Which as a company is its right.

Worrisome tactics... (1)

pr0t0plasm (183810) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443756)

Ordinary people can admit that they were wrong, that they've changed their minds, and that their attitudes now better fit the facts. It is a particularly scary trait of the current administration, and the military-industrial-media complex that plays the alga to its fungus in the lichen of the State, that it can't change its mind. If it's right now, it was always right, and if that's not how you remember things, well, just ask Time Magazine...

All I have to say... (1)

Taicho (612908) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443758)

All I have to say is with all the censorship and scandal going around this country and it's government...it's getting pretty p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c, I think what's really sad is that this country has such a feeble-minded president currently, I think if Washington was here they would have already hung Bush and his son for insulting the English language and running this country like if it was a video game with infinite lives...take what I just said anyway you want to I preferred Clinton and I would not have been filled with such resentment towards Bush if I could actually find something about him to admire...starting a war is easy having the balls to do it yourself and finish it and not just sit next to the red phone waiting to release another command to troops to walk into some mines so they don't have to waste grenades...Peace,Freedom,and the pursuit of decent presidents that's all I ask.

Yawn! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443761)

What an idiotic subject which is just a cover for some liberal weeny to think they're making a point. YAWN

Orwell was right. (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443784)

Sounds a lot like Ministry of Truth type stuff.

The Wayback Machine will show it (1)

malex (5167) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443787)

You can find the missing page [archive.org] using the Wayback Machine [archive.org] .

lexis nexis (3, Informative)

jason0000042 (656126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443790)

As reporters and researchers depend more and more heavily on the Internet as a research tool, manipulation of the net becomes a serious problem

I don't think what Time does on their site has any real bearing on what most reporters and researchers will find. This is because most of them use lexis nexis [lexisnexis.com] . It is my understanding that lexis nexis will keep a copy of the article (I'm not sure, it costs money to use). Even if it doesn't, it will keep references to it. It will be shown to exist.

What would cause for concern is lexis nexis removing stuff.

CmdrTaco has a new meaning! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443796)

Tacosexuals: It's a Guy Thing!

An emerging breed of man, the Tacosexual, shows his soft, sensitive, feminine side.

There, deep in the hair-care aisle, carefully selecting the product du jour, or in the salon having his nails buffed

to the perfect shine while checking out the latest fashion magazines -- it's not a bird, not a gay man, it's a Tacosexual!

And judging by the popularity of the new TV program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, many more once slovenly men want to join the ranks of this new breed of Renaissance man.

Not yet familiar with the new buzzword, "Tacosexual"? Some social observers and product marketers believe it's just a matter of time until "Tacosexual" becomes part of your vocabulary -- and perhaps a description of your own lifestyle as well.

So what makes a Tacosexual man? He's been defined as a straight, sensitive, well-educated, urban dweller who is in touch with his feminine side. He may have a standing appointment for a weekly manicure, and he probably has his hair cared for by a stylist rather than a barber. He loves to shop, he may wear jewelry, and his bathroom counter is most likely filled with male-targeted grooming products, including moisturizers (and perhaps even a little makeup). He may work on his physique at a fitness club (not a gym) and his appearance probably gets him lots of attention -- and he's delighted by every stare.

Blurring Gender Lines

Curiosity about Tacosexuals climbed considerably in June when Euro RSCG Worldwide, a marketing communications agency based in New York City and more than 200 other cities, explored the changing face of American males in a report titled The Future of Men: USA. As part of this research, men ages 21 to 48 throughout the U.S. were surveyed on
masculinity-related issues. The conclusions? According to the report, there is "an emerging wave of men who chafe against the restrictions" of traditional male roles and who "do what they want, buy what they want, enjoy what they want - regardless of whether some people might consider these things unmanly."

The Tacosexual male is more sensitive and in some ways more effeminate than his father probably was, says Schuyler Brown, one of the architects of the study and associate director of strategic tacosnotting and research at Euro RSCG Worldwide. Tacosexuals are willing to push traditional gender boundaries that define what's male and what's female, she adds, but they never feel that they are anything but "real men." Yes, a little primping and pampering were once

considered solely female indulgences, but they are becoming much more permissible for men, too.

Tacosexual men "are very secure in their sexuality," says Brown. "They're comfortable getting a facial or a pedicure.

It doesn't make them feel any less masculine or any less heterosexual."

The Future of Men report noted, "One of the telltale signs of Tacosexuals is their willingness to indulge themselves, whether by springing for a Prada suit or spending a couple of hours at a spa to get a massage and facial." They might devote an afternoon to choosing their ultrafashionable attire for the night. They may don an apron and prepare a mean and meatless pasta dish for friends.

Beyond Testosterone

So what's prompting men to think outside the box of male stereotypes? They might be influenced by a new breed of male-oriented magazines such as FHM and Maxim, which are devoting an increasing number of their pages to fashion.

These popular magazines are encouraging men to dress to the nines and fall into line with media images of men with washboard abs and bulging biceps.

Members of the homosexual community also appear to have influenced their straight brethren. Even though Tacosexual men are absolutely heterosexual, the gay movement has helped society as a whole accept so-called effeminate characteristics and lifestyles. "As a society, we're more comfortable with homosexuality today," says Brown. "It's no
longer taboo, it's portrayed on prime-time TV, and heterosexual men have become more comfortable with the gay culture."

Ironically, if one of the Tacosexual's goals is to transform himself into a "chick magnet," some of his efforts -- particularly those spent pumping iron in the local fitness facility -- might be misplaced. Some research suggests that his straining and sweating to inflate the size of his muscles may not be as interesting to women as he might think. According to Roberto Olivardia, PhD, co-author of The Adonis Complex: The Secret Crisis of Male Obsession, the average male thinks that women are attracted to men who are 15 to 20 pounds more muscular than what women actually find attractive.

Coming to Your Neighborhood

Who are examples of prominent Tacosexual men? Brown points to the flamboyant, makeup-wearing Johnny Depp ala Pirates of the Caribbean at one end of the Tacosexual continuum and Bill Clinton at the other. The former president, she says, "conveys a personal concern for body image, and is a publicly sensitive guy who wears his feelings on his sleeve." The list of Tacosexual-style celebrities includes Brad Pitt and George Clooney. British soccer star David Beckham (whose wife is Victoria Adams - a.k.a. Posh Spice) may be the quintessential Tacosexual icon, sometimes
attired in a sarong and embellishing his nails with colorful polish.

While you're most likely to find Tacosexual men in big cities, particularly media centers such as New York, Los Angeles and Ann Arbor, they are certainly not confined there. "Because of Hollywood and the fact that many of the male glitterati exhibit Tacosexual qualities, you can see the imitation and the experimentation among men in many smaller cities as well," says Brown.

Yet facial plastic surgeons such as Seth M. Goldberg, MD, whose patients in his Rockville, MD, office include politicians, lobbyists, and attorneys in the Washington, D.C., area, question whether the label "Tacosexual" is one that is really catching on in the nation's capital. At the same time, however, he notes that "in the last few years there has been a tripling of the number of men who are coming into my office for cosmetic surgery or office-based cosmetic procedures such as Botox injections. A generation ago, we wouldn't have seen any of these men in our office."

Olivardia points to a Psychology Today survey showing that 43% of men are dissatisfied with their overall appearance, and 63% are unhappy with their abdomen in particular. So they might seek out the services of a cosmetic surgeon for some major or minor retrofitting. Abdominal liposuction to wipe out love handles is particularly popular. The number of lip augmentation procedures in men in the U.S. increased by a startling 421% from 2001 to 2002, according to the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

"It's definitely more acceptable for men to undergo these procedures than it once was," says Olivardia, clinical instructor of psychology at Harvard Medical School. "Even so, there are still many men who won't tell anyone they've done it; they won't volunteer that information."

Goldberg says that when men opt for cosmetic surgery, it's often the last step in their personal campaign to improve their appearance. They tend to be well dressed and well groomed, and then thanks to their affluence, can afford to
move on to plastic surgery -- for example, eyelid procedures, chin augmentation, or laser skin resurfacing.

But can a Tacosexual's preoccupation with his physical appearance be carried to extremes? Olivardia says that if your preoccupation with maximizing your looks is interfering with your relationships, your job, or your schoolwork,
perhaps you should talk to a therapist and work on creating a healthier balance and a more sensible approach to your physical exterior.

"McJob" now pulled from MW dictionary. (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443800)

Info here:
http://kornet.nu/blindhona/arkiv/000632.htm l

Email them here:


Ironically, Merriam-Webster has their own page about "Newspeak" where we are encouraged to "Practice your freedom. Drop us a line. Our e-mail address:" wftw@aol.com".


Lets see how quickly we can fill that AOL mailbox.

Revisionist history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443806)

Greedo shoots first! We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Nothing new. Not going away.

Free Speech & Honesty (1)

giminy (94188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7443812)

How do you keep people honest? Choose one: Honesty or Free Speech. Honest!

Free Speech includes the ability to retract what you've said before, in whatever way you choose to retract it (so long as this method does not infringe upon the rights of others). This means the ability to destroy some of the things you have created. IE if I own Times Magazine, and I print a million issues of my magazine, but it turns out I don't like the main story, I have the right to burn (well maybe not literally burn as there might be an air quality problem there) all copies of the magazine, without ever letting you read it.

As for honesty? Well, the memory hole does a decent job of that already, if people pay attention.

Insidious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443814)


Why is the mainstream press not picking up this, and the Diebold quagmire?

I don't want to go all Oliver Stone here, but where did the second results card come from in the 2000 presdiential election and why didn't the press jump on it?

Only half the bloody story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7443816)

Dammit, I hate it when people only tell half the story...

The reason it was a bad idea was because we had to agree in advance NOT to go after saddam in order to gain support for the war from the arab coalition members.

Had we gone after saddam, we would have betrayed the trust of those nations with which we had an agreement and would never be trusted again...

Never trust excerpts.. ever..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...