Originally Posted by fastreplies

The man carried this mission himself with flying colors without any help.

Are you talking about "Mission Accomplished" back in 2003 when we won the war in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Are you talking about "Mission Accomplished" back in 2003 when we won the war in Iraq?

That one too, but mostly I am talking about:
Racing on the thunder and rising with the heat
It’s gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet

I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ‘til the end of the night
He’s gotta be strong
And he’s gotta be fast
And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ‘til the morning light
He’s gotta be sure
And it’s gotta be soon
And he’s gotta be larger than life

Man, it's makes me cry, it's so beutifull

fastreplies

Can I break from good grammer and ettiquette for a moment?

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Man, it's makes me cry, it's so beutifull

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :f unnyupHAHAHAHHAHAH AHA

Your a sick man. Seek Help.

The only place I go for headlines is Google News, they're truly diverse.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

The only place I go for headlines is Google News, they're truly diverse.

Or more properly stated, truly leaning left. WELL documented. Banned Robert Spencer from their video section without cause. They have also de-listed right wing blogs and e-zines. and banned anti moveon.org advertisements.

All the proof you need, being this site is for webmasters:
Fox News - PR7
CNN - PR9

Originally Posted by cbwm

Or more properly stated, truly leaning left. WELL documented.

Those are donations from Google's employees, not the company itself.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Banned Robert Spencer from their video section without cause.

I didn't realize Google NEWS had a video section.

Originally Posted by cbwm

They have also de-listed right wing blogs and e-zines. and banned anti moveon.org advertisements.

http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3412721

Originally Posted by cbwm

All the proof you need, being this site is for webmasters:
Fox News - PR7
CNN - PR9

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/the-go...important.html

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Those are donations from Google's employees, not the company itself.

Right. So if 98% of Fox News employees donate to the Republican party that would not be evidence that Fox may have some bias in its actions / reporting? uh huh.

Sorry I posted before I looked up your links. Essentially 1) Google uses math in its rankings and is therefore apolitical 2) 1000 web master theories as to how PR works mean that Google does not pull the strings or manually penalize/adjust scores? Excuse me if I'm not buying. Did you bother to read the Robert Spencer article?

Have I missed something?
Fox News?
News?

It sounds like oxymoron to me. Fox and News... hmmm
Why don’t we call it by it real name: Fox Talking Points TV?


fastreplies

Originally Posted by cbwm

Or more properly stated, truly leaning left. WELL documented.

From the article:

Google employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates for last year's elections, up from just $250 in 2000 when it was still a start-up. And 98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors, a new USA TODAY campaign finance analysis shows.

I'll give you this: that's more credible than most of the "Google is an evil company that doesn't spread neo-con propaganda and we can prove it because our hate speech against Muslims was taken down" line I hear a lot more often. Now, please explain to me where in Google's algorithm that ranks stories their staffers haven't personally read, is the code that says no republicans allowed?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Banned Robert Spencer from their video section without cause.

Never mind ... there's the reference to taking down hate speech as proof that Google is "left-leaning."

Originally Posted by cbwm

Right. So if 98% of Fox News employees donate to the Republican party that would not be evidence that Fox may have some bias in its actions / reporting? uh huh.

Technically, yes. But remember its the executives, producers, etc. of the media companies that choose what gets put on the air, not the employees.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Now, please explain to me where in Google's algorithm that ranks stories their staffers haven't personally read, is the code that says no republicans allowed?

Same with me, I haven't read anywhere that Google manipulates its own algorithms to push a political agenda.

Originally Posted by cbwm

2) 1000 web master theories as to how PR works mean that Google does not pull the strings or manually penalize/adjust scores? Excuse me if I'm not buying.

That's your choice to believe if there's some sort of conspiracy or not, to each his own I guess.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Did you bother to read the Robert Spencer article?

Google *NEWS* doesn't have a video section, whether I read the article or not is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Why don’t we call it by it real name: Fox Talking Points TV?

I like that idea

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Now, please explain to me where in Google's algorithm that ranks stories their staffers haven't personally read, is the code that says no republicans allowed?

So we've now established that 98% of Google staffers are Democrats, and that their staffers personally read some stories and de-rank or ban them. Did I miss something, or are you arguing my point.

James, regarding the Google "Video" section, perhaps I misspoke. Does that make the article less credible? Since you aren't interested in reading it, I'll summarize for you. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic jihad. Google decided to ban his publishings as hate speech. That is some pretty heavy editorial discretion, not conspiracy theory as you might suggest.

Originally Posted by cbwm

James, regarding the Google "Video" section, perhaps I misspoke. Does that make the article less credible?

Does what make the article less credible?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Since you aren't interested in reading it, I'll summarize for you. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic jihad. Google decided to ban his publishings as hate speech.

I never said I didn't read it, it just didn't feel relevant to me for the discussion taking place. But thanks for the summary anyway .

Originally Posted by cbwm

That is some pretty heavy editorial discretion, not conspiracy theory as you might suggest.

I said Google manipulating their own algorithm for political purposes would be the conspiracy theory, not the banning of the Spencer video.

The idea of Google manipulating their algorithm to some political end, would definitely fall under the category "Conspiracy theory". Forrest more clearly stated my point when he pointed out that Google employees manually read some content and manually ban or de-rank at their discretion. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to imagine that type of editorial pen being used more often on some sites over others, especially given the evidence and political makeup of their employee base.

Originally Posted by cbwm

So we've now established that 98% of Google staffers are Democrats, and that their staffers personally read some stories and de-rank or ban them. Did I miss something, or are you arguing my point.

Well, since taking things out of context and harping on one particular detail is all the rage, you want to produce some voter registration forms showing that 98 % of Google's employees are, in fact, democrats?

Ha ha ha. I was only quoting the article from .... USA Today I believe. If you like I can write them and ask them for their source . I haven't yet checked up on them to see which way they lean.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Well, since taking things out of context and harping on one particular detail is all the rage, you want to produce some voter registration forms showing that 98 % of Google's employees are, in fact, democrats?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Forrest more clearly stated my point when he pointed out that Google employees manually read some content and manually ban or de-rank at their discretion.

You mis-read. Obviously, Google employees don't - do not - read even a small fraction of the millions of articles they index on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by cbwm

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to imagine that type of editorial pen being used more often on some sites over others, especially given the evidence and political makeup of their employee base.

Unless one is talking about Fox 'News' that is? There's 1/10th of a percent as much evidence to suggest any sort of editorial bias on Google's part as there is on Fox's. How a person can believe that Fox Noise is the most accurate, least biased news source available and that the editorial bias in Google's math is manifestly obvious ... I just don't understand?

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

You mis-read. Obviously, Google employees don't - do not - read even a small fraction of the millions of articles they index on a daily basis.

You are correct, I did misread. However, are you implying that Google does not de-rank and in some instances ban certain sites and stories, and that those decisions are not made based on an employee review of said content?

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Unless one is talking about Fox 'News' that is? There's 1/10th of a percent as much evidence to suggest any sort of editorial bias on Google's part as there is on Fox's. How a person can believe that Fox Noise is the most accurate, least biased news source available and that the editorial bias in Google's math is manifestly obvious ... I just don't understand?

Hmmm.. Don't think I implied either of your assertions. I simply stated there is evidence to suggest Google has a bias and has used it in an editorial fashion in the past. And since we are on the subject, Fox is certainly not "The most powerful name in news" as their slogan might suggest. They are certainly the most watched TV news and commentary channel, but by all accounts, Google is considered the most powerful company on the face of the planet today.

Originally Posted by USA Today

Google employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates for last year's elections, up from just $250 in 2000 when it was still a start-up. And 98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors, a new USA TODAY campaign finance analysis shows.

The article stated how much money was given out by the employees (which doesn't even seem very high), USA Today didn't say 98% of them were democrats. That doesn't automatically make Google employees dems.

Besides, it's misleading, out of all the employees who GAVE money, gave it to the dems, there could still be a ton of other employees who did NOT donate anything, and consider themselves Republican (hypothetically, of course)

Originally Posted by cbwm

Google is considered the most powerful company on the face of the planet today.

Definitely debatable

Originally Posted by cbwm

And since we are on the subject, Fox is certainly not "The most powerful name in news" as their slogan might suggest. They are certainly the most watched TV news and commentary channel, but by all accounts, Google is considered the most powerful company on the face of the planet today.

FOX slogan can be taken two ways: 1) "The most powerful COMPANY that produces news stories" which you seem to think is right. Or 2) "The most powerful company that is a NEWS company" which I think they mean.

Most of their "news" is so interlaced with commentary. It is indistinguishable.