Sunday, December 11, 2005
THE NET IS NOT THE PLACE FOR CHINESE WHISPERS
Underneath is an article I read on Friday in the Herald with which I firmly disagree. This rather looks like print a journalist rubbishing the competition.
There is one complaint I can agree with - that the net can be like an enormous department store where nothing is ever permanently sold out which can load the customer with more choice than they want. Except for the herald article as it goes subscription only.
The other complaints are:
That a dubious claim can be circulated damaging to an individual & for which they have no redress is true - however in the circumstances given Wikipedia went to some lengths not only to remove the slur but to make it more difficult to do again & this seems to be the case with most sites because, having no distribution monopoly a reputation for being interesting & accurate is all we have.
By comparison, unless you are a millionaire the press can & will say anything they want & the Press Council will, whatever their code says, support them. I can state this for a fact because a few years ago the Daily Record's free stablemate, the Glaswegian, accused me of being a Nazi for objecting to our attacking Yugoslavia. They certainly did not behave like Wikipedia.
Her main claim - that
" is the biggest and fastest game of Chinese whispers the world has ever known. The fact that never was starts life as a rumour posted on a website. The rumour becomes the basis for a speculative newspaper article. The newspaper article goes into a central electronic library, only to be dug up later, shorn of any doubt or caveats, and presented as fact "
is just wrong. The reverse is true because the net is the ONLY place where you can immediately link to the primary source. It is newspapers which can & do (even in the example given) report each other & eventually that "everybody knows" that Milosevic is known as the Butcher of Belgrade/that there is a consensus on global warming/the no low threshold theory of radioactivity is universally accepted/Jack the Ripper actually existed/much juvenile crime is caused by video nasties etc. On the net saying "I read it somewhere but the evidence isn't to hand" doesn't work.
As an unimportant but useful example - on an article on Techcentralstation I recently made a pest of myself by checking the provenance of the ancient Chinese saying "may you live in interesting times" (which appears to me credible only if the speaker is about to die or a time traveller). It took only a few minutes to prove (it is all on the discussion board there) that in fact it originated in a speech by Robert Kennedy & had been picked up & repeated by journalists for 4 decades without being doubted.
I think the print journalists lose in terms of accuracy to the net almost every time.
UNDERNOTE
FEATURES - IN THIS SECTION
Dangers of world’s biggest game of Chinese whispers
Alison Rowat December 09 2005
John Seigenthaler Sr, to use a good ol' US term, is a stand-up kind of guy. A former editor of the Tennessean, he made his name in journalism fighting corruption. Once he even saved a suicidal man from throwing himself off a bridge. In the early sixties he left journalism for a time to serve as an assistant to Robert Kennedy, the attorney general. He was so close to Camelot's other doomed prince that the family asked him to be a pallbearer at the funeral.
It came as some surprise, then, to find out that he had not only been involved in Bobby's assassination but that of his brother John, too.
Who said so? The great god Internet, or rather one of its many offspring. This one goes by the name of Wikipedia and bills itself as "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". You may know Wikipedia. It might be on your button bar, nestling between eBay and BBC News. Like Google, Wiki is an internet phenomenon. Started four years ago by Jimmy Wales, it invites Joe and Josephine Public to play writer. Anyone can contribute an article on almost any subject, from chewing gum (existed in ancient Greece apparently, will stick firmly when spat on the ground) to Noam Chomsky (will stick firmly to a subject when riled). From a few pages, Wikipedia now carries close to one million articles and has 700,000 registered users.
It is a noble idea, brilliantly executed, and for the most part it was thought to be reliable. Except, unfortunately, in the case of John Seigenthaler Sr. The 78-year-old, according to his Wiki biography, "...was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." As is the way with the internet, the information had flown out of Wikipedia and straight into other reference sites.
Had Seigenthaler read this lie in a newspaper he could have picked up the phone, called the editor and arranged for an immediate retraction. If he was feeling severely annoyed – and who could blame him – he might have gone straight to a lawyer and sued for a telephone-number-sized sum. Things did not turn out to be quite so simple on the internet.
All he could find out from Wikipedia was the anonymous writer's IP (internet protocol) number. He traced this to a telephone company, only to hit another brick wall. To force the phone company to divulge the identity of the masked biographer he would have to sue. But under US law, online corporations cannot be taken to court in the same way as newspapers or broadcasters. Just as Royal Mail is not held responsible for passing on letters that contain blackmail threats, or the telephone company liable for shoddy goods sold over the phone, service providers are deemed to be impartial middle men.
Wikipedia, stung by Seigenthaler's criticisms, has now banned contributions from anonymous contributors. Rather than go away, however, the row about the overall reliability of information on the internet is gathering pace.
That there is such an unease bordering on panic shows the extent to which millions have come to rely on the internet as an oracle. Ask it a question, any question, and answers come in there thousands. The one question that is only just beginning to be asked, however, is the only one that really matters. Can we trust this stuff?
There used to be a joke among computer geeks about users suffering GIGO – garbage in, garbage out – problems. Now those same bods are said to be suffering from a new form of GIGO – garbage in, gospel out. They believe the information that computers churn out because, well, it comes from computers. Someone must be in charge. Even the most savvy of surfers, the ones who joke about the internet's unreliability and pride themselves on their impeccable sources, are not immune from information contamination now and again.
The credibility gap opens up because the internet, at its worst, is the biggest and fastest game of Chinese whispers the world has ever known. The fact that never was starts life as a rumour posted on a website. The rumour becomes the basis for a speculative newspaper article. The newspaper article goes into a central electronic library, only to be dug up later, shorn of any doubt or caveats, and presented as fact.
But the case for the defence of total internet freedom is a strong one. Information from the internet has empowered countless millions, from the parent in search of a treatment for their child's illness to the car buyer hunting for a good deal.
The internet has allowed citizen to speak unto citizen and nation unto nation. It has initiated and fed democratic uprisings, exposed scandals, brought governments to book. It is such a force for good the world's most repressive regimes – such as China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – go all out to censor it.
It also seems churlish, not to mention obscene, to complain about wading through reams of iffy information on the web when 800 million people on the planet cannot read and write. And when it comes to choosing material that should be banned, most people would opt to banish porn rather than piffle any day. So what's the problem?
The problem is that quality has been sacrificed in the pursuit of quantity. The internet is not like a department store. Last season's stock of facts and suppositions is not cleared out to make way for the next lot. The shop just keeps on growing bigger and the bewildered customer finds himself having to wade through rack upon rack of rubbish before finding something that suits.
Sooner or later they will get fed up and stop shopping there. Or, worse, someone will call in on their behalf and come home with a dodgy dossier on weapons of mass destruction. Garbage in, deaths of innocents out.
What has happened with Wikipedia is unfortunate. A genuinely well-intentioned project has had its reputation dented. But if the Seigenthaler row makes internet users ask searching questions about what they read on the net, and just as importantly where it comes from, then it will have done some good.
If it makes them switch off the computer and read a book, then all the better. Those fact searchers feeling especially courageous might even consider picking up a phone or – and this is a scary one – leave the computer screen behind and talk to a real live person. According to the internet, such fabulous beings are still out there.
There is one complaint I can agree with - that the net can be like an enormous department store where nothing is ever permanently sold out which can load the customer with more choice than they want. Except for the herald article as it goes subscription only.
The other complaints are:
That a dubious claim can be circulated damaging to an individual & for which they have no redress is true - however in the circumstances given Wikipedia went to some lengths not only to remove the slur but to make it more difficult to do again & this seems to be the case with most sites because, having no distribution monopoly a reputation for being interesting & accurate is all we have.
By comparison, unless you are a millionaire the press can & will say anything they want & the Press Council will, whatever their code says, support them. I can state this for a fact because a few years ago the Daily Record's free stablemate, the Glaswegian, accused me of being a Nazi for objecting to our attacking Yugoslavia. They certainly did not behave like Wikipedia.
Her main claim - that
" is the biggest and fastest game of Chinese whispers the world has ever known. The fact that never was starts life as a rumour posted on a website. The rumour becomes the basis for a speculative newspaper article. The newspaper article goes into a central electronic library, only to be dug up later, shorn of any doubt or caveats, and presented as fact "
is just wrong. The reverse is true because the net is the ONLY place where you can immediately link to the primary source. It is newspapers which can & do (even in the example given) report each other & eventually that "everybody knows" that Milosevic is known as the Butcher of Belgrade/that there is a consensus on global warming/the no low threshold theory of radioactivity is universally accepted/Jack the Ripper actually existed/much juvenile crime is caused by video nasties etc. On the net saying "I read it somewhere but the evidence isn't to hand" doesn't work.
As an unimportant but useful example - on an article on Techcentralstation I recently made a pest of myself by checking the provenance of the ancient Chinese saying "may you live in interesting times" (which appears to me credible only if the speaker is about to die or a time traveller). It took only a few minutes to prove (it is all on the discussion board there) that in fact it originated in a speech by Robert Kennedy & had been picked up & repeated by journalists for 4 decades without being doubted.
I think the print journalists lose in terms of accuracy to the net almost every time.
UNDERNOTE
FEATURES - IN THIS SECTION
Dangers of world’s biggest game of Chinese whispers
Alison Rowat December 09 2005
John Seigenthaler Sr, to use a good ol' US term, is a stand-up kind of guy. A former editor of the Tennessean, he made his name in journalism fighting corruption. Once he even saved a suicidal man from throwing himself off a bridge. In the early sixties he left journalism for a time to serve as an assistant to Robert Kennedy, the attorney general. He was so close to Camelot's other doomed prince that the family asked him to be a pallbearer at the funeral.
It came as some surprise, then, to find out that he had not only been involved in Bobby's assassination but that of his brother John, too.
Who said so? The great god Internet, or rather one of its many offspring. This one goes by the name of Wikipedia and bills itself as "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". You may know Wikipedia. It might be on your button bar, nestling between eBay and BBC News. Like Google, Wiki is an internet phenomenon. Started four years ago by Jimmy Wales, it invites Joe and Josephine Public to play writer. Anyone can contribute an article on almost any subject, from chewing gum (existed in ancient Greece apparently, will stick firmly when spat on the ground) to Noam Chomsky (will stick firmly to a subject when riled). From a few pages, Wikipedia now carries close to one million articles and has 700,000 registered users.
It is a noble idea, brilliantly executed, and for the most part it was thought to be reliable. Except, unfortunately, in the case of John Seigenthaler Sr. The 78-year-old, according to his Wiki biography, "...was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." As is the way with the internet, the information had flown out of Wikipedia and straight into other reference sites.
Had Seigenthaler read this lie in a newspaper he could have picked up the phone, called the editor and arranged for an immediate retraction. If he was feeling severely annoyed – and who could blame him – he might have gone straight to a lawyer and sued for a telephone-number-sized sum. Things did not turn out to be quite so simple on the internet.
All he could find out from Wikipedia was the anonymous writer's IP (internet protocol) number. He traced this to a telephone company, only to hit another brick wall. To force the phone company to divulge the identity of the masked biographer he would have to sue. But under US law, online corporations cannot be taken to court in the same way as newspapers or broadcasters. Just as Royal Mail is not held responsible for passing on letters that contain blackmail threats, or the telephone company liable for shoddy goods sold over the phone, service providers are deemed to be impartial middle men.
Wikipedia, stung by Seigenthaler's criticisms, has now banned contributions from anonymous contributors. Rather than go away, however, the row about the overall reliability of information on the internet is gathering pace.
That there is such an unease bordering on panic shows the extent to which millions have come to rely on the internet as an oracle. Ask it a question, any question, and answers come in there thousands. The one question that is only just beginning to be asked, however, is the only one that really matters. Can we trust this stuff?
There used to be a joke among computer geeks about users suffering GIGO – garbage in, garbage out – problems. Now those same bods are said to be suffering from a new form of GIGO – garbage in, gospel out. They believe the information that computers churn out because, well, it comes from computers. Someone must be in charge. Even the most savvy of surfers, the ones who joke about the internet's unreliability and pride themselves on their impeccable sources, are not immune from information contamination now and again.
The credibility gap opens up because the internet, at its worst, is the biggest and fastest game of Chinese whispers the world has ever known. The fact that never was starts life as a rumour posted on a website. The rumour becomes the basis for a speculative newspaper article. The newspaper article goes into a central electronic library, only to be dug up later, shorn of any doubt or caveats, and presented as fact.
But the case for the defence of total internet freedom is a strong one. Information from the internet has empowered countless millions, from the parent in search of a treatment for their child's illness to the car buyer hunting for a good deal.
The internet has allowed citizen to speak unto citizen and nation unto nation. It has initiated and fed democratic uprisings, exposed scandals, brought governments to book. It is such a force for good the world's most repressive regimes – such as China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – go all out to censor it.
It also seems churlish, not to mention obscene, to complain about wading through reams of iffy information on the web when 800 million people on the planet cannot read and write. And when it comes to choosing material that should be banned, most people would opt to banish porn rather than piffle any day. So what's the problem?
The problem is that quality has been sacrificed in the pursuit of quantity. The internet is not like a department store. Last season's stock of facts and suppositions is not cleared out to make way for the next lot. The shop just keeps on growing bigger and the bewildered customer finds himself having to wade through rack upon rack of rubbish before finding something that suits.
Sooner or later they will get fed up and stop shopping there. Or, worse, someone will call in on their behalf and come home with a dodgy dossier on weapons of mass destruction. Garbage in, deaths of innocents out.
What has happened with Wikipedia is unfortunate. A genuinely well-intentioned project has had its reputation dented. But if the Seigenthaler row makes internet users ask searching questions about what they read on the net, and just as importantly where it comes from, then it will have done some good.
If it makes them switch off the computer and read a book, then all the better. Those fact searchers feeling especially courageous might even consider picking up a phone or – and this is a scary one – leave the computer screen behind and talk to a real live person. According to the internet, such fabulous beings are still out there.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm no fan of Wikipedia, but Alison Rowat makes absolutely no sense with the comment that:
"..Or, worse, someone will call in on their behalf and come home with a dodgy dossier on weapons of mass destruction. Garbage in, deaths of innocents out."
What is this woman suggesting? That the corporate media is MORE reliable [i.e it tells the truth while the internet lies?]
The corporate media that she works for were LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH by UNCRITICALLY REGURGITATING government press releases about "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" back in late 2002 BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
I'm no fan of the fascist Saddam Hussein [whom the CIA put into power in the late 60's], but I didn't see EVEN ONCE the Western media tell us PRIOR to the invasion that the West HAD NO RIGHT to bomb or invade Iraq, because THERE WAS NO PROOF in what the governments of the US & UK were telling us about these alleged weapons.
To now turn around and point the finger of blame on the internet by suggesting that somebody might go onto the internet and create some kind of phony dossier on WMD [what she calls "GARBAGE IN"] and that this will cause Western politicians to go to war, with the result being "deaths of innocents OUT" reeks of the utmost HYPOCRISY & OBFUSCATION.
At any time during late 2002 if ANYONE took the time to log onto the internet and do some research, one could have found plenty of evidence months PRIOR to the WMD issue even becoming a "story" on the mainstream news, that the WMD pretext [excuse for war] WAS GOING TO BE FALSELY USED BY THE MEDIA and US/UK politicians in order to justify the war and [hopefully,in their minds] DUPE the Western public into accepting the need for a "pre-emptive attack" to "prevent an attack upon the West" by bombing Saddam's Iraq back into the Stone Age.
Therefore, Alison Rowat is LYING through her teeth and being a BLATANT HYPOCRITE by,in effect, saying that we should trust and believe her corporate media newspapers & TV to tell the truth because, according to her, the internet is NOT like a "department store" where "last season's stock of facts and suppositions is not cleared out to make way for the next lot. The shop just keeps on growing bigger and the bewildered customer finds himself having to wade through rack upon rack of rubbish before finding something that suits."
At least I HAVE A CHOICE in this particular store [the internet]. At least I have the FREEDOM to choose in this huge store what is rubbish and what isn't rubbish.
Even if it has "racks upon racks of rubbish" and just "keeps growing bigger" without "last season's stock of facts & suppositions" [rubbish] "cleared out", I AM THE ONE WHO DECIDES WHAT IS RUBBISH AND WHAT IS A FACT by doing my own careful research and basic fact [reference source] checking [something that the corporate media whores FAIL TO DO, otherwise we would have never had the WMD fiasco in the first place, now would we, Ms.Rowat?].
Unlike Alison Rowat's department store [the corporate mainstream media whores] where I have no freedom to choose what I see, at least in my internet store I have the freedom; I GET TO DECIDE when and where to separate the wheat from the chaff, to sort the rubbish from the good products, INSTEAD OF ALISON ROWAT OR HER EDITOR or the corporate media executives/owner-proprietors [the PIMPS] doing it for me [because of course, they know what is appopriate for me to look at, just like the Australian SBS TV network current affairs program 'Dateline" does with its crass censorship of the readers' forum] .
That is why it is LAUGHABLE and smacks of the most blatant HYPOCRISY, when Ms. Rowat concludes with:
"If it makes them switch off the computer and read a book, then all the better. Those fact searchers feeling especially courageous might even consider picking up a phone or – and this is a scary one – leave the computer screen behind and talk to a real live person"
Yeah, that's right Ms. Rowat, maybe YOU and the corporate media WHORES you work for should follow your own advice and do that next time the Western politicians are preparing to attack some defenceless country - pick up a phone or read a book, or perhaps even speak to a live person - INSTEAD OF BLATANTLY & UNASHAMEDLY LYING on behalf of Western politicians with their PHONY PRETEXTS & EXCUSES FOR WAR.
That way we won't ever repeat the "GARBAGE IN -DEATHS OF INNOCENTS OUT", and then feel GUILTY about it later on, now will we, Ms. Rowat?
"..Or, worse, someone will call in on their behalf and come home with a dodgy dossier on weapons of mass destruction. Garbage in, deaths of innocents out."
What is this woman suggesting? That the corporate media is MORE reliable [i.e it tells the truth while the internet lies?]
The corporate media that she works for were LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH by UNCRITICALLY REGURGITATING government press releases about "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" back in late 2002 BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
I'm no fan of the fascist Saddam Hussein [whom the CIA put into power in the late 60's], but I didn't see EVEN ONCE the Western media tell us PRIOR to the invasion that the West HAD NO RIGHT to bomb or invade Iraq, because THERE WAS NO PROOF in what the governments of the US & UK were telling us about these alleged weapons.
To now turn around and point the finger of blame on the internet by suggesting that somebody might go onto the internet and create some kind of phony dossier on WMD [what she calls "GARBAGE IN"] and that this will cause Western politicians to go to war, with the result being "deaths of innocents OUT" reeks of the utmost HYPOCRISY & OBFUSCATION.
At any time during late 2002 if ANYONE took the time to log onto the internet and do some research, one could have found plenty of evidence months PRIOR to the WMD issue even becoming a "story" on the mainstream news, that the WMD pretext [excuse for war] WAS GOING TO BE FALSELY USED BY THE MEDIA and US/UK politicians in order to justify the war and [hopefully,in their minds] DUPE the Western public into accepting the need for a "pre-emptive attack" to "prevent an attack upon the West" by bombing Saddam's Iraq back into the Stone Age.
Therefore, Alison Rowat is LYING through her teeth and being a BLATANT HYPOCRITE by,in effect, saying that we should trust and believe her corporate media newspapers & TV to tell the truth because, according to her, the internet is NOT like a "department store" where "last season's stock of facts and suppositions is not cleared out to make way for the next lot. The shop just keeps on growing bigger and the bewildered customer finds himself having to wade through rack upon rack of rubbish before finding something that suits."
At least I HAVE A CHOICE in this particular store [the internet]. At least I have the FREEDOM to choose in this huge store what is rubbish and what isn't rubbish.
Even if it has "racks upon racks of rubbish" and just "keeps growing bigger" without "last season's stock of facts & suppositions" [rubbish] "cleared out", I AM THE ONE WHO DECIDES WHAT IS RUBBISH AND WHAT IS A FACT by doing my own careful research and basic fact [reference source] checking [something that the corporate media whores FAIL TO DO, otherwise we would have never had the WMD fiasco in the first place, now would we, Ms.Rowat?].
Unlike Alison Rowat's department store [the corporate mainstream media whores] where I have no freedom to choose what I see, at least in my internet store I have the freedom; I GET TO DECIDE when and where to separate the wheat from the chaff, to sort the rubbish from the good products, INSTEAD OF ALISON ROWAT OR HER EDITOR or the corporate media executives/owner-proprietors [the PIMPS] doing it for me [because of course, they know what is appopriate for me to look at, just like the Australian SBS TV network current affairs program 'Dateline" does with its crass censorship of the readers' forum] .
That is why it is LAUGHABLE and smacks of the most blatant HYPOCRISY, when Ms. Rowat concludes with:
"If it makes them switch off the computer and read a book, then all the better. Those fact searchers feeling especially courageous might even consider picking up a phone or – and this is a scary one – leave the computer screen behind and talk to a real live person"
Yeah, that's right Ms. Rowat, maybe YOU and the corporate media WHORES you work for should follow your own advice and do that next time the Western politicians are preparing to attack some defenceless country - pick up a phone or read a book, or perhaps even speak to a live person - INSTEAD OF BLATANTLY & UNASHAMEDLY LYING on behalf of Western politicians with their PHONY PRETEXTS & EXCUSES FOR WAR.
That way we won't ever repeat the "GARBAGE IN -DEATHS OF INNOCENTS OUT", and then feel GUILTY about it later on, now will we, Ms. Rowat?
# posted by 
: December 13, 2005
: December 13, 2005
A small point. "May You Live In Interesting Times" is certainly not an ancient Chinese curse, and was actually first written by the British SF author Eric Frank Russell.
I recommend reading his short story "And Then There Were None" which can be found at:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm
BTW, I'm a fellow Libertarian, ex-member of the Liberal Democrats who also objects to the demonisation of Serbs in Yugoslavia. I also have a (Computer) Scientist background, and think we should be building nuclear power plants. I suspect we have a lot in common.
I can be found at wildgoose@operamail.com but please remove this e-mail if you decide to post this comment. I get enough spam as it is.
Happy Christmas!
No wait, you're Scottish. Happy Hogmany!
I recommend reading his short story "And Then There Were None" which can be found at:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm
BTW, I'm a fellow Libertarian, ex-member of the Liberal Democrats who also objects to the demonisation of Serbs in Yugoslavia. I also have a (Computer) Scientist background, and think we should be building nuclear power plants. I suspect we have a lot in common.
I can be found at wildgoose@operamail.com but please remove this e-mail if you decide to post this comment. I get enough spam as it is.
Happy Christmas!
No wait, you're Scottish. Happy Hogmany!
# posted by : December 23, 2005
: December 23, 2005
A small point. "May You Live In Interesting Times" is certainly not an ancient Chinese curse, and was actually first written by the British SF author Eric Frank Russell.
I recommend reading his short story "And Then There Were None" which can be found at:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm
BTW, I'm a fellow Libertarian, ex-member of the Liberal Democrats who also objects to the demonisation of Serbs in Yugoslavia. I also have a (Computer) Scientist background, and think we should be building nuclear power plants. I suspect we have a lot in common.
Happy Christmas!
No wait, you're Scottish. Happy Hogmany!
I recommend reading his short story "And Then There Were None" which can be found at:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm
BTW, I'm a fellow Libertarian, ex-member of the Liberal Democrats who also objects to the demonisation of Serbs in Yugoslavia. I also have a (Computer) Scientist background, and think we should be building nuclear power plants. I suspect we have a lot in common.
Happy Christmas!
No wait, you're Scottish. Happy Hogmany!
# posted by : December 23, 2005
: December 23, 2005
Thanks - I have sent the relevant part of your comment to
http://www.noblenet.org/thanks.htm
where I got the original check on this saying.
""May you live in interesting times"
I had discussed this Chinese curse on my blog a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com by way of Techcentralstation & received the undernoted further & probably earlier instance of its use.
I hope you will pass this on to Stephen DeLonge. (is he any relation of Brad DeLonge whose economics blog I have read?) You may find the degree of linking within the blogspherehere amusing in the way it reflects on the point of my article - I do.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE NET IS NOT THE PLACE FOR CHINESE WHISPERS":
A small point. "May You Live In Interesting Times" is certainly not an ancient Chinese curse, and was actually first written by the British SF author Eric Frank Russell.
I recommend reading his short story "And Then There Were None" which can be found at:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm"
I appreciate the friendly comments & the comparison seems to suggest that many of us who are attracted to liberalism as a political philosophy find the party fails to live up to its name. The same happened to the communists during the Stalin era when the brightest Marxists were all ex-party members.
If all the ex-Lib Dems & Liberals were laid end to end it could be quite fun.
PS I am going to be in England for Christmas & back here for Hogmany (& not in Edinburgh where in the name of political correctness & stopping bin Laden they intend to make sure nobody has any fun)
Post a Comment
http://www.noblenet.org/thanks.htm
where I got the original check on this saying.
""May you live in interesting times"
I had discussed this Chinese curse on my blog a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com by way of Techcentralstation & received the undernoted further & probably earlier instance of its use.
I hope you will pass this on to Stephen DeLonge. (is he any relation of Brad DeLonge whose economics blog I have read?) You may find the degree of linking within the blogspherehere amusing in the way it reflects on the point of my article - I do.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE NET IS NOT THE PLACE FOR CHINESE WHISPERS":
A small point. "May You Live In Interesting Times" is certainly not an ancient Chinese curse, and was actually first written by the British SF author Eric Frank Russell.
I recommend reading his short story "And Then There Were None" which can be found at:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm"
I appreciate the friendly comments & the comparison seems to suggest that many of us who are attracted to liberalism as a political philosophy find the party fails to live up to its name. The same happened to the communists during the Stalin era when the brightest Marxists were all ex-party members.
If all the ex-Lib Dems & Liberals were laid end to end it could be quite fun.
PS I am going to be in England for Christmas & back here for Hogmany (& not in Edinburgh where in the name of political correctness & stopping bin Laden they intend to make sure nobody has any fun)
<< Home
