Topic: So, (Read 7887 times)

Dliessmgg · « **on:** 15 Dec 2010, 06:47 »

I guess Julian Assange is gonna be Time Magazine Person You're Supposed To Care About^TM in ten years or so?

schimmy · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 08:01 »

Is this a thread for guessing or a thread for talking about Julian Assange?

I guess if I combine the two in once paragraph, nobody can get mad.
Julian Assange.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 08:14 »

Eh what?

valley_parade · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 08:14 »

Eh-sonnzgh.

benji · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 08:29 »

I heard he was voted reader's choice for person of the year. Which is, I think, different from the actual person of the year chosen by the editors. Anyway, I guess that's what this is about.

KvP · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 08:49 »

I guess he's just as important as I was a few years back!

KharBevNor · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 08:49 »

Yeah the person of the year 2010 is Mark Zuckerberg

scarred · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 13:36 »

Damn, I thought I was a shoo-in this year

benji · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 13:39 »

Man, you won 4 years ago. you can't always win.

Patrick · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 14:56 »

Should've just picked Anonymous. WikiLeaks was only the start of the shitstorm anyway. Julian Assange, despite being something of a hero of mine, didn't actually do anything. He's just taking the heat while the world flips the fuck out.

Johnny C · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 15:09 »

Quote from: Patrick on 15 Dec 2010, 14:56

Should've just picked Anonymous. WikiLeaks was only the start of the shitstorm anyway. Julian Assange, despite being something of a hero of mine, didn't actually do anything. He's just taking the heat while the world flips the fuck out.

what

snalin · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 15:44 »

Good argument, though - he's probably just a rapist who has the worlds leading conservatives trying to shovel dick down his throat while the rest of wikileaks is actually doing important stuff.

Patrick · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 15:48 »

He's not the source of the info, he's just the editor-in-chief of the publishing group that made it available to the world. If you want to make your Person of the Year somebody who actually had a shitload of influence (which, if I recall, is the sole qualifier for the title), give it to Bradley Manning. He's the one who leaked all them cables with his own welfare, freedom, and even life on the line (because he is an American citizen, a treason verdict isn't exactly a far-fetched outcome). And in return, his entire government is basically against him. Mike Huckabee is openly calling for his execution, and doesn't care who hears. Manning's actions sparked an uproar in the international relations community. Even my mom, who is just a secretary, hates the man on a level akin to Orwell's Goldstein.

As for Mark Zuckerberg, I don't recall there ever being a point in time where the world at large gave two shits about his actions. He's just a dude who is really wealthy from an idea that, in it's most basic form, is not by any means original. It's a conceptually identical copy of Myspace. The only influence they have over world events is what the members are using it for.

McTaggart · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 21:47 »

I'm pretty sure Hussey should be man of the year.

Inlander · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Dec 2010, 22:18 »

Tough luck, he just got out.

Spluff · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 Dec 2010, 01:14 »

I keep reading about how Zuckerberg is going to take over the internet and challenge Google for supremacy.

And then I take one look at the buggy, security-problem riddled mess that is facebook and I wonder who writes these things and if they are getting paid.

est · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 Dec 2010, 02:41 »

I give facebook two more years, tops.

scarred · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 Dec 2010, 02:52 »

That's generous.

Barmymoo · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 Dec 2010, 04:47 »

We're all going to have to back up those photos then.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #19 on:** 16 Dec 2010, 06:36 »

Maybe FriendSpace or ConnectU or Interpal or ChumBucket or whatever the fuck stupid name the next social networking phenomenon has will allow you to mass export pictures from Facebook. It's capability to do so will probably be the reason people choose it.

Cire27 · « **Reply #20 on:** 22 Dec 2010, 06:44 »

pwhodges · « **Reply #21 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 12:04 »

I moved the discussion stuff to ~~Discuss!~~ a separate thread (back in this forum in view of the reaction below).

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php?topic=25820.0

Feel free to carry on not discussing here.

Wraith11B · « **Reply #22 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 15:06 »

I'm getting Error: thread is either missing or off limits to me.

Coward · « **Reply #23 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 15:16 »

If you can't see the 'Discuss' forum, it might be due to you post count mate.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #24 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 17:01 »

I wouldn't worry, unless you have Correct Opinions^TM you will be hauled away by the DISCUSS! Police anyway.

jhocking · « **Reply #25 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 17:21 »

man tommy you took this way more seriously than I would expect.

wraith, political discussions are generally only welcome in the DISCUSS section of the forum. There actually already is a lengthy debate about Wikileaks in there, but I guess you don't have access to it because of forum guidelines.

Wraith11B · « **Reply #26 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 18:22 »

I wasn't attempting to have a political discussion; as a former PoliSci prof of mine used to say, "Politics makes for Bad Policy," and I really tend to agree.

I apologize that my attempt to sort the opinion of this whole thing.

imagist42 · « **Reply #27 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 18:41 »

Apologizing makes you the better man. Also, it keeps your bases covered in case (in some wacky turn of events) it does turn out to be your fault and the shitstorm pounces on you.

Inlander · « **Reply #28 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 19:52 »

Fuck it, just make a bunch of triple-posts until your post-count's big enough to grant you access to the DISCUSS sub-forum. It's what everyone else does. Fill your posts with a bunch of spyducks or allosauruses or whatever people here are into at the moment and no-one'll care. In fact it'll probably make you the most popular new person on the forum.

pwhodges · « **Reply #29 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 00:58 »

Oops - sorry Wraith; nothing personal, and absolutely not intended as censorship. However, I moved the discussion in response to complaints that it was inappropriate here, because of the rules. The trouble with rules is sadly that they will simultaneously be too rigid in some circumstances and too loose in others.

I have moved the discussion back here for the benefit of Wraith, and as a question has been addressed directly to him since it moved, but left it as a separate thread:
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php?topic=25820.0

Johnny C · « **Reply #30 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 12:38 »

it slipped my mind too that discuss required a post count – so much so that i actually just spent fifteen minutes digging for the thread where we decided that and, uh, can't find it. nor can i find the actual post count requirement. this could have happened to me as much as it could have happened to paul.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #31 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 14:06 »

Pretty sure it's 100 posts

Quote from: jhocking on 26 Dec 2010, 17:21

man tommy you took this way more seriously than I would expect.

+1 What's the big deal?

pwhodges · « **Reply #32 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 16:33 »

100 is what I recall - but I can't find where it's written down either.

Demonic Angel · « **Reply #33 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 17:22 »

Quote from: Ptommydski on 26 Dec 2010, 21:21

Quote from: Inlander on 26 Dec 2010, 19:52
It's what everyone else does.

Not everyone.

Tommy, some of us are happier being sheep than the classy, more individualistic members like yourself.

Patrick · « **Reply #34 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 18:27 »

Quote from: David_Dovey on 27 Dec 2010, 14:06

Quote from: jhocking on 26 Dec 2010, 17:21
man tommy you took this way more seriously than I would expect.

+1 What's the big deal?

I'd imagine it's because he doesn't believe in judging new folks before knowing them, and that's an implied interpretation of the postcount rule. I don't think my conviction will be as strong as his over the matter, but now that we're trying to be more newbie-friendly than we've historically been I am having trouble seeing why that rule's in place.

I mean, hardly anything happens in there. Other than Paul's thread where he mentions the Wikileaks thread alterations, nobody's posted there since the 24th.

Inlander · « **Reply #35 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 18:37 »

That's because it's the holidays, Patrick. People don't like to think when they're on holiday.

Jace · « **Reply #36 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 19:56 »

Quote from: Patrick on 27 Dec 2010, 18:27

but now that we're trying to be more newbie-friendly than we've historically been I am having trouble seeing why that rule's in place.

I believe it was to keep certain folks from going in and shitting up the place with new accounts.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #37 on:** 28 Dec 2010, 08:52 »

The rule came about mainly because the action of a certain forumite of pronounced and tedious libertarian views, who constantly attempted to evangelise his political position by linking to stories on a certain website, then when he encountered opposing views extolled forum members on this other website to sign up with accounts on this forum in order to try and tip the balance of debate in his favour.

Alex C · « **Reply #38 on:** 28 Dec 2010, 09:10 »

Honestly, I wouldn't have even minded that if he could have just kept from opening up his statements with huge buckets of condescension, only to react poorly when we returned the favor.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: So, (Read 7887 times)