Palin mostly illiterate ?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Darrell Stec on 10 Jul 2010 13:54 Gary L. Burnore wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:40:23 -0400, Darrell Stec <darstec(a)neo.rr.com> > wrote: > >>in2dadark wrote: >> >>> On Jul 9, 4:34 pm, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> >>> wrote: >>>> http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/celebrities/levi_johnstons_siste... >>>> [ >>>> "Did I ever see books in the Palin home? No I did not. But then again I >>>> was not really paying attention. However I asked my mother and she also >>>> says she does not remember seeing any books lying around." >>>> ] >>> >>> What were you and your mother doing in Palin's home? B and E is a >>> crime in Alaska.. >> >>Did you see the quotation marks? Do you know what they mean? >> >>Apparently not. > > Did you notice he didn't quote anyone? Probably not. > Do you think people here are dumb enough to blindly click urls? Dip. Blindly? So you are one of those idiots that don't check citations when given? Figures. By the way, it was not blindly. He gave a QUOTE from the URL so that thinking people would know the content and check on it. Obviously, you wear blinders. Please tell your parents to stop breeding. And please don't do it yourself. -- Later, Darrell
From: Cliff on 11 Jul 2010 17:22 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:05:07 -0400, Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(a)databasix.com> wrote: >Use a reputable search tool and if the same site comes up, it's more >likely to be safer. Such as http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page, right? -- Cliff
From: Cliff on 11 Jul 2010 17:24 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:40:23 -0400, Darrell Stec <darstec(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: >Gary L. Burnore wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:54:33 -0400, Darrell Stec <darstec(a)neo.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >>>Gary L. Burnore wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:40:23 -0400, Darrell Stec <darstec(a)neo.rr.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>in2dadark wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 9, 4:34 pm, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/celebrities/levi_johnstons_siste... >>>>>>> [ >>>>>>> "Did I ever see books in the Palin home? No I did not. But then again >>>>>>> I was not really paying attention. However I asked my mother and she >>>>>>> also says she does not remember seeing any books lying around." >>>>>>> ] >>>>>> >>>>>> What were you and your mother doing in Palin's home? B and E is a >>>>>> crime in Alaska.. >>>>> >>>>>Did you see the quotation marks? Do you know what they mean? >>>>> >>>>>Apparently not. >>>> >>>> Did you notice he didn't quote anyone? Probably not. >>>> Do you think people here are dumb enough to blindly click urls? Dip. >>> >>>Blindly? So you are one of those idiots that don't check citations when >>>given? >> >> Nope. I don't trust anything someone says in a USENet newsgroup and I >> certainly don't just trust one URL to get the truth. So who cares if >> he quoted what's on that website? Not I. >> > >And how do you distinguish which one has the truth? Probably that which >agrees with your preconceived tenets. What evidence do you have that the >URL is not legitimate and does not contain the truth? Most likely because >it is not Faux News or CBN, both of which have been caught time and again of >slanting the truth or publishing outright lies. > >> As to clicking on links provided in USENet, it's just plain moronic. >> Use a reputable search tool and if the same site comes up, it's more >> likely to be safer. You knew that, right? > > >That is stupid. It was probably the same way that the poster came up with >the link in the first place. Besides why are you worried about a link >anyway? Oh, I see. You are using an insecure operating system. Never >mind. > >What is a "reputable search tool?" How does it differ from any other kind? > >And you wrote all that just to say that you want to remain ignorant and >don't care how much the evidence refutes the product of your little mind. I >get it. I really do. > >> >> >>
From: Cliff on 11 Jul 2010 17:25 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:08:04 +0200, Monika Eggers <monikakrug(a)expires-2010-05-31.arcornews.de> wrote: >On 10.07.2010 20:05, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > >> As to clicking on links provided in USENet, it's just plain moronic. >> Use a reputable search tool and if the same site comes up, it's more >> likely to be safer. > >Get a secure browser (Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera) and a secure >operating system (Linux, BSD, even MacOS is fairly secure). Add NoScript >/ disable JavaScript and Flash for any but trusted sites and block >cookies to increase security. If you're paranoid, block pictures for >untrusted sites (there are image-based attacks, but no current one). >Make sure you install security updates frequently, at least once a week. >If you are forced to or choose to use an unsecure operating system >(Windows), add virus protection and a firewall - the firewall preferably >on the router, as software firewalls yield very little protection. > >How high a website comes up on Google (Yahoo, Bing, whereever) is not a >good criterion for security *AT ALL*. Top-ranking websites may have been >compromised. (For example my website ranks #1 for certain search terms. >It was attacked with XSS last year and left harmful/suspicious cookies >on visitors' machines. [An elderly PHP forum on my web space may have >been the venue.] Top ranks yield no security at all.) Furthermore it's >sufficiently easy to manipulate Google into ranking a page #1 for search >terms that are not too frequent - for example >http://www.nochucknorris.com/ was the top search result for "Chuck >Norris" for a while. > >Monika.
From: Cliff on 11 Jul 2010 17:25
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:37:50 -0400, Darrell Stec <darstec(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: >Monika Eggers wrote: > >> On 10.07.2010 20:05, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> >>> As to clicking on links provided in USENet, it's just plain moronic. >>> Use a reputable search tool and if the same site comes up, it's more >>> likely to be safer. >> >> Get a secure browser (Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera) and a secure >> operating system (Linux, BSD, even MacOS is fairly secure). Add NoScript >> / disable JavaScript and Flash for any but trusted sites and block >> cookies to increase security. If you're paranoid, block pictures for >> untrusted sites (there are image-based attacks, but no current one). >> Make sure you install security updates frequently, at least once a week. >> If you are forced to or choose to use an unsecure operating system >> (Windows), add virus protection and a firewall - the firewall preferably >> on the router, as software firewalls yield very little protection. >> >> How high a website comes up on Google (Yahoo, Bing, whereever) is not a >> good criterion for security *AT ALL*. Top-ranking websites may have been >> compromised. (For example my website ranks #1 for certain search terms. >> It was attacked with XSS last year and left harmful/suspicious cookies >> on visitors' machines. [An elderly PHP forum on my web space may have >> been the venue.] Top ranks yield no security at all.) Furthermore it's >> sufficiently easy to manipulate Google into ranking a page #1 for search >> terms that are not too frequent - for example >> http://www.nochucknorris.com/ was the top search result for "Chuck >> Norris" for a while. >> >> Monika. >> > >He knows all that. What he means is that he will not check links provided >by liberals nor Democrats. He prefers to remain ignorant. And someone removed all but AAT ... -- Cliff |