[Netesq]  Actually, your "conclusion," and the "premises" on which it
was based, are responses that can be interpreted using a Rorschach
technique. To wit, *YOU* are the one who frequently laments the fact
that *YOUR* Web site has failed to achieve the prominence that *YOU*
feel it deserves; when these facts are recapitulated and fed back to
you, you respond as if you've just been unfairly judged and left
wanting. Perhaps there's some truth in that.[n]

[arttworks]  "some truth in that" ...so faced with the challenge to
defend the accusation of "personal interest" , with some reasonable
evidence, you instead just redraw another, cheap yet artful,
belittlement. visiting dental dot com isn't in any meaningful way "MY
website". Like millions of other small business websites it was
created on the cheap, to serve a singular, logical purpose-- to give
Internet users access to basic product/service information. Its
inability to accomplish that logical purpose, isn't a failing of the
content, it is a failing of a "search system" that can't index its
relevance or appropriately provide reference to it on relevant search
query's. InMendham.com also is not in any meaningful way "MY" website,
it is strictly a very useful public service website and yet the
"search system" provides no meaningful access even on search terms of
very narrow and extremely high relevance. These examples of millions
of other unnetworked websites are called "evidence" ... for my money
irrefutable evidence of a week and feeble search industry that is
failing to meaningfully make accessible most of the Internet.  [a]



I[Netesq]  t's like you're looking in a mirror, once again.[n]

[arttworks]  More like I have fallen through the looking glass, into a
world built on crooked lines, by crooked minds.[a]



[Netesq]  Just for a moment, let's pretend that you are not the center
of the universe, and that there are billions of other webmasters out
there who have succeeded in getting their Web sites noticed by their
intended audiences.[n]

[arttworks]  Statistics would indicate that the same pool of "popular"
[a status often achieved through deception] Web sites receive the bulk
of references within the first page of results. Even as individual web
pages these popular sources unlikely account for a "billion"
references. For this and other reasons I would claim that there are
far fewer than a billion web masters, let alone billions. Ignoring
your simplistic and exaggerated rhetoric there is an important truth
in dispute, which is, how big is the invisible or under-represented
Internet? As it is pretty hard to find the invisible, and as there is
no way of knowing when you have found it all even if you could, the
only way to practically know the answer to the question is to deduce
one theoretically based on what we "can" know.  I've provided factual
examples of good websites that are practically invisible on relevant
search quarries proving the ability of the search industry to, lets
say, under appreciate relevance. From personal experience I can
testify this happens by system design to almost every site that has
not been "networked" or linked for popularity ( with the exception of
those few sites that can define their relevance based on a commonly
associated keyword, of uncommonly infrequent use in common language).
Admittedly evidence besides that of Daniel corroborating my testimony
would provide important substantiation. Unfortunately, distinct
circumstances denies my contention the practical access to the
authority of mob support.

Suppose you were a small business person of common Internet knowledge
(virtually none) --where would you take complaints regarding your
dissatisfaction with your websites performance? your Web Master? In
all likelihood this person or company is not involved directly in
marketing (and will just suggest you seek promotion services) or is
part of the SEO industry...and As has been made quite obvious on SEO
message boards there is a very low tolerance for search industry
criticism that points a finger at marketing as a culprit... They might
try to use a search engine to try to find others similarly
dissatisfied ...but what are they likely to find seeking a "watchdog"
organization-- Search Engine watch? where the editors occasionally
write for Search Engine Blogs... not exactly the Ralph Naders of the
search industry.  They might find Daniel's site, but what good would
that do them as the site provides no guidance regarding getting
unscrewed, just details regarding how you got screwed. Unless they
have expert knowledge in the use of a search engine it's darn sure
they're not going to find my site... and even if they did find it they
might perceive the websites isolation as just evidence of
hopelessness... So they just say the hell with it and let their site
die or let it languish and become just another Internet artifact...
just another piece of internet driftwood to be tripped over now and
then. Using another example gleaned from personal experience, there
are tens of millions of cigarette smokers paying more than $5 for a
pack of cigarettes and all that anger and animosity can only muster a
week peep, as an Internet presence, amongst a deafening volume of
cigarettes selling shysters-- another forum where cigarette smokers
have been thoroughly underrepresented is in politics and the media.
The most extreme excise tax in the history of America --on an
addictive substance no less-- affecting millions of people... yet how
many seconds of actual airtime, have actual smokers received. ---
instead they're obligated to finance commercials maligning themselves.
The point being, if you're waiting to hear the roar of the crowd,
before you will join in, than frankly you are too useless to be worth
wasting words on. As you keep skirtings facts, and sighting "most
people" ( or don't know up from down on the Internet) as an authority
... and as this site apparently isn't read by anyone-- playing
circular word  Twister with you probably isn't a constructive use of
my time.[a]

[Netesq]  Of course, this exercise requires you to momentarily ignore
the great personal tragedy that you have had to endure by producing a
magnum opus that is not appreciated by its intended audience, but
trust me . . . there is a light at the end of the tunnel.[n]

[arttworks]  This "intended audience" who do you think they are, and
when did they visit my site. Yes the site has been judged
Unrecommendable by the shysters of the SEO industry... Who else
besides brain dead algorithms' have done an evaluation?[a]


[Netesq]  Now, ask yourself: "What am *I* doing wrong? Why aren't
people coming to my site?" Please note that any answer which pretends
to project responsibility upon another person, institution, or
conspiracy will be dismissed as self-indulgent narcissism.[n]

[Netesq]  Obviously, what I am doing wrong? Is that I am being a
civilized principled "idealist" on a planet of stupid, dishonest,
creepy shysters who probably haven't on average spent five minutes in
their entire lives contemplating the meaning of the word "efficiency".
My "mistake" has been to refuse to be duplicitous, and to make false
friends, under false pretense regardless of my "personal interest". As
to the question of why people are not coming to my site? My obvious
answer is because search engines don't work... and there are no
"idealists" who matter (or who are well enough informed) to blow the
whistle on that obvious fact. This simple truth is I would much rather
be a low responsibility flag-waving follower than to be burdened with
the responsibility of being a failed leader. I will concede that so
far I haven't played whatever cards I have very well or well enough...
wasting time in this little Wonderland monument to failure, arguing
with the matterless King Mud Pie is probably one of those misplayed
cards...[n]



[Netesq]  Sorry, but your being *VERY* verbose, and your "complaint,"
such as it is, has been lost in a plethora of neoverbalistic tripe.
Boiling said tripe down to its particulars, it's pretty easy to figure
out that there's no pony at the bottom. In other words, you're very
good at pretending to point fingers of blame at "greedy corporations,"
but the charge is a weak one at best. Said "greedy corporations" took
the Internet from being an obscure communication medium used by
academia and the military to the most revolutionary and influential
communication medium the world has ever known.[n]

[arttworks]  Are you really silly enough to believe that a public
Internet was something other than inevitable. Your argument is like
saying NBC turned television into the greatest video content
production and distribution system the world as ever known. ...talk
about a aplethora of neoverbalistic tripe-- the networks have had a
corner on that market for over 50 years. Contrary to what's on the
wasteland, my tripe contained real substance that you again ran away
from. First the issue of a  "promotion filter", its existence is real,
and it effects are as onerous, unnecessary and unjustified as any
other form of censorship. The other related point, you have ignored
many times before, references the pointlessly wasted energy consumed
forcing content providers to play a no win (for the consumer) ,
pyramid style (the price of victory inevitably gets priced higher than
winning is worth) king of Mt. Internet game. [a]


[Netesq]  Assuming, _arguendo_, that "greedy corporations" are
standing in the way of progress in the science of search, you're not
particularly good at proposing a workable solutions to the "problem"
that you have defined. [n]

[arttworks]  I have outlined the elements of a workable solution-- the
idea of augmenting the basic infrastructure of the Internet by
providing a centralized source of reliable meta-data ( descriptive
information) is not hard to comprehend. [a]


[Netesq]  Or is it your position that if we all nod our heads in
unison while chanting about the evil and prurient nature of "greedy
corporations" that said entities will be magically vanquished?[n]

[arttworks]  It's not about vanquishing greedy corporations, it's
about providing a certain standard of basic functionality that creates
a competitive incentive for them to stay on roads relevant to the
public interest. [a]


[Netesq]  Dude, I am hardly a "bottom feeder." I am *VERY* particular
about who I work for and what I work on, and I would welcome the
creation of a more level playing field. Indeed, if making money were
my only goal, I would probably still be in sales and distribution,
which is where the real money is. In any event, my character is not at
issue here, and it is *YOU*, once again, who has taken us off the
topic by attempting to poison the well.[n]

[arttworks]  What is good for the goose bla..bla..bla. [a]


[Netesq]  Hardly a convincing argument. More like an opinion that
assumes what it hopes to prove. And the song has been sung before, by
singers with better voices.[n]

[arttworks]  Where has it been sung before? I'd much rather do my bit
to amplify the better voices... where are they... can I get there from
here? ...will a search engine show me where they are?[a]


[Netesq]  Marketing is a legitimate business function. At its absolute
worst, marketing is a necessary evil. And more often than not
marketing is totally ineffective because the people who are employed
in marketing are not particularly good at what they are supposed to
do, but they are very good at putting on a good image and making it
look like everything is going according to plan.[n]

[arttworks]  How is marketing "necessary" in a virtually
instantaneously connected world? the truth is, like all Spam,
marketing can only "work" if systems are broken enough to permit the
required chaos. ignorance,  noise, confusion, disarray etc. There is
an undeniably inverse relationship between the value of marketing, and
the relevancy of generic search results. In theory "marketing" has no
future on the Internet (or anywhere else), but it is a "theory" that
can't be applied if we allow marketing companies to exclusively own
all the competitively substantial players in the search industry.  [a]



[Netesq]  I agree. It is stupid. So why did you try to put words into
my mouth that I didn't say? [n]

[arttworks]  What did come out of your mouth was the implication that
one must do as the system demands without rebellion or complaint. I
just provided an extreme example of the implications of your
implication.[a]



[Netesq]  In other words, you are proposing that the "like-minded
test" be replaced with the "right-thinking test." Okay, as long as I
get to decide who's right and who's wrong. To wit, I'm right, and
you're wrong.[n]

[arttworks]  I don't think a fair rational person reading any of this
could possibly conclude I'm suggesting some "right-thinking test" --
What I'm suggesting is that content providers be given the practical
right to earn or buy a outlet (store frunt) on an "honest" Internet
highway. I am suggesting something that would exist parallel to the
current Internet in all its Spammish splendor. If a content provider
knew they had an honest story to tell they could voluntarily take the
"test", and receive the reward of enhanced credibility and appropriate
indexing .  Those who see no need to take any stinking test would
remain perfectly free to spam their way to as much highway real-estate
as they want on the current superspamway.[a]



[Netesq]  And there should be two chickens in every pot, which begs
the question of how this goal can actually be attained. Perhaps we
should "tax the rich, . . . feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no
more."[n]

[arttworks]  If there was a whole brain in every head we could
probably have 40 chickens in every pot. You keep making the empty
implication that it is beyond our technical capacity to compile a
substantially complete data base of reliable meta-data describing the
content available on the Internet. I've made the point in previous
discussions that it isn't any more complex than collecting and
compiling the personal information solicited every time a domain name
is registered. The whois databases isn't showing any signs of imminent
collapse. and your false argument of crack "pot" impracticality is
just blowing smoke.[a]




[Netesq]  Irrelevant sideline details? My criticism of your ideas is
far from detail oriented. Rather, my criticism of your ideas speaks to
the crux of the matter -- i.e., you are grossly oversimplifying them
task at hand. To wit, the "library model" of Internet indexing and
search is not the magic pixie dust that you seem to think it is.[n]

[arttworks]  You wouldn't know a crux even if she drew you a pitcher.
To wit you've got pixie dust for brains. Obviously the original
designers of the HTML standard didn't think descriptive meta-data was
too complex a theory, unfortunately they were apparently unable to
anticipate the wholesale lying that would take place if content
providers were allowed to self-described themselfs. My system simply
places the meta-data in a central location where it can't be edited
without evaluation, and where fair claims of fraud can be made by
those willing to back-up their claims by putting their own integrity
on the line. I've said it before, and it's a truth you've done nothing
to refute, injecting accountability is more a matter of will then
way.[a]




[Netesq]  Sorry, but you lost me. During college and law school, I did
a great deal of library research, and I got pretty skilled at it. I
also had the opportunity to compare online databases like Westlaw and
Lexis with traditional printed indexes, and I can honestly say that
both have their strengths and weaknesses. However, other things being
equal, it has always been *MUCH* easier for me to find what I am
looking for using a Boolean search on a full-text database than to
rely upon the "meta data" of summaries, digests, and keynotes.
Occasionally I would follow a blind alley while reviewing a text
retrieved by a Boolean search, but figuring out where the blind alleys
were was part of the research process.[n]

[arttworks]  "summaries" are not, in my opinion, in any meaningful way
synonymous with the "extra descriptive information" that satisfies the
common definition of meta-data. As summaries are basically a condensed
out-line ( less content) and are not designed to provide relevant
descriptive keywords for the purpose of categorization and indexing
your personal anecdote is of little relevance.[a]


[Netesq]  If there is one clear, palpable, and easily remedied problem
with the current state of search engines, it is that very few people
publish annotated meta data after researching a particular topic. This
is a very efficient way of reducing the amount of noise that future
searchers encounter. Personally, I always make a point of publishing
my research and soliciting feedback.[n]

[arttworks]  how exactly do people find your research? randomly dialed
phone numbers until they reach you, and then ask you for the Web
address. What's the shelf life of your research? and if everyone has
their research (of various quality) spread over the Internet isn't all
that disorganization just going to create more unreliable noise. You
wouldn't put amateur made gasoline in your car, why do you want to run
the "most revolutionary and influential
communication me ium the world has ever known" on this amateur
recipe.[a]



[Netesq]  Humbug. Like IBM/Intel PCs, E-bay and Amazon are practical
examples of how easy it is to make silk purses from bats wings. For
now, the meta data systems used by these industry leaders is
"adequate," at best. In time, an innovator will come up with a
disruptive technology that will put both of these companies out of
business, as history repeats itself, once again.[n]

[arttworks]  Who was previously put out of business by "disruptive
technology" -- As this is just more of the same old unsubstantiated
technically impossible mush I will just move on to the next pile of
slop.[a]



[Netesq]  While there is a *PLACE* for a noncommercial alternative to
companies like
Yahoo!, Google, and MSN, it does not necessarily follow that "there
has to be a
competitive noncommercial alternative." If the quality of commercial
services
becomes bad enough, people will stop using said services, and a
noncommercial
alternative is one of many ways of turning up the heat on commercial
services.[n]

[arttworks]  I don't really think they can stop using said services
until the alternative actually exists. A second point would be,
people can't really know how dissatisfied they are, until they
actually have something to compare what they have to. [a]



[Netesq]  You're conflating a number of issues here. But, in the final
analysis, if
someone is searching for something "important," then they are well
advised to
consider the maxim that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
[n]

[arttworks]  So I guess they should call them the "not-free public
libraries"[a]

[Netesq]  In other words, if you want to eat a healthy diet, don't let
your vendors take you to
lunch and dinner every day and every night; dig into your own pocket,
buy your
own groceries, and cook your own meals.
[n]
[arttworks]  right, build my own nuclear power plant, built my own
railroad infrastructure, build my own satellite launching capacity
etc.[a]




[Netesq]  Not one of the clustering search engines that I have
encountered relies upon
meta deta. Rather, they use traditional techniques of keyword and
keyphrase
frequency and density. It's a gimmick, plain and simple.[n]

[arttworks]  Exactly as I stated, the technology has no practical
functionality, without a source of reliable meta-data.[a]



[Netesq]  Despite my libertarian nature, the problems that I have with
your amorphous and nebulous proposal have very little to do with how
it would be financed. There's actually plenty of grant money available
to people who are doing meaningful research in the area of search
engine technology; if said research bears fruit, there's more money
available. If you really believe in your ideas, perhaps you should
consider writing up a grant proposal and/or forming a non-profit
organization to make your dreams a reality.[n]

[arttworks]  This is one of those no point in doing it, if you're not
gonna do it right, kind of things. Government financing would produce
the extensive media coverage and popular exposure such an enterprise
would require to successfully accomplish its mission (without the
interference of regulation).  ...remember the exposure the do-not-call
list got. Obviously, if the vast majority of honest content producers
have no knowledge that there exists an opportunity to "register" their
content and have it precisely categorized for inclusion in a honest
map (database) of the Internet, the data base will not be complete
enough to be of practical use. In other words, you realistically can't
grow this from a seed, you got to spend the bucks and buy (or pre
germinate) a ready to grow plant. [a]

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . visiting dental dot com isn't in any meaningful way "MY
> website".

When I attempted to visit < http://dental.com/ >, the page would not load; ditto
for < http://www.dental.com/ >.  It's sort of hard to get fair and proper
indexing for a site that doesn't actually exist.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . InMendham.com also is not in any meaningful way "MY" website,
> it is strictly a very useful public service website and yet the
> "search system" provides no meaningful access even on search terms
> of very narrow and extremely high relevance.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  Both the non-existent dental dot com and the obscure
InMendham.com are your Web sites, and your interest in promoting them is what
brought you into conflict with the powers that be at places like ODP.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> Statistics would indicate that the same pool of "popular"
> [a status often achieved through deception] Web sites receive the
> bulk of references within the first page of results.

There are three types of lies:  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Moreover, 99
percent of the statistics that people pretend to quote have been made up on the
spot.  Nonetheless, there are, in fact, certain Web sites that (because of their
overall popularity) wield enormous influence over search results on topics on
which they have no real authority.  Said Web site typically sell their PageRank
to the highest bidder, quality be damned.

The best solution that I have seen proposed to remedy this sad state of affairs
is the Open Grid Project. (< http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~maxim/OpenGRiD/ >.) 
Boiled down to its essentials, the Open Grid allows end users to choose their
own experts when indexing and searching Web sites and filter out the influence
of unreliable would-be authorities.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . Even as individual web pages these popular sources unlikely
> account for a "billion" references.

First of all, the reference that I made to billions was qualified with "let's
pretend. . .  ."  For purposes of clarity, however, let us pretend that there
are millions of webmasters.  In point of fact, there are millions of webmasters,
if not tens of millions or hundreds of millions.  And my point, which you have
unsuccessfully attempted to cloud, is that there are a lot of people who have
web sites and who have no appreciable amount of trouble connecting with their
potential audience.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . how big is the invisible or under-represented Internet? . . .
> I've provided factual examples of good websites that are
> practically invisible on relevant search quarries proving the
> ability of the search industry to, lets say, under appreciate
> relevance.

I notice that you qualified your facts.  To wit, good websites that are
"practically invisible" on "relevant search quarries[sic]."  Truth be told,
there are very few Web sites that are wholly invisible, but there are quite a
few high quality Web sites that are lost in the noise of most search results. 
This was what first prompted me to start compiling the XODP Web Guides a couple
of years ago.  (< http://www.xodp.org/about.html >.)  I have since come to
realize that the idea of creating human edited guides to search results is a
sound one that end users truly appreciate.  The only thing that prevents me from
devoting more time to this worthwhile project is the fact that my paying clients
come first.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> Suppose you were a small business person of common Internet
> knowledge (virtually none) --where would you take complaints
> regarding your dissatisfaction with your websites performance?

You have just described the process by which I obtain virtually all of my new
clients.  To wit, one of the attorneys with whom I work refers a frustrated
colleague to me.  In most instances, I am able to school said attorneys in the
basics of Web site promotion in a matter of hours, and they will almost always
return to me about once a month for ongoing followups.  In fact, I have gotten
so busy that I have started hiring and training people to do exactly what I do. 
In time, I hope to put myself out of a job.

And then there's XODP.  Contrary to what you might think, many frustrated site
owners find me through the XODP Yahoo! eGroup and contact me with their concerns
by e-mail.  While I would prefer that these inquiries be posted to the eGroup, I
am more than willing to give these people some confidential advice and point
them in the right direction.  What I am *NOT* willing to do is entertain the
notion that anyone is entitled to a free lunch.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . .[A]s this site apparently isn't read by anyone-- playing
> circular word  Twister with you probably isn't a constructive use of
> my time.

Contrary to what you might think, quite a few people read this eGroup. 
Moreover, many of your XODP posts have been indexed by Google, which (in turn)
has increased the prominence of your Web site.

Oh, yeah . . . you're welcome.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . Are you really silly enough to believe that a public
> Internet was something other than inevitable.

Are you really silly enough to believe that the Internet would have become a
household word without a big push from "greedy corporations"?

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> I have outlined the elements of a workable solution-- the
> idea of augmenting the basic infrastructure of the Internet by
> providing a centralized source of reliable meta-data ( descriptive
> information) is not hard to comprehend.

And on this much we are in total agreement, at least in theory.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> How is marketing "necessary" in a virtually instantaneously
> connected world?

The most common metaphor is the "marketplace of ideas," but I think that the
metaphor "battleground of ideas" is just as apt.  Even the most pious of
charities appreciates the need to employ fund raisers and seek celebrity
endorsements.  Even more important is the ability to connect with people who
really need the goods and services that you have to offer.  Effective marketing
research helps purveyors of information, goods, and service find out how to do
just that.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . You keep making the empty implication that it is beyond our
> technical capacity to compile a substantially complete data base of
> reliable meta-data describing the content available on the
> Internet.

Sorry, but that has never been my position.  I think the idea of creating a
comprehensive data base of reliable meta data is a laudable goal and one that
can be achieved.  However, I do *NOT* think that it is a goal that can be easily
achieved.  To quote our own feckless President's failed attempt to export
democracy to Iraq, "It's hard work!"

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . I've made the point in previous discussions that it isn't any
> more complex than collecting and compiling the personal information
> solicited every time a domain name is registered.

In essence, this is the same thing that people encounter when they submit a URL
to Yahoo!, Looksmart, or ODP, and my experience has been that even the most
scrupulous and honest of site owners are not particularly good at
self-description.  Given the opportunity to provide a title and description for
their Web sites, the whatis database would probably contain quite a few Web
sites entitled "Insert your Web site title here" and quite a few descriptions
that read "Insert your Web site description here."

[David Prenatt:]
>
>. . . If there is one clear, palpable, and easily remedied problem
> with the current state of search engines, it is that very few people
> publish annotated meta data after researching a particular topic.
> This is a very efficient way of reducing the amount of noise that
> future searchers encounter. Personally, I always make a point of
> publishing my research and soliciting feedback.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . how exactly do people find your research?

They usually use Google.  Just type "King Hall Law School" into Google, and the
FAQ that I first published about ten years ago will come up in the top ten
results, immediately behind the law school's own Web site.  Of course, as a
ghost writer for other attorneys, the vast majority of my research has not been
published under my personal byline.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . Who was previously put out of business by "disruptive
> technology"

Digital Equipment Corporation.  For more information about disruptive
technologies, see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology >.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

----- Original Message -----
From: "arttworks" <arttworks@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>

> [arttworks]  You keep making the empty
> implication that it is beyond our technical capacity to compile a
> substantially complete data base of reliable meta-data describing the
> content available on the Internet. I've made the point in previous
> discussions that it isn't any more complex than collecting and
> compiling the personal information solicited every time a domain name
> is registered. The whois databases isn't showing any signs of imminent
> collapse. and your false argument of crack "pot" impracticality is
> just blowing smoke.[a]
>

The main problem with your idea, is not technology, but *WHO* will decide
what the Meta Data will be?  WHO will decide if a web site's description is
accurate or not?  This is just another project based on subjective
standards.  Just like all of the others that you despise so much (GO,
HOTRATE, ODP etc.)

In any event, there is a catalog run by Thunderstone which may mimic what
you are proposing.
<< http://search.thunderstone.com/texis/websearch/ >>

[Netesq]  When I attempted to visit < http://dental.com/ >, the page
would not load; ditto for < http://www.dental.com/ >. It's sort of
hard to get fair and proper indexing for a site that doesn't actually
exist.[n]

[arttworks]  You accidently slither under too heavy a rock last night
and oxygen starve yourself out of a few billion brain cells? Over the
years there has been more than a few references to the website
VISITINGdental.com ...dental.com not been owned by relevant service
provider is another example of the nonsense made possible when you
build on chaos rather than intelligent, deliberate, and efficient
design.[a]

[Netesq]  I wholeheartedly disagree. Both the non-existent dental dot
com and the obscure InMendham.com are your Web sites, and your
interest in promoting them is what brought you into conflict with the
powers that be at places like ODP.[n]

[arttworks]  In the first place I defy anyone to concoct a RATIONAL
justification for the website InMendham.com to be OBSCURE on the
search term MENDHAM. Second you have again butchered the facts. During
  my 24 hours at the ODP the website InMendham.com didn't even exist
and I never submitted the dental site. I'm not going to rehash old
history but I will simply say quite emphatically, no honest, sincerely
motivated, logical person could confront the corruption of the
"powers-that-be" at the ODP without significant "conflict".

This petty attack based on completely fraudulent misinformation proves
beyond doubt that you, and this website, are in fact an insincere
contrivance.  The knowledge that websites that are not promoted (
through link exchange or link purchase) are in most cases going to
remain a seldom relevantly referenced part search engine databases,
regardless of their actual relevancy or merit, is common to even
inexperienced SEO practitioners. For you to attempt to imply some
other truth by attacking my examples with fallacious
mis-characterization goes beyond the level of disrespect I'm willing
to tolerate.

If you had a quality worse than your insincerity, it is your other
lack of imagination. In the four plus years of our exposure to one
another your rhetoric hasn't evolved beyond spouting, with sickening
redundancy, the same fairy tale platitudes. You say there's no free
lunch-- I point out that public libraries are "free" to the consumer
and a valid expense and duty of government -- you just ignore that
fact and reiterate the same mush as if the refuting facts don't exist.
No rational person could discuss anything meaningful with a mind
frozen in such dogmatic nonsense. Clearly you are a slave to a rigid
ideology and a bigot to any notion of uniquely individual
circumstances. If a theory of solution does not have the
entrepreneurial features you demand it's only worthy of a good and
proper lynching. Clearly you have attempted to Lynch, based on a
litany of unsubstantiated accusations of incredibility, the simple,
logically credible, enhancement to Internet infrastructure I have
advanced as an efficient theoretical solution. I will concede your
effort has wasted some of my time, but sometimes you have to invest a
little time and step in the water before you can tell the difference
between a mud bottom swamp, and a deep swimmable lake. [a]


[Netesq]   There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and
statistics. Moreover, 99 percent of the statistics that people pretend
to quote have been made up on the spot. Nonetheless, there are, in
fact, certain Web sites that (because of their overall popularity)
wield enormous influence over search results on topics on which they
have no real authority. Said Web site typically sell their PageRank
to the highest bidder, quality be damned.[n]

[arttworks]  Waste a whole paragraph saying yes-you're-right to create
the illusion that the facts support your apathy.[a]


[Netesq]  The best solution that I have seen proposed to remedy this
sad state of affairs is the Open Grid Project. (<
http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~maxim/OpenGRiD/ >.) Boiled down to its
essentials, the Open Grid allows end users to choose their own experts
when indexing and searching Web sites and filter out the influence of
unreliable would-be authorities.[n]

[arttworks]  Another 1 percent solution that only contains elements of
the required recipe for a successful repair of broken
infrastructure.[a]


[Netesq]  First of all, the reference that I made to billions was
qualified with "let's pretend. . . ." For purposes of clarity,
however, let us pretend that there are millions of webmasters. In
point of fact, there are millions of webmasters, if not tens of
millions or hundreds of millions. And my point, which you have
unsuccessfully attempted to cloud, is that there are a lot of people
who have web sites and who have no appreciable amount of trouble
connecting with their
potential audience.[n]

  [arttworks]  And there is "a lot" of quality content languishing in
practical invisibility in the database cellar of a search industry
only interested in providing/promoting Top 40 access.[a]



[Netesq]  I notice that you qualified your facts. To wit, good
websites that are "practically invisible" on "relevant search
quarries[sic]." Truth be told, there are very few Web sites that are
wholly invisible, but there are quite a few high quality Web sites
that are lost in the noise of most search results. This was what first
prompted me to start compiling the XODP Web Guides a couple of years
ago. (< http://www.xodp.org/about.html >.) I have since come to
realize that the idea of creating human edited guides to search
results is a
sound one that end users truly appreciate. The only thing that
prevents me from devoting more time to this worthwhile project is the
fact that my paying clients come first.[n]

[arttworks]  Another whole paragraph saying yes-you're-right to create
the illusion that the facts support your apathy.... And another 1
percent solution that only contains elements of the required recipe
for a successful repair of broken infrastructure.[a]



[Netesq]  You have just described the process by which I obtain
virtually all of my new clients. To wit, one of the attorneys with
whom I work refers a frustrated colleague to me. In most instances, I
am able to school said attorneys in the basics of Web site promotion
in a matter of hours, and they will almost always return to me about
once a month for ongoing followups. In fact, I have gotten so busy
that I have started hiring and training people to do exactly what I
do. In time, I hope to put myself out of a job.

And then there's XODP. Contrary to what you might think, many
frustrated site owners find me through the XODP Yahoo! eGroup and
contact me with their concerns by e-mail. While I would prefer that
these inquiries be posted to the eGroup, I am more than willing to
give these people some confidential advice and point them in the right
direction. What I am *NOT* willing to do is entertain the notion that
anyone is entitled to a free lunch.[n]

[arttworks]  Right, so we should obligate books to hire promoters, or
directly pay, to be included in the national data-base of books
libraries index and make available. If the library model isn't good
enough for the Internet-- why isn't the Internet model good enough for
libraries?[a]




[Netesq]  Contrary to what you might think, quite a few people read
this eGroup. Moreover, many of your XODP posts have been indexed by
Google, which (in turn) has increased the prominence of your Web
site.[n]

[arttworks]  As I receive no relevant traffic from search engines this
is a case of times zero multiplication.[a]

[Netesq]  Oh, yeah . . . you're welcome.[n]

[arttworks]  well you can stick that up the "unrecommended" orifice of
your choice. [a]


[Netesq]  Are you really silly enough to believe that the Internet
would have become a household word without a big push from "greedy
corporations"?[n]

[arttworks]  The original search engines that made the internet work
were in fact not greedy corporations-- they were largely experiments
attempting to efficiently provide a basic element of logically
necessary infrastructure.[a]


[Netesq]  And on this much we are in total agreement, at least in
theory. [n]

[arttworks]  The difference being your suggested solutions, have been
tried and failed, and mine has not.[a]


[Netesq]  The most common metaphor is the "marketplace of ideas," but
I think that the metaphor "battleground of ideas" is just as apt. Even
the most pious of charities appreciates the need to employ fund
raisers and seek celebrity endorsements. Even more important is the
ability to connect with people who really need the goods and services
that you have to offer. Effective marketing research helps purveyors
of information, goods, and service find out how to do just that.[n]

[arttworks]  It's not a "battleground of ideas" it's a the
battleground of money and creative deception. No one not sucking a
living as part of the problem could see it any other way.[a]

[Netesq]  Sorry, but that has never been my position. I think the idea
of creating a comprehensive data base of reliable meta data is a
laudable goal and one that can be achieved. However, I do *NOT* think
that it is a goal that can be easily achieved. To quote our own
feckless President's failed attempt to export
democracy to Iraq, "It's hard work!"[n]

[arttworks]  Comparing the theoretically possible to the theoretically
ludicrous doesn't serve much of a purpose. [a]



[Netesq]  In essence, this is the same thing that people encounter
when they submit a URL to Yahoo!, Looksmart, or ODP, and my experience
has been that even the most scrupulous and honest of site owners are
not particularly good at self-description. Given the opportunity to
provide a title and description for their Web sites, the whatis
database would probably contain quite a few Web sites entitled "Insert
your Web site title here" and quite a few descriptions that read
"Insert your Web site description here."[n]

[arttworks]  You have minimize the need for a solution, and
persistently argued against the approach I recommend-- yet you're
willing to provoke discussion over "superficial details". As pointed
out previously-- best construction of the database would narrow "most"
of the descriptive information to multiple choice (limited language)
answers to standard questions. [a]





[Netesq]  They usually use Google. Just type "King Hall Law School"
into Google, and the FAQ that I first published about ten years ago
will come up in the top ten results, immediately behind the law
school's own Web site. Of course, as a ghost writer for other
attorneys, the vast majority of my research has not been published
under my personal byline.[n]

[arttworks]  That's about as intuitive, as finding a person by typing
in the name of a nonexistent brother.[a]



[Netesq]  Digital Equipment Corporation. For more information about
disruptive technologies, see <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology >.[n]

[arttworks]  I didn't realize there was a new synonym for
obsolescence... or the unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and
boldly adapt to what the writing on the wall suggests the future will
demand. ....takes one to know one, I guess.

As implied I've had my fill of your Disruptive_rhetoric and will go
back to shouting off my own rooftop rather than wasting my time
gagging in this suffocating out house. Hopefully I won't be fooled
back again by any mirages of purpose.[a]

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Rob O. Zilla" <Robozilla@h...> wrote:

> The main problem with your idea, is not technology, but *WHO* will
decide
> what the Meta Data will be?  WHO will decide if a web site's
description is
> accurate or not?  This is just another project based on subjective
> standards.  Just like all of the others that you despise so much
(GO,
> HOTRATE, ODP etc.)
>
> In any event, there is a catalog run by Thunderstone which may mimic
what
> you are proposing.
> << http://search.thunderstone.com/texis/websearch/ >>

Rob,

I would first point out that some elements of descriptive information
would be facts not subject to subjective interpretation. (geographic
location, the use of pop-up ads, membership requirements etc.)

In other cases, the primary goal is to weed out outrageous lies, and
as long as the weeding (accusations and judgment) is done in a very
open and public manner (as part of the accessible database) the threat
of abused power is minimized. Claims have integrity only when
something of value is put at risk to insure accountability. At the
directories you mentioned the great "missing link" is that neither the
submiter or the reviewer faces any real accountability and secrecy is
used to hide corruption.

The difference between my proposed "enhancement" and directories like
Thunderstone is that every effort would be made to standardize the
"language of description". Like a game of 20 questions the objective
would be to define a web site by asking well engineered yes or no
questions. The objective is to define a website by it's meaningful
elements, not through promotional gibberish or subjective editorial
opinion. I used the example of libraries because this is generally how
they approach the task of classification.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . Over the years there has been more than a few references to
> the website VISITINGdental.com

Gee, how could I have missed that.  Perhaps because you wrote "visiting dental
dot com."  And when I visited the URL for < http://visitingdental.com/ >, I
found myself redirected to < http://www.inmendham.com/vda/index.html >.  The
site in question is hoplessly locked up in spider-unfriendly frames, so it's
highly unlikely that it will ever get properly indexed by any search engine.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . I defy anyone to concoct a RATIONAL justification for the
> website InMendham.com to be OBSCURE on the search term MENDHAM.

Rational justification?  How about the fact that the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the
Borough of Mendham comes up number one on the search term "Mendham," the
*OFFICIAL* Web site for the Mendham Township comes up second, deep links for the
Mendham Township come up third, and the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the Mendham High
School comes up fourth, deep links for the Mendham High School come up fifth,
and the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the Mendham Borough Library comes up sixth?

The rational justification for InMendham.com being buried at number 50 out of
some 129,000 search results for "Mendham" is the fact that it is not an official
Web site, and is not particularly popular among Mendhamites.  Compare and
contrast this with a search for "Davis, California," where a FAQ that I
published some ten years ago comes up as the 22nd link indexed out of some 5
million links, or "Yolo County, California" where a FAQ that I published some
ten years ago comes up as the 5th link out of some 170,000 search results, just
*AHEAD* of the official county site.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . no honest, sincerely motivated, logical person could confront
> the corruption of the "powers-that-be" at the ODP without
> significant "conflict".

Even during my tenure at ODP, my sympathies typically lay with ODP's critics and
outcasts.  Unfortunately, many of ODP's critics are their own worst enemies, and
whatever legitimate messages said critics might have to convey is usually lost
in the noise that they make.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . The knowledge that websites that are not promoted ( through
> link exchange or link purchase) are in most cases going to remain a
> seldom relevantly referenced part search engine databases,
> regardless of their actual relevancy or merit, is common to even
> inexperienced SEO practitioners.

But, you see, the whole theory behind Google's enormously succesful algorithm is
that relevancy and merit are best determined by link popularity.  I agree that
this general proposition has specific, palpable flaws, such as the fact that an
authority on one subject is considered an authority on all subjects, but I am
not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . You say there's no free lunch-- I point out that public
> libraries are "free" to the consumer and a valid expense and duty
> of government -- you just ignore that fact and reiterate the same
> mush as if the refuting facts don't exist.

Dude, libraries are *NOT* a free lunch.  They are paid for through taxes.  As
for libraries being a "valid expense and duty of government," I don't think that
qualifies as a "fact."  Rather, it is your opinion.

To be clear, I am not in favor of government funding for libraries any more than
I am in favor of government funding for public golf courses or roller derby
competitions.  However, I see a much more clear and palpable benefit being
derived from government funding for libraries, so I am less likely to complain
about it.

As I stated previously, I would like to see all government expenditures, no
matter how meritorius, subjected to a budget ballot; in time, I think that
people would begin to realize that there is no such thing as a truly "valid
expense and duty of government."

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . [Y]ou have attempted to Lynch, based on a litany of
> unsubstantiated accusations of incredibility, the simple, logically
> credible, enhancement to Internet infrastructure I have advanced as
> an efficient theoretical solution.

Funny, I don't remember making any "unsubstantiated accusations of
incredibility" against you or your ideas, much less a litany of such
accusations.  Rather, I have pointed out that you have a tendency to grossly
oversimplify issues, grossly overstate otherwise legitimate grievances, and
grossly underestimate the efforts that would be required to carry out your vague
and ambiguous proposals.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > The best solution that I have seen proposed to remedy this
> > sad state of affairs is the Open Grid Project. (<
> > http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~maxim/OpenGRiD/ >.)

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . Another 1 percent solution that only contains elements of
> the required recipe for a successful repair of broken
> infrastructure.[a]

Humbug.

[arttworks:]
>
>  . . . [T]here is "a lot" of quality content languishing in
> practical invisibility in the database cellar of a search industry
> only interested in providing/promoting Top 40 access.[a]

Exactly how do you determine what is and is not quality content?

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > Truth be told, there are very few Web sites that are wholly
> > invisible, but there are quite a few high quality Web sites
> > that are lost in the noise of most search results. This was what
> > first prompted me to start compiling the XODP Web Guides a couple
> > of years ago. (< http://www.xodp.org/about.html >.) I have since
> > come to realize that the idea of creating human edited guides to
> > search results is a sound one that end users truly appreciate. The
> > only thing that prevents me from devoting more time to this
> > worthwhile project is the fact that my paying clients come first.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . [A]nother 1 percent solution that only contains elements of
> the required recipe for a successful repair of broken
> infrastructure.

Hardly.  Meta data such as that provided by the XODP Web Guides is a key
ingredient in improving the overall quality of Internet indexing and search
results.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . [S]o we should obligate books to hire promoters, or
> directly pay, to be included in the national data-base of books
> libraries index and make available.

In reality, the vast majority of authors are unable to get their books
published.  Those authors who do get published need literary agents if they hope
to see those books get properly distributed and promoted.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > Are you really silly enough to believe that the Internet would
> > have become a household word without a big push from "greedy
> > corporations"?

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> The original search engines that made the internet work were in
> fact not greedy corporations-- they were largely experiments
> attempting to efficiently provide a basic element of logically
> necessary infrastructure.

You're changing the subject here.  The question was whether you believed that
the *INTERNET* would have become a household word without a big push from
"greedy corporations."  Your answer is not unlike telling me that the number of
stars on the American flag is "red, white, and blue."

In any event, the "original search engines that [purportedly] made the Internet
work" were most certainly designed by would-be entrepreneurs, and (without
exception) getting rich was the primary motivation for said would-be
entrepreneurs.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > Even the most pious of charities appreciates the need to employ
> > fund raisers and seek celebrity endorsements. Even more important
> > is the ability to connect with people who really need the goods
> > and services that you have to offer. Effective marketing research
> > helps purveyors of information, goods, and service find out how
> > to do just that.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . It's not a "battleground of ideas" it's a the battleground of
> money and creative deception. No one not sucking a living as part
> of the problem could see it any other way.

Once again, marketing is a legitimate function of business; at worst, a
necessary evil.  And for the most part, people who make their living in
marketing are no better or worse than people who make their living in any other
way.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> You have minimize the need for a solution, and persistently argued
> against the approach I recommend-- yet you're willing to provoke
> discussion over "superficial details".

I have not "minimize[d] the need for a solution."  Rather, I have attempted to
put the problem into proper perspective.  To wit, the problem with search engine
technology today is its mediocrity.  I know we can do better, but I also know
that a mediocre solution is commonly perceived to be an adequate solution, and
it is "hard work" to sell people on the need to fix something that they don't
perceive as being broken.  This problem is not unique to search engine
technology; the popularity of mediocre alternatives is the bane of all true
innovation and progress.

As for the approach that you recommend, I have not "persistently argued against"
it.  In fact, I believe that a WHATIS database would be a Good Thing(TM), and
the reason that I "provoke discussion over 'superficial details'" is because it
is in the details that we are in disagreement.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . As pointed out previously-- best construction of the database
> would narrow "most" of the descriptive information to multiple
> choice (limited language) answers to standard questions.

This could work, provided there was a space for "other (insert description)."

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > They usually use Google .Just type "King Hall Law School"
> > into Google, and the FAQ that I first published about ten years
> > ago will come up in the top ten results, immediately behind the
> > law school's own Web site.

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> That's about as intuitive, as finding a person by typing
> in the name of a nonexistent brother.

Your original query was "how exactly do people find your research?"  My answer: 
They usually use Google.  To wit, they type in a keyword, and research that I
have done pops up as one of the highest ranking search terms.  They don't need
to know that I did the research to recognize its quality.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . For more information about disruptive technologies, see
> > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology >.

[arttworks the unrecommended]
>
> I didn't realize there was a new synonym for obsolescence... or the
> unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and boldly adapt to what
> the writing on the wall suggests the future will demand.

That's not really what disruptive technology is all about.  A good example of a
disruptive technology that is currently taking the world by storm is blogging
software.  In essence, a disruptive technology provides a cheap, low-end
alternative to a high priced, higher quality product.  Microsoft is the champion
of disruptive technology, consistently producing cheap knock offs of higher
quality products and putting the competition out of business.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[Rob O. Zilla:]
>
> . . . [T]here is a catalog run by Thunderstone which may mimic what
> [arttworks is] proposing.
> << http://search.thunderstone.com/texis/websearch/ >>

Contrary to what arttworks may think, this is a very practical application that
gives individual Web site owners the opportuntity to provide meta data for their
own second-level domains.  What's more, the entire cataloging process has an
automated default.

If there is a problem with the Thunderstone catalog, it is the fact that the
software is not open source and the data is not open content.  As such, the
catalog will probably not go far beyond its current status as an interesting
gimmick to draw in Thunderstone's high-end paying customers.  With some 2
million hits a day, that's not a bad gimmick.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[Rob O. Zilla:]
> >
> > The main problem with your idea, is not technology, but *WHO* will
> > decide what the Meta Data will be?  WHO will decide if a web
> > site's description is accurate or not?

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> . . . [S]ome elements of descriptive information would be facts not
> subject to subjective interpretation. (geographic location, the use
> of pop-up ads, membership requirements etc.)

Even in this limited context, descriptive information is subject to subjective
interpretation.  To wit, a real estate agent, whose primary office is located in
locality "A," claims to "serve" community "B," . . . or (more likely) said real
estate agent claims to serve communities "A" through "Z."

[arttworks the unrecommended:]
>
> In other cases, the primary goal is to weed out outrageous lies, and
> as long as the weeding (accusations and judgment) is done in a very
> open and public manner (as part of the accessible database) the
> threat of abused power is minimized.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  The ODP Lynch Mob was the final argument against
"open and public" accusations and judgment.  Indeed, before ODP founder Chris
Tolles came to my rescue, I found myself being pursued by the ODP Lynch Mob
because I had listed my Web site in my ODP Bookmarks.  Of course, the *REAL*
reason that I was being pursued by the ODP Lynch Mob was because I was
advocating the creation of a constituency-based ODP editors organization that
could have challenged the authority of ODP's Meta Editor Cabal.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

http://donotgo.com/Blogs/blog13.htm#b13i00

"....I concluded my discussion/argument with the evil XODP Netesq. He
finally made the concession that he perceives the public financing of
libraries to be no more meritorious than the public financing of golf
courses. Obviously, trying to convince him that the Internet deserves
a public investment in its infrastructure comparable to that provided
to culture and education by publicly financed libraries was a waste
of time as he can't see value in anything that doesn't have a
corporate label"

See < http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/ >.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

Thanks David. I like that.

Jos
----- Original Message -----
From: "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: [xodp] Corrupt DMOZ Editor Blog


>
>
> See < http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/ >.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think it's a fake.  The author will have to do better (meaning, give
us facts and not accusations) if he/she wants to convince us that the
truth is being told.

But it is amusing.

----- Original Message -----
From: "KC" <kctipton007@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: [xodp] Re: Corrupt DMOZ Editor Blog


>
>
> I think it's a fake.  The author will have to do better (meaning, give
> us facts and not accusations) if he/she wants to convince us that the
> truth is being told.

Once again, Gary Mosher (aka XODP Editor arttworks the unrecommended) has
stormed off from a less-than-civil discussion/argument with me, and it's just as
well.  By virtue of my willingness to descend into the Mosher Pit with Gary,
there are those who would argue that I am part of the problem.  Of course, that
assumption begs the question of whether there is a problem and leaves open the
question of what, exactly, the problem is.

According to the inimitable arttworks the unrecommended, people like me are the
problem.  To wit, arttworks asserted in his (most recent) departing post that I
"finally made the concession that he perceives the public financing of libraries
to be no more meritorious than the public financing of golf courses."  For those
of you who care enough to check the facts, it is relatively easy to discern that
arttworks is casting my comments in a false light.  (I.e., I specifically stated
that "I see a much more clear and palpable benefit being derived from government
funding for libraries, so I am less likely to complain about it.."  No surprise
there.  Arttworks has a relatively short attention span, and he has very little
interest in what other people actually think.  Rather, he is almost exclusively
concerned with proving God-knows-what to whomever-may-care.

WhatIs arttworks trying to prove?  Or rather, arttworks is trying to prove
WhatIs, a "better way" of indexing the Internet.  Incidental to a proof of the
merits of WhatIs is a proof, apparently only to arttworks, of how corrupt and
fatally flawed the current state of Internet indexing actually is.  To be clear,
I actually agree with arttworks when it comes to the broad strokes.  To wit, I
think that (1) the merits of implementing a WhatIs system are self-evident and
(2) the current state of Internet indexing leaves much to be desired.  For the
most part, the disagreements that arttworks and I have are not a matter of kind,
but of degree.

If there is a particular kind of disagreement that arttworks and I have, it is
the degrees to which we believe the search industry is broken and the degrees to
which we will go to fix it.  Moreover, when it comes to online marketing and
search engine optimization, I am not above selling my time and my talents to
those whom I deem worthy of my assistance.  At the same time, I am also willing
to do pro bono promotional work for those whose people whose online presence is
not commercial in nature.

According to arttworks, the disagreements that he and I have had about the
degrees to which the Internet indexing industry is broken, and the degrees to
which I am willing to go to effect change, make me a "chaos pimp."  According to
me, arttworks is a self-aggrandizing narcissist whose interest in effecting
change is nowhere near as important as proving to himself that he is a better
person than the people who have been successful at making their mark on the
world.  Lost in the noise is the question of how the Internet should be indexed.
Sorry about that, folks.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

From:
http://donotgo.com/Blogs/netart.htm

..."To be clear, I am not in favor of government funding for libraries
any more than I am in favor of government funding for public golf
courses or roller derby competitions. However, I see a much more clear
and palpable benefit being derived from government funding for
libraries, so I am less likely to complain about it"....

With friends like you, libraries don't need enemies.

Although I won't concede to any of your characterization's of my
"character". I will concede, and have publicly acknowledged, that I am
a  rotten advocate. In a http://donotgo.com/talk/messages/11/25.html
recent message board post I put it this way "I am feeling humble and
quite disappointed in myself for being such a poor advocate that I
cannot sell an idea as logical as sliced bread." Unfortunately, who
else does the issue have? Googlewatch is too narrowly focused and too
much a linkless dead-end to be of any use... and outside of it, what
else is there? I might be a near illiterate idiot... but I know that
not much changes in a vacuum.

You said
........"Lost in the noise is the question of how the Internet should
be indexed. Sorry about that, folks. "......

I wish it was as simple as a "noise" problem. Clearly our inability to
step past conflicts of personality and philosophy to define the
problem and the solution in the same terms does create useless
noise.... but is the noise masking anything anyone is within earshot
of? There is little evidence anyone not an affiliated part of the
marketing industry is reading any of this. Even within the industry
"our" irrelevance seems quite complete. With each passing year, as
marketing consumes the "science" of Internet navigation, my website
receives less and less relevant traffic. Sometime this year I
probably hit rock bottom and achieved perfect Internet invisibility. I
can't remember seeing a relevant search engine referral in the last
two months, which makes my number-one ranking on the phrase
"spectacular feeling" a perfect cherry-on-top paradox.

The problem isn't the noise of our communication problems, the problem
is, I'm right, and the Internet has just become another populist
controlled communication medium with a closed narrow agenda. Like in
the real-world, in cyberspace, the rich are getting richer and its not
what you know it's who you know. It's true that some outsiders
(out-crowd minorities) can break into the ivory towers, but they have
to be willing to compromise some principles, and get kind of marketing
deception dirty to do it.

The name and substance of the game is Marketing/Popularity and the
truth and content aren't king but just expendable pohns. I'm trying to
reconcile myself with the reality that I am riding a message horse as
near dead as Don Quixotes and that I have a personal manner that
completes the picture of futility --but even in the moments when I can
see my imbecility, just giving up and going home, still seems a
greater defeat than the prospect of spectacular failure.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . I will concede, and have publicly acknowledged, that I am
> a  rotten advocate. In a http://donotgo.com/talk/messages/11/25.html
> recent message board post I put it this way "I am feeling humble and
> quite disappointed in myself for being such a poor advocate that I
> cannot sell an idea as logical as sliced bread." Unfortunately, who
> else does the issue have? Googlewatch is too narrowly focused and
> too much a linkless dead-end to be of any use... and outside of it,
> what else is there?

During a recent visit to Google Watch, I stumbled upon an article by Cheryl
Woodard that put the spotlight on one of Google's most fatal flaws.  (See <
http://www.google-watch.org/woodard.html >.)  To wit, Google's search results
are too commercial.  When I stumble upon articles like this, I will occasionally
chronicle them here at XODP and bring them to the attention of XODP's 170 or so
active subscribers and God-knows-how-many lurkers.  On this note, while checking
out online references to XODP, I found that one of my recent posts announcing
the debut of the Corrupt DMOZ Editor Blog had already started to obtain some
traction at the Site Library Community.  (<
http://www.sitelibrary.net/community/viewnews/504 >.)

Notwithstanding the joy that I obtain from occasional acknowledgement of my
commentary, I long ago came to terms with the fact that I, like all human
beings, am more or less helpless before the forces of nature and society.  For
me, the important thing is that I never become part of the problem.  Some people
never learn this lesson, and they work ceaselessly to effect change from within
the system or by attacking the system from the outside, periodically bringing
shocking and sensational issues into the spotlight, only to watch the initial
schock fade and the issues become marginalized and ignored in the weeks, months,
and years that it takes to effect real change.  For me, the solution is to be
very particular about who my clients are, working only with the most ethical and
conscientious people.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . There is little evidence anyone not an affiliated part of the
> marketing industry is reading any of this. Even within the industry
> "our" irrelevance seems quite complete.

I recently attended the Winter Search Engine Strategies Conference and Expo in
Chicago, which is properly the subject of another post.  Much to my surprise, I
did not need to borrow Diogenes' lantern to find an honest man or woman at this
event.  Sure, there were the usual salespeople who were trying to get to my
clients through me, the gatekeeper.  But there were also a handful of industry
insiders who, like me, yearned for a level playing field where quality online
content could be easily indexed and retrieved.  In time, I believe that more of
these Internet adepts will emerge and will refuse to sell their services to the
highest bidder.  Then, and only then, will the world see a comprehensive
solution to the ongoing challenge of Internet indexing.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
I long ago came to terms with the fact that I, like all human
beings, am more or less helpless before the forces of nature and
society. >>>

How helpless any one individual is, I think is a open question, that
no soothsayer can close with any authority. Monica Lewinsky basically
changed the world with a tool as prehistoric as a blow job. The forces
of nature do require a collective effort to screw with, but the forces
of society are infinitely screwable you just have to find the right
screwdriver.

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
For me, the important thing is that I never become part of the
problem. Some people never learn this lesson....>>>

Yeah, SOME people are real stupid. Just for clarification what "some
people" do you currently considered to be "part of the problem"?

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
For me, the solution is to be very particular about who my clients
are, working only with the most ethical and conscientious people.>>>

In fairness I don't think this is a strictly accurate definition of
the "solution". It's kind of like saying I'm solving poverty by
personally not being poor.... or I guess it's like saying I support
the public funding of public libraries, by not actively opposing it.
Even the premise that you are not part of the problem is debatable.
For example, I would state that war is not a viable survivable
alternative in the 21st century and beyond. Even if we "win" a war,
and create a vastly improved result as a result of warring ...the
damning truth would be that we used an illegitimate means to achieve
the end and in doing so justified others in their attempt to use the
same means. By playing the game, you endorse the game. The fact that
you may not be cheating like most others, doesn't do much to mitigate
against the fact that you have endorsed "the biggest cheat" which is
the game itself.

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
....yearned for a level playing field where quality online content
could be easily indexed and retrieved. In time, I believe that more of
these Internet adepts will emerge and will refuse to sell their
services to the highest bidder. Then, and only then, will the world
see a comprehensive solution to the ongoing challenge of Internet
indexing.>>>>>>

As I imply earlier, I think there's is a lot of permutations for
"Then, and only then". I'm certainly not going to hold my breath
waiting for the opportunists of the SEO industry to come to the
rescue. One of my daydream's on the subject, is that someday, the
ghosts of Internet past present and future will pay visitation upon
some silly technology billionaire and he will realize that there is
really no profit for humanity in allowing ignorance and want to be
shamelessly exploited on the Internet. Another kind of damp daydream
involves the "accidental" distribution on the Internet of a incredible
sex video between me and Christina Applegate that I use as a
steppingstone to achieving my rightful position as world dictator. In
another dream my head explodes out of sheer frustration coincidentally
spelling "google is evil" backwards in brain tissue on the wall, the
resulting news story gives Internet geekdom just enough pause to
realize that God probably doesn't look like a lying can of Spam... and
the Internet is saved.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > I long ago came to terms with the fact that I, like all human
> > beings, am more or less helpless before the forces of nature and
> > society.

[Arttworks:]
>
> How helpless any one individual is, I think is a open question, that
> no soothsayer can close with any authority.

I wholeheartedly disagree, and through the ages many great thinkers from
Ecclesiastes to Emerson have stated the truth on this matter quite clearly:

"I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are
meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted. . . . Then I applied myself to the
understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this,
too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the
more knowledge, the more grief."
(Ecclesiastes 1:14-18.)

"Life invests itself with inevitable conditions, which the unwise seek to dodge,
which one and another brags that he does not know; that they do not touch him; —
but the brag is on his lips, the conditions are in his soul."
(Ralph Waldo Emerson, _Compensation_.)


[Arttworks:]
>
> Monica Lewinsky basically changed the world with a tool as
> prehistoric as a blow job.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  Notwithstanding the personal trials of one
ex-president, the world is still rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun. 
Moreover, . . .

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is
nothing new under the sun."
(Ecclesiastes 1:9.)

"The farmer imagines power and place are fine things. But the President has paid
dear for his White House. It has commonly cost him all his peace, and the best
of his manly attributes. To preserve for a short time so conspicuous an
appearance before the world, he is content to eat dust before the real masters
who stand erect behind the throne."
(Ralph Waldo Emerson, _Compensation_.)

[Arttworks:]
>
> The forces of nature do require a collective effort to screw with,
> but the forces of society are infinitely screwable you just have to
> find the right screwdriver.

"Drive out nature with a fork, she comes running back."
(Ralph Waldo Emerson, _Compensation_.)

As evidenced by the tragic loss of human life occasioned by last year's tsunami,
I think it's safe to say that we as a species have very little control over
things like geology and the weather.  Society is not that different, as any
positive impact that one person or group of people has on the world is quickly
counteracted by prompting members of the opposition into action.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > For me, the important thing is that I never become part of the
> > problem. Some people never learn this lesson....

[Arttworks:]
>
> Yeah, SOME people are real stupid. Just for clarification what "some
> people" do you currently considered to be "part of the problem"?

I think that the problems of the world began with its creator, that all of our
attempts to fix it are doomed to failure, and that the spectrum of
blameworthiness includes not only those who actively seek to profit from the
flaws inherent in the system, but also those who believe that the system is not
that bad as well as those who routinely break their arms patting themselves on
the back for their wholly ineffective attempts to effect meaningful change. 
From time to time, I still find myself falling into the two latter categories,
but not for very long.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > For me, the solution is to be very particular about who my clients
> > are, working only with the most ethical and conscientious people.

[Arttworks:]
>
> In fairness I don't think this is a strictly accurate definition of
> the "solution".

And there was a time when I would have shared this sentiment.  But there came a
point in time when I realized that I was deluding myself by thinking that there
was such a thing as a comprehensive or lasting solution to any problem.  Simply
put, I've scaled back, and I now focus on making sure that whatever actions I do
take do not make things any worse than they already are.

[Arttworks:]
>
> It's kind of like saying I'm solving poverty by personally not
> being poor....

That's actually a very fair appraisal of my position.  To wit, I do not believe
that there is a wholesale solution to the problem of poverty, and I know for a
fact that the best way for me to be able to help the poor is by making sure that
I am not one of them.  Equally important, I think, is not holding out the false
hope that government will ever do anything to help the poor.

[Arttworks:]
>
> . . . or I guess it's like saying I support the public funding of
> public libraries, by not actively opposing it.

That's not an accurate statement.  In my perfect world, there would be no need
for public funding of libraries because libraries would be supported by patrons
and sponsors who understood the benefits of having a literate and informed
public.  Contrary to popular belief, most people give very generously to worthy
causes, and I believe that they would give more if money for corporate welfare
and warfare was not taken directly out of their paychecks.  Of course, I don't
see politicians voluntary giving up total control over their revenue stream any
time soon, so I have proposed the institution of a budget ballot as an interim
reform measure.

[Arttworks:]
>
> Even the premise that you are not part of the problem is debatable.
> . . . By playing the game, you endorse the game. The fact that
> you may not be cheating like most others, doesn't do much to
> mitigate against the fact that you have endorsed "the biggest
> cheat" which is the game itself.

I echo this sentiment, but I take it a step further.  To wit, those who actively
oppose the system typically accomplish nothing more than prickling the defenders
of the _status quo_ into action.  Thus, paradoxically, the most vocal advocates
for change are also part of the problem.  I speak from personal and professional
experience here.

[Arttworks:]
>
> . . . I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for the
> opportunists of the SEO industry to come to the rescue.

Nor would I recommend that you do so.  All I am saying is that there are many
industry insiders who share your disdain for the commercialization of the
Internet, and these people would gladly give of their time and talents if they
thought that they could help build a more level playing field where quality
content could be more easily indexed and retrieved.  I am reminded of the
circumstances narrated in Ayn Rand's novel _Atlas Shrugged_, where John Galt
went around convincing members of the intelligentsia to go on strike rather than
let themselves continue to be exploited.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

Excessively gratuitous quotation of the long dead, is really a cheap
debate tactic. I think if we dug up the great thinkers of history, and
could reanimate them, there would be a virtual consensus among them
that you don't let travel agents sideline in map making, and I think
they would see us as great fool's for squandering the potential of the
Internet.

As to the apparent point you are trying to make "that nothing changes"
and "resistance is futile" it's just preposterous mush. During many
critical moments in history, the action of one man radically changed
the course of human destiny. History is littered with thousands of
examples where people and their principles made a difference in
defeating oppressions imposed by both nature and mankind. We have
defeated most infectious disease and live substantially more healthy,
comfortable and longer lives. We evolved from a culture that could see
justification for slavery to one that generally finds it abhorrent and
we made that transition because people were willing to say, and do,
more than merely promise not to personally own any humans.

Beyond the stunning stupidity of your "everything is futile and
therefore nothing is worth fighting for" philosophy the accusation
that some substantial portion of the "advocates for change" [John
Brown's]  are part of the problem is just plain disgusting. Certainly
there are many cases where the overly aggressive fringe does more harm
than good-- but I believe there are infinitely more cases were
aggressive action by the right person at the right time made critical
change possible.

Once again our discussion regarding improvements to the navigation
infrastructure of the Internet has crashed into the brick wall of your
zealotly rigid libertarian principles. Apparently you really believe
we should go back to the dark ages where "patrons" rather than fair
minded rational infrastructure and design, decided who lives and who
dies, and who laughs and who cries. If history proves anything it
proves people aren't by nature noble or "generous" and it is
preposterous folly to wait around for the "aristo's" to fairly and
equitably distribute some crumbs of opportunity cake. Intelligent
humans, acknowledge their corrupt nature and impose rules on
themselves that attempt to secure justice at the small price of some
marginal individual liberty. Insane libertarians delude themselves
with the preposterous theory  that you build "a more level playing
field" by killing the referees and letting last week's winner
officiate the game.

[arttworks:]
>
> Excessively gratuitous quotation of the long dead, is really a cheap
> debate tactic.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  Indeed, excessively gratuitous quotation of the long
dead is a fairly effective way of demonstrating that the problems that we are
experiencing today are substantially similar to the problems that people have
experienced throughout history, and that if we have learned anything from
history it is that we have learned nothing from history.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . I think if we dug up the great thinkers of history, and
> could reanimate them, there would be a virtual consensus among them
> that you don't let travel agents sideline in map making, and I think
> they would see us as great fool's for squandering the potential of
> the Internet.

Unlike you, I have actually dug up the great thinkers of history and read what
they have to say, and I can honestly say that there is no consensus among them. 
Indeed, any and all debates on any and all topics are simply recapitulations of
debates that have been going on for centuries, with no end in sight.

[arttworks:]
>
> As to the apparent point you are trying to make "that nothing
> changes" and "resistance is futile" it's just preposterous mush.

I wholeheartedly disagree, but (as I am wont to say) I am under no obligation to
save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so, so if you
wish to labor under the foolish assumption that your zealous efforts at
muckraking will ever bring about lasting change in human nature, I wish you the
best of luck.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . During many critical moments in history, the action of one
> man radically changed the course of human destiny.

And the actions of another man (or woman) subsequently put things right back on
course.  My point was (and is) that for every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction, that what is now, was before, and will be again.  To wit, but
for some superficial changes involving the names of the players and the costumes
that they are wearing, history repeats itself because human nature remains human
nature.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . History is littered with thousands of examples where people
> and their principles made a difference in defeating oppressions
> imposed by both nature and mankind.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  To wit, what passes for progress is
often the exact opposite, and beyond occasional blips of punctutated
equilibrium, there is little change and no real progress.  Rather, history and
events are circular in nature, even as technology continues to evolve, creating
just as many problems as it solves.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . We have defeated most infectious disease and live
> substantially more healthy, comfortable and longer lives.

That depends upon what time frame you use.  Sure, if you compare the 21st
Century to, say, the Middle Ages, I would say that in that very limited context
people are living longer and healthier lives, if you are willing to overlook the
billions of people who live in Third World Countries where hunger and disease
still decimate populations in biblical proportions.  Have you been to Africa
lately, where 815 million people suffer from chronic hunger on a daily basis and
over 26 million people have died of AIDS, one every thirteen seconds?  And this
after suffering the tortures of the damned.

And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of people who are routinely
killed off every decade or so in the latest act of genocide.  Rwanda is the one
that sticks out most in my mind from recent memory, where close to one million
civilians were killed off in a period of less than six months, far exceeding the
rate of killing effected by the Nazi Regime during the Holocaust of World War
II, but there are more recent examples of ethnic cleansing in Europe that are
just as outrageous.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . We evolved from a culture that could see justification for
> slavery to one that generally finds it abhorrent and we made that
> transition because people were willing to say, and do, more than
> merely promise not to personally own any humans.

Actually, prior to the agricultural revolution some five to ten thousand years
ago, there was no such thing as slavery, and people generally lived longer and
healthier lives than they do now in even the most technologically advanced
cultures on the planet.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . [T]he accusation that some substantial portion of
> the "advocates for change" [John Brown's] are part of the problem
> is just plain disgusting. Certainly there are many cases where the
> overly aggressive fringe does more harm than good-- but I believe
> there are infinitely more cases were aggressive action by the right
> person at the right time made critical change possible.

Then you are deluding yourself.  Without exception, every good and noble ideal
that has ever been conceived has been corrupted by human destructiveness in ways
that would make the people who originally championed those ideals roll over in
their graves.  I've had a small taste of this, both personally and
professionally, and I now realize that the system may change, but it never
really improves.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . If history proves anything it proves people aren't by nature
> noble or "generous" and it is preposterous folly to wait around for
> the "aristo's" to fairly and equitably distribute some crumbs of
> opportunity cake.

Having researched the subject quite extensively, I can say with total certainty
that you are categorically wrong.  Last year Americans donated more than $100
billion to charities, churches, foundations and other humanitarian causes.  And
after the 1986 Tax Reform Act, when the top tax rate fell from 50 percent to 28
percent, charitable giving rose by $6.4 billion, or 7.6 percent.  In other
words, given the opportunity, John and Jane Q. Public will be very charitable,
so there is no need to have government make them do the "right thing."

In sum, what is wrong with the world is that most people don't know how to mind
their own business.  Instead, they point to what other people are doing wrong in
a vain effort to justify themselves and then all but break their arms patting
themselves on the back for not being as bad as other people.  In striking
contrast, I have found that the best solution to most social problems that I
encounter is not to be found by appealing to the masses, but by listening to
what other people have to say and speaking my own mind only after carefully
researching a topic, consequently revealing my worthiness to the small handful
of resolute individuals in the world who share my values.  Indeed, this is how I
connect with most of my consulting clients.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[Paul Willer (aka XODP Editor willer2):]
>
> Sign me..
>
> OUT OF HERE
>
> Please Un-Subscribe me permanently.

That's your responsibility, Paul.  You signed yourself up, so you should be able
to figure out how to "Un-Subscribe"[sic] yourself, permanently or otherwise. 
Meanwhile, please don't forget that XODP was here for you when you were unable
to get a response from the powers that be at ODP.  (See <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2178 > and <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2179 >.)

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[net]-- I wholeheartedly disagree. Indeed, excessively gratuitous
quotation of the long dead is a fairly effective way of demonstrating
that the problems that we are experiencing today are substantially
similar to the problems that people have experienced throughout
history, and that if we have learned anything from history it is that
we have learned nothing from history.>>>

[art]-- This is just cheap empty rhetoric that probably qualifies as
mindless drivel. The fact that there are some "dilemmas" of
existence--namely the problem of crude origins and its theoretical
pointlessness-- that do transcend time and space does not mean we have
not made substantial progress or learned from history. Stupid rigid
dogma (like the mush that lies of the foundation of your philosophy
and a philosophy of the average religious nut) is generally on a
historic decline (with the exception of some lost Hitler-Reagan-Bush
decades) We are steadily rising above our nature, and if we can
survive the barrier of doomsday technology, we will perfect our
collective understanding, and make ourselves worthy of description as
"intelligent beings". We may never be able to step beyond the simple
truth that life creates more brokeness than the living can fix ....but
we certainly can realize the best of our potential rather than the
worst.

[net]-- Unlike you, I have actually dug up the great thinkers of
history and read what they have to say, and I can honestly say that
there is no consensus among them. Indeed, any and all debates on any
and all topics are simply recapitulations of debates that have been
going on for centuries, with no end in sight.>>>

[art]-- In my opinion "the end" is very much in sight and the last
chapter will apparently have the stupidity of the arrogant deists and
capitalists written all over it. Your pompous accusation that you are
"better read" regarding the historical record than I am demonstrates
your reckless disregard for the truth. To insanely argue that the
great minds of history would not reach consensus on the issue that it
is "unwise to allow location promoters to be mapmakers" demonstrates
your imbecility.... clearly and decisively!

[net]-- I wholeheartedly disagree, but (as I am wont to say) I am
under no obligation to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I
have no desire to do so.>>>

[art]-- Of your bullshitatudes this mantra demonstrates just how void
of intelligent character you are. No "intelligent" man has "no desire"
to enlighten the ignorant.... A key component of "intelligence" is
knowledge of the innate value of truth and the inherent danger of
ignorance.

[net]-- so if you wish to labor under the foolish assumption that your
zealous efforts at muckraking will ever bring about lasting change in
human nature, I wish you the best of luck.>>>

[art]-- Apparently you don't read what the living write as carefully
as you read the dead. I pretty clearly stated that human nature is to
be overcomed, not changed. The simple truth that the Internet was
constructed on the fly and that the infrastructure of  navigation
hasn't been thoughtfully or deliberately or purposefully designed to
allow the Internet to function at its greatest efficiency-- does not
require a change in human nature to understand. Given 1/100th of the
media exposure the google-jerks have received I believe I can persuade
the vast majority of the Internet public that the system is valuable
enough to spend a little effort securing its sloppily/hastily built
foundation. To the controlling geekdom elite exploiting the logically
appropriate ignorance of most end-users, I may seem to be worthy of
description as a dangerous zealot... but that's just their
self-interest and "corrupt nature" talking.

[net]-- And the actions of another man (or woman) subsequently put
things right back on course. My point was (and is) that for every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that what is now, was
before, and will be again. To wit, but for some superficial changes
involving the names of the players and the costumes that they are
wearing, history repeats itself because human nature remains human
nature.>>>

[art]-- This mush might mean something if intelligence was static...
but it's not you imbecile. What was the opposite reaction to the
emancipation of the slave? What was the opposite reaction to the
emancipation of women? What was the opposite reaction to the defeat of
Adolf Hitler? What was the opposite reaction to landing on the moon?
What was the opposite reaction to the public financing of libraries?


[net]-- Nothing could be further from the truth. To wit, what passes
for progress is often the exact opposite, and beyond occasional blips
of punctutated equilibrium, there is little change and no real
progress. Rather, history and events are circular in nature, even as
technology continues to evolve, creating just as many problems as it
solves.>>>

[art]-- 500 years from now the ecstasy brains living in beakers are
gonna laugh their neurons loose reading this crap. To save on
fund-raising expenses you should merge your "Circular Progress
Society" with the "Flat Earth Society" and maybe rename yourselves the
"Perfect Idiots Society"

[net]-- That depends upon what time frame you use. Sure, if you
compare the 21st Century to, say, the Middle Ages, I would say that in
that very limited context people are living longer and healthier
lives, if you are willing to overlook the billions of people who live
in Third World Countries where hunger and disease still decimate
populations in biblical proportions. Have you been to Africa lately,
where 815 million people suffer from chronic hunger on a daily basis
and over 26 million people have died of AIDS, one every thirteen
seconds? And this after suffering the tortures of the damned.>>>

[art]-- I make a point regarding how knowledge and intelligence has
improved and civilized our lives... and you bend comparison into
complete distortion by referencing a lost continent substantially
living in the Stone Age. Africa (generally speaking) is not evidence
of the imperfection or liability of edification and progress it just
proves that sometimes ignorance is not bliss, but in fact pretty
catastrophically dangerous. Progressive Rational thinking does not
compel people to have children they can't feed or educate-- that kind
of imbecility has been imposed by the dogma of the religious nuts and
the greedy regressive capitalists who see purpose in  keeping the
world supply of desperation high.

[net]-- And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of people who
are routinely killed off every decade or so in the latest act of
genocide. Rwanda is the on that sticks out most in my mind from recent
memory, where close to one million civilians were killed off in a
period of less than six months, far exceeding the rate of killing
effected by the Nazi Regime during the Holocaust of World War II, but
there are more recent examples of ethnic cleansing in Europe that are
just as outrageous.>>>

[art]-- None of this is a liability of progress and it is in fact the
result achieved when human beings refuse to have their "nature"
moderated by intelligence.

[net]-- Actually, prior to the agricultural revolution some five to
ten thousand yearsago, there was no such thing as slavery, ...>>>

[art]-- Why? because they hadn't invented chains yet. You are required
to possess  some restraining technology to manage a population of
slaves. An obvious point you neglected to consider was that these
"civilizations" murdered quite routinely and they did certainly
possess enough technology to manage women into bought and sold abusive
slavery.

[net]-- and people generally lived longer and healthier lives than
they do now in even the most technologically advanced cultures on the
planet.>>>

[art]-- And what skeletal record "proves" this fallacy... The Bible
does reference a lot of 800 year-olds who only managed to have a
half-dozen children but that's not really an unimpeachable record.
Maybe we should solicit the opinion of a representative sample of
professional anthropologist's and put your "generally lived longer and
healthier" unprofessional quackery to the test.

[net]-- Then you are deluding yourself. Without exception, every good
and noble ideal that has ever been conceived has been corrupted by
human destructiveness in ways that would make the people who
originally championed those ideals roll over in their graves. >>>

[art]-- I bet John Brown is resting in relative if not perfect peace.
And the ladies who earned women their emancipation are probably
feeling pretty damn proud of the New World Order they helped make
possible. Outside of the disgusting current aberration of popular
culture's idealization of the preposterously unproductive idle stupid
and unimaginative rich the last hundred years represent accomplishment
that is nothing to roll over at.

[net]-- I've had a small taste of this, both personally and
professionally, and I now realize that the system may change, but it
never really improves.>>>

[art]-- Simplistic overstretched generalizations like this-- kind of
illustrate the truth that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous
thing". My cynicism and disappointment with humanity's failures has me
quite horny for a loaded shotgun... but I remember the '60s and I
remember how close the progressives and the idealists came to saving
the world with a song and a bottle of Coke... There is no law of
nature obliging humanity to use their intelligence to scheme rather
than to dream and there's no fact of life that makes victory by the
assholes inevitable. What is for sure a fact is you can't spell
victory using the letters in surrender.

[net]-- Having researched the subject quite extensively, I can say
with total certainty that you are categorically wrong. Last year
Americans donated more than $100 billion to charities, churches,
foundations and other humanitarian causes. And after the 1986 Tax
Reform Act, when the top tax rate fell from 50 percent to 28 percent,
charitable giving rose by $6.4 billion, or 7.6 percent. In other
words, given the opportunity, John and Jane Q. Public will be very
charitable, so there is no need to have government make them do the
"right thing.">>>

[art]-- One minute you critique the abuseability of statistics, the
next minute you abuse some. Libertarian thy name is hypocrite. I think
your first obligation to fairness is to define what qualifies as
"charitable giving" -- it no doubt includes preposterously redundant
and shamelessly opulent church construction. Weeding out all the
charitable pork to "alumni" institutions and other soldiers of social
tyranny-- the truth is as I stated it-- cake crumbs for the masses
while the rich get proportionately richer and the poor-- as your
referenced-- die by the millions and live the half-life of the zombie.
The greedy rich are feathering the bed upon which will rest their
silly rolling heads.

[net]-- In sum, what is wrong with the world is that most people don't
know how to mind their own business. >>>

[art]-- As Marley said "Mankind Was Our  Business ..."

[net]-- Instead, they point to what other people are doing wrong in a
vain effort to justify themselves and then all but break their arms
patting themselves on the back for not being as bad as other
people.>>>

[art]-- There are two armies, one marching for fairness and justice,
the other marching to force conformity and submission. To paint all
fighters with the same slanderus brush might be a right of
free-speech, but it wrongs the truth.

[net]-- In striking contrast, I have found that the best solution to
most social problems that I encounter is not to be found by appealing
to the masses, but by listening to what other people have to say and
speaking my own mind only after carefully researching a topic.>>>

[art}-- I think the tea leaf soup you've been doing your research in
has a little too much "eye of newt" and not enough brain of rational.

[net]-- consequently revealing my worthiness to the small handful of
resolute individuals in the world who share my values. Indeed, this is
how I connect with most of my consulting clients.>>>

[art]-- I suddenly have a vision of a cockroach party where they are
all adorned with powdered wigs and have their six pinkies lifted....
how strangely inexplicable.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . The fact that there are some "dilemmas" of existence--namely
> the problem of crude origins and its theoretical pointlessness--
> that do transcend time and space does not mean we have not made
> substantial progress or learned from history.

What a truly incoherent jumble of thoughts.  I think what you mean by
"'dilemmas' of existence" is what Erich Fromm referred to as existential and/or
historical dichotomies.  He distinguishes between the two by indicating that
existential dichotomies involve the inescapable nature of human existence (i.e.,
e.g., death) whereas historical dichotomies refer to abominable conditions and
situations that were once considered inescapable but have since been (or can be)
resolved -- i.e., e.g., slavery.

In any event, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that we as a species
have "made substantial progress [and] learned from history," but I also realize
that no amount of evidence that I could muster would be enough to overcome your
recalcitrant denial of the truth.  To wit, technological progress has created at
least as many problems as it has solved, and when confronted with the same old
intractable problems that plague humanity, cultures througout history have
pretty much used the same old illusory solutions.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . Stupid rigid dogma (like the mush that lies of the foundation
> of your philosophy and a philosophy of the average religious nut)
> is generally on a historic decline (with the exception of some lost
> Hitler-Reagan-Bush decades)

The fact that you refer to me as someone who holds to "rigid dogma" is proof
positive that you do not know what my philosophical disposition is, much less
understand it.  On the off chance that you actually care to know what my
philosophical disposition is, I will tell you:  I am basically an existential
humanist, and I typically reject religious dogma in favor of reason and the
scientific method.

In any event, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that "rigid dogma .
. . is generally on a historic decline."  As a matter of fact, most people
embrace and extol authoritarian values, either overtly or implicitly, and a
significant number of people in the world are very eager to live under a
theocratic regime.

[arttworks:]
>
> In my opinion "the end" is very much in sight and the last
> chapter will apparently have the stupidity of the arrogant deists
> and capitalists written all over it.

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.  The "arrogant deists" wield a
significant amount of political power, as do most capitalists.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > ([A]s I am wont to say) I am under no obligation to save anyone
> > from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . No "intelligent" man has "no desire" to enlighten the
> ignorant....

I didn't say that I have "'no desire' to enlighten the ignorant."  What I said
was that I am under no obligation to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and
I have no desire to do so.  In other words, I readily acknowledge the fact that
not every lotus flower that I encounter is ready to emerge from the mud and
embrace the light.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . The simple truth that the Internet was constructed on the fly
> and that the infrastructure of navigation hasn't been thoughtfully
> or deliberately or purposefully designed to allow the Internet to
> function at its greatest efficiency-- does not require a change in
> human nature to understand.

I'll buy that.  However, I don't think that most people consider this situation
to be a particularly urgent problem.  Indeed, by virtue of the fact that you are
willing to engage in such extensive discussion with me regarding totally
irrelevant issues leads me to believe that you don't really think that the
Internet is in urgent need of an overhaul.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . What was the opposite reaction to the emancipation of the
> slave? What was the opposite reaction to the emancipation of women?
> What was the opposite reaction to the defeat of Adolf Hitler?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am not aware of any occasion relevant
to this discussion when women were in need of emancipation.  Perhaps you are
referring to the extension of women's suffrage at the federal level to all women
who were citizens of the United States and its territories.  In any event, the
abolition of slavery and the extension of suffrage to women were noteworthy,
progressive, and long overdue political reforms.  Similarly, I have no
complaints about the defeat of Adolf Hitler.  However, notwithstanding historic
reforms of democracy in the United States and the defeat of the Axis Powers in
World War II, the machinery of political oppression remains firmly in place all
over the world through to the present day.

[arttworks:]
>
> Maybe we should solicit the opinion of a representative sample of
> professional anthropologist's and put your "generally lived longer
> and healthier" unprofessional quackery to the test.

Been there; done that.  Take a look at my resume, which includes a degree in
anthropology, awarded with honors.  You will find accord with all of my mentors
and professors in archaeology and cultural anthropology.  To wit, prior to the
advent of agriculture, humanity lived as hunters and gatherers and generally
lived longer and healthier lives.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

"""" . . . The fact that there are some "dilemmas" of
existence--namely the problem of crude origins and its theoretical
pointlessness-- that do transcend time and space does not mean we have
not made substantial progress or learned from history.""""
[net]-- What a truly incoherent jumble of thoughts.

[art]-- Maybe some artfully added "to wits'" will unjumble it for you.
There are facts of life that knowledge and invention cannot change
--to wit-- the fact that we are the spawn of green slime and that we
were not invented to serve a purpose-- to wit-- we substitute natures
crude programming "me hungry--me eat.... me scared to die--me live"
for the absent of rational purpose the purposeless crude forces of
creation could not provide-- to wit-- the mere fact that we exist
foolishly becomes a justification for existence, and the mere fact
that we want becomes a foolish justification to take--to wit-- silly
humans end up living like dumb rats, chasing stale cheese, in stupid
mazes-- Fortunately to wit-- none of these liabilities of our
imperfect lineage prevent the best of the human race from stepping
outside the maze to learn from history and invent a better future.

[net]-- I think what you mean by "'dilemmas' of existence" is what
Erich Fromm referred to as existential and/or historical dichotomies.
He distinguishes between the two by indicating that existential
dichotomies involve the inescapable nature of human existence
(i.e.,e.g., death) whereas historical dichotomies refer to abominable
conditions and situations that were once considered inescapable but
have since been (or can be) resolved -- i.e., e.g., slavery.

[art]-- Well if I dicked some "hotomies" I must've been drunk because
I don't remember doing anything like that.-- I apologize to any
"hotomies" among the readership I may have inadvertently violated.

[net]-- In any event, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that
we as a species have "made substantial progress [and] learned from
history,"

[art]-- Well the "as a species" part does complicate the equation... I
mean are we as a species the best of our kind or the worst of our
kind-- are we as good as our best individual or as bad as our worst
minority population.  I suppose some portion of our disagreement
involves the semantics of defining "we as a species". I would contend
that the best of humanity has acquired through enlightenment, and upon
sober reflection upon our history, a very deep, elegant, and beautiful
soul ...I would speculate that removed from the momentum of the
cannibalistic opportunistic spam-haos (dogmas included) that we have
allowed to infect our civilizations that humanity isn't too many facts
short of reaching a kind of "intellectual actualization" where we will
know, all there is worth knowing.

[net]-- but I also realize that no amount of evidence that I could
muster would be enough to overcome your recalcitrant denial of the
truth. To wit, technological progress has created at least as many
problems as it has solved, and when confronted with the same old
intractable problems that plague humanity, cultures througout history
have pretty much used the same old illusory solutions.

[art]-- One of the first lessons of history is that knowledge and
invention does not evolve at some consistent rate. Although you
dispute the fact that progress is linear-- the fact is it is. And that
linear nature means it is foolish to assume that because something has
always been that it will always be-- we went from the invention of the
light bulb to putting a man on the moon in an incredibly short period
of time. The scientific knowledge gleaned in the last 200 years has a
thousand times the density of everything learned in the previous 100
centuries. The fact that humanity (generally) is having some trouble
gripping and comprehending all that we now know--is dangerous,
wastefull and frustrating-- but it does not mean that comprehension
will not come, and that we won't untract what is only seemingly
intractable.

[net]-- The fact that you refer to me as someone who holds to "rigid
dogma" is proof positive that you do not know what my philosophical
disposition is, much less less understand it. On the off chance that
you actually care to know what my philosophical disposition is, I will
tell you: I am basically an existential humanist, and I typically
reject religious dogma in favor of reason and the scientific method.

[art]-- No one who respects the scientific method would imply that it
is only a source of circular useless futile knowledge and progress
.... that is the perception of the hear, speak and see no scientific
truth "rigid" religious zealot.

[net]-- In any event, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion
that "rigid dogma . . is generally on a historic decline." As a matter
of fact, most people embrace and extol authoritarian values, either
overtly or implicitly, and a significant number of people in the world
are very eager to live under a theocratic regime.

[art]-- I would argue that the depth of this faith has become quite
shallow. People patronize their fear but most aren't patronizing any
"real" God. Accept for a few lunatics willing to fly airplanes into
buildings there isn't much evidence that the average religious jerk
has any real confidence in their God theory and they seem quite
willing to subvert the dogma of their faith whenever it suits their
convenience. Of course oppressing others with their crap, doesn't cost
them anything, so they certainly are still willing to invest in good
old oppression of the other guys liberty. Put simply, my point is,
scientific enlightenment has substantially weakened the real hold
religious babble has on the mind of man and there is great potential
for a mass awakening from first century retardation.

""""In my opinion "the end" is very much in sight and the last chapter
will apparently have the stupidity of the arrogant deists and
capitalists written all over it."""""
[net]-- Well, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The "arrogant
deists" wield a significant amount of political power, as do most
capitalists.

[art]-- What??? I guess you misunderstood my point -- which was--
stupid capitalists and stupid religious nuts are going to get us all
killed in their stupid mindless moronick wars... last chapter, The End.

[net]-- I didn't say that I have "'no desire' to enlighten the
ignorant." What I said was that I am under no obligation to save
anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so. In
other words, I readily acknowledge the fact that not every lotus
flower that I encounter is ready to emerge from the mud and embrace
the light.

[art]-- Ahhhh I see you are familiar with the old lotus flower in the
mud ploy... Kato warm-up the SilverHornet I think the man has gone
very now-now.

[net]-- I'll buy that. However, I don't think that most people
consider this situation to be a particularly urgent problem.

[art]-- I read a recent survey that indicated that 65% of Internet
users don't know what a Blog is. I suppose if people knew that there
was a problem I wouldn't be having such a hard time trying to sell a
solution. You keep regurgitating this notion of "the public's" opinion
as if it had some relevant meaning-- do you really think
whistle-blowers and advocates should sit around waiting for the public
to understand BEFORE they start explaining and advocating?

[net]-- Indeed, by virtue of the fact that you are willing to engage
in such extensive discussion with me regarding totally irrelevant
issues leads me to believe that you don't really think that the
Internet is in urgent need of an overhaul.

[art]-- So you reference me by my actual name (An id I don't use on
message boards) and post a pretty damning critique of my character and
I'm guilty of some kind of insincerity because I simply decide to
defend myself? that's a charming little Catch-22.

[net]-- Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am not aware of any
occasion relevant to this discussion when women were in need of
emancipation. Perhaps you are referring to the extension of women's
suffrage at the federal level to all women who were citizens of the
United States and its territories.

[art]-- More word games-- or is it your theory that women weren't
virtual slaves for the raping and pillaging for the substance of all
human history. I'm referring to the right of women to say no, the
right of women to own property, the right of women to control their
reproductive organs, the right of women to be all they can be and to
be paid equally for it and yes the right of women to vote and share
equally in the rights and responsibilities of full complete citizenship.

[net]-- In any event, the abolition of slavery and the extension of
suffrage to women were noteworthy, progressive, and long overdue
political reforms. Similarly, I have no complaints about the defeat of
Adolf Hitler. However, notwithstanding historic reforms of democracy
in the United States and the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War
II, the machinery of political oppression remains firmly in place all
over the world through to the present day.

[art]-- but The fact that there are still practical facsimiles of
prehistoric civilizations on earth, does not negate the reality of
progress in the rest of the world.

[net]-- Been there; done that. Take a look at my resume, which
includes a degree in anthropology, awarded with honors. You will find
accord with all of my mentors and professors in archaeology and
cultural anthropology. To wit, prior to the advent of agriculture,
humanity lived as hunters and gatherers and generally lived longer and
healthier lives.

[art]-- Well your degree should be written on toilet paper as it is
apparent that's all that it's worth as proof of knowledge acquired. If
you're willing to match a $10,000 wager lets find ourselves and
agreeable authority and let's put your pompous ludicrous overstatement
to the test. I have about 600 National Geographics in my living room
maybe you can find a wikopedia cross reference to a volume and page
number of some published anthropological idiot who provides some
actual evidence that any pre 20th century human or near human hominid
had an average life span of 75 frigging years.

[arttworks:]
>
> There are facts of life that knowledge and invention cannot change
> . . . the fact that we are the spawn of green slime and that we
> were not invented to serve a purpose . . . .

As I suspected, your incoherent thoughts were making a not-so-artful reference
to what existential humanists refer to as the dichotomies of human existence. 
(BTW, dichotomy is pronounced "DIE"-"COT"-"OH"-"ME".)

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . [N]one of these liabilities of our imperfect lineage prevent
> the best of the human race from stepping outside the maze to learn
> from history and invent a better future.

Sounds like a recapitulation of the ideals espoused by Friedrich Nietzsche.  But
I stand behind my original supposition:  The primary source of all the world's
problems is that people do not know how to mind their own business.  Instead,
they go around trying to fix other people's problems, and said other people go
around trying to "fix them," so to speak.  I'm sure you know the type:  Rather
than use their own time and resources to feed the hungry and/or build a better
mousetrap, they lobby congress to tax the rich, feed the poor, subsidize their
pet projects, and wage war against Third World countries, all for the betterment
of society as a whole.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . [A]re we as a species the best of our kind or the worst of our
> kind-- are we as good as our best individual or as bad as our worst
> minority population. . . . I would contend that the best of
> humanity has acquired through enlightenment, and upon sober
> reflection upon our history, a very deep, elegant, and beautiful
> soul ...

I echo this sentiment.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . The scientific knowledge gleaned in the last 200 years has a
> thousand times the density of everything learned in the previous 100
> centuries.

I don't dispute this; what I dispute is the assertion that an increase in
scientific knowledge is synonymous with progress.  Indeed, over the last 200
years, most scientific knowledge has been used to increase the efficiency with
which war can be waged, resulting in no less than two world wars and the ongoing
spectre of weapons of mass destruction.  Is that really progress?

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV
will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . I read a recent survey that indicated that 65% of Internet
> users don't know what a Blog is.

I can do you one better:  I was at the Search Engine Strategies Conference and
Expo in Chicago last month, and I encountered people manning the booths at
Google who did not get the joke when I told them that I was having trouble
finding information about "French military victories" on Google.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . [D]o you really think whistle-blowers and advocates should
> sit around waiting for the public to understand BEFORE they start
> explaining and advocating?

Actually, I don't think that whistle-blowers and advocates need to explain
anything.  Rather, if someone thinks they know of a better way to index the
Internet, then they should just get on with it.  However, my experience with
large scale databases is that they are nowhere near as easy to manage as some
people seem to think, and people who do have good ideas such as your WHATIS
proposal typically alienate everyone who might be interested in helping them get
it off the ground.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[net]-- (BTW, dichotomy is pronounced "DIE"-"COT"-"OH"-"ME".)

[art]-- I was apprehensive about making the dickotomy JOKE as I
anticipated my history of semi-illiteracy would invite this reply... I
made the joke in part because it is one of those stupid English words
that really could use a little redesigning... I mean dYchotomy would
from my perspective make a lot more sense.

[net]-- As I suspected, your incoherent thoughts were making a
not-so-artful reference to what existential humanists refer to as the
dichotomies of human existence.

[art]-- In part, I made the above referenced joke, because I have no
interest in discussing or debating distinctions and classifications
made by existential humanists. My point is relatively simple--to wit--
there's no physical natural law stopping us from rising above our
crude origins.... and the point really doesn't require any
dichotomizing.

[net]-- Sounds like a recapitulation of the ideals espoused by
Friedrich Nietzsche.

[art]-- Whatever... Apparently you see some productive purpose in
using some "notables of history" algorithm to sift and pigeonhole
every thought articulated. I personally find it offensive and
irritating and think it is a pretty unproductive and cheap debate
tactic... theoretically using this device you could associate anyone
who says the sun rises in the east with Adolf Hitler because Adolf
Hitler once said so.

[net]-- But I stand behind my original supposition: The primary source
of all the world's problems is that people do not know how to mind
their own business.

[art]-- If we analogize "people" as "players in the game" it is
perfectly sensible that the players would have an interest, and say,
in what the rules of the game will be. You have some crude power
theory where, money makes might, might makes right, and therefore we
should all be slaves to some Hillton slut. I argue that this rule has
not been written on any stone by any God and that We The People have a
right to negotiate for more rational rules. I would suggest that we
apply the "scientific method" and attempt to develop social rules that
inspire greatness and secure fairness as best we can understand it --
the fact that some religious nuts are lobbying to have the rules
defined using a Ouija board isn't a  liability of democracy I have a
responsibility to defend to be spared the indignity of being broad
brushed as one of them.

[net]-- Instead, they go around trying to fix other people's problems,
and said other people go around trying to "fix them," so to speak. I'm
sure you know the type: Rather than use their own time and resources
to feed the hungry and/or build a better mousetrap, they lobby
congress to tax the rich, feed the poor, subsidize their pet projects,
and wage war against Third World countries, all for the betterment of
society as a whole.

[art]-- More useless broad brushing! The extremes of let's say-- seed
money for the Peace Corps ( uncorrupted by CIA infiltration) and
Halliburton War Pork really can't be rationally thrown in the same
bucket. Your rigid dogma is certainly showing when you spout this
silly "all government is bad" simplistic tripe. This debate originated
with my claim that Internet Infrastructure/System design needs
attention and reinforcing-- because it is in fact flawed by sloppiness
in design. It is a fact that similar flaws in infrastructure System
Design / PlayingFieldRules exist in other areas of life. I argue that
we should apply our best judgment and our sincerest motivation to
fixing all the imbecilic waste-- you argue that the chaos of
"survivalist" cannibalism creates efficient design. I don't think you
have to sit long in New York City traffic looking at ugly dirty city
streets to know who's talking out of what orifice.

[net]-- I don't dispute this; what I dispute is the assertion that an
increase in scientific knowledge is synonymous with progress. Indeed,
over the last 200 years, most scientific knowledge has been used to
increase the efficiency with which war can be waged, resulting in no
less than two world wars and the ongoing spectre of weapons of mass
destruction. Is that really progress?

[art]-- This is like saying that because a lot of people don't read
the instructions-- and in turn can't get their DVD player to work--
that DVD players suck. Intellectual and technical progress provides
opportunity, it's not its fault we have chosen to answer the wrong
door. As stated before I don't think there's any natural physical law
requiring us to be assholes and it is my greatest frustration that I
think we are just a few changed perceptions away from sparing
ourselves the indignity.

[net]-- "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought,
but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert
Einstein

[art]-- I do love Einstein quotes --but as implied previously, ideas
--not authorities-- should dictate the evolution of a debate.

[net]-- I can do you one better: I was at the Search Engine Strategies
Conference and Expo in Chicago last month, and I encountered people
manning the booths at Google who did not get the joke when I told them
that I was having trouble finding information about "French military
victories" on Google.

[art]-- The fact that Professional Googletts apparently don't Google,
Google, is pretty scary.

[net]-- Actually, I don't think that whistle-blowers and advocates
need to explain anything.

[art]-- ... and now for something preposterously silly.

[net]-- Rather, if someone thinks they know of a better way to index
the Internet, then they should just get on with it.

[art]-- You jerks keep barfing up this cheap rhetorical nonsense and
just keep ignoring the "rational evidence" that no fair minded person
could possibly slip on this stuff... I mean you can smell it a mile
away. For example I know of a better way to organize our democracy--
consistent with your BS rhetoric--is it your ludicrous suggestion that
I should forgo seeking public support, and public participation, and
just build a new democracy in my garage? We have probably been over
this a dozen times. I have made the clear concise comparison of my
idea, to publicly financed libraries and YOU made the analogy to
museums.  These aren't things built in basements, garages or dorm
rooms with venture capital-- these are things built by "the people"
inspired by the common sense wisdom to know their is value in such
infrastructure investment.

[net]-- However, my experience with large scale databases is that they
are nowhere near as easy to manage as some people seem to think, and
people who do have good ideas such as your WHATIS proposal
typically....

[art]-- ...have to incessantly fight inch by inch through layers of bs
established by the entrenched, lazy,  unimaginative, exploitivily
self-interested keepers of the sloppily organized status quo.

[net]-- ...alienate everyone who might be interested in helping them
get it off the ground.

[art]-- All this idea needs is the wind of popular exposure to get off
the ground. I don't have any copyright restrictions on the basic
idea-- if somebody is interested in helping-- they don't have to
suffer my alienating quirks of personality ...all they have to do is
grab the string and start running. I'm not stopping anyone from
"flying it" their way...... but that brings us back to the other
tediously debated truth, there are no idealists trying to fly any
better-world kites, so your alienation point is moot.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . [T]here's no physical natural law stopping us from rising
> above our crude origins....

I'll concede this point.  To wit, there's nothing stopping us -- as individuals
-- from rising above our crude origins.  However, whenever a good idea becomes
too popular, it is inevitably corrupted and diluted by the masses to the point
where its original proponents would not recognize it, much less claim it as
their own.  Indeed, some would say that the Internet is a prime example of a
good idea gone bad -- i.e, it has become much too commercialized.  I wouldn't go
that far, but I would say that the Internet has a tremendous potential for good
that remains more or less unrealized because commercial speech is drowning out
other worthwhile voices.

[arttworks:]
>
> [art]-- If we analogize "people" as "players in the game" it is
> perfectly sensible that the players would have an interest, and say,
> in what the rules of the game will be.

It is also perfectly sensible that some players might not want to play the game
at all.  Indeed, until very recently, America's wealthiest citizens were
renouncing their U.S. citizenship and moving to other countries where they were
not subject to the same tax burden.  Congress has now eliminated that option by
forcing wealthy expatriates to continue paying income taxes whether or not they
remain U.S. citizens.

[arttworks:]
>
> You have some crude power theory where, money makes might, might
> makes right, and therefore we should all be slaves to some Hillton
> slut.

I think you're confusing me with Ayn Rand.  I do not for one second believe that
the amount of money someone has or doesn't have is a meaningful measure of their
virtue.  Rather, I think that quite a few people are unjustly rewarded with ill
gotten gains.  Even so, I don't think this entitles or obligates me or anyone
else to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

[arttworks:]
>
> I argue that this rule has not been written on any stone by any God
> and that We The People have a right to negotiate for more rational
> rules.

And I would argue that We The People need to mind our own business and stop
worrying about whether someone else has too much money.  Notwithstanding the
fact that many wealthy people have been rewarded with ill gotten gains and use
the machinery of government to keep would-be entrepreneurs in check, there is
still plenty of economic opportunity in the world, and if We The People spent
half as much time and energy generating our own wealth as we do trying to take
someone else's wealth, the world would be a much happier place.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . The extremes of let's say-- seed money for the Peace Corps
> ( uncorrupted by CIA infiltration) and Halliburton War Pork really
> can't be rationally thrown in the same bucket.

Yes, they can, and I will continue to throw them into the same bucket until
every citizen of the United States is given the right to vote their share of tax
revenue to the things that they think really matter -- like roller derby, golf
courses, and public libraries.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . Your rigid dogma is certainly showing when you spout this
> silly "all government is bad" simplistic tripe.

I don't believe that "all government is bad," but I do think that people who
turn to the omnipotent cult of the state when seeking progressive social change
are clearly barking up the wrong tree.  Truth be told, I believe that government
can provide a useful framework for organizing opposition to would-be despots and
tyrants.  However, no matter how many "democratic safeguards" are put into
place, government is frequently captured by would-be despots and tyrants.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . . [Y]ou argue that the chaos of "survivalist" cannibalism
> creates efficient design.

Yet another straw man argument.  I have never argued anything even remotely
similar to this bizarre and incoherent assertion.  What I have said (and
continue to say) is that there is plenty of room for improvement in the way that
the Internet is indexed, and if someone thinks that he or she knows of a better
way to index the Internet, they should go ahead and do it.

[arttworks:]
>
> You jerks keep barfing up this cheap rhetorical nonsense and just
> keep ignoring the "rational evidence" that no fair minded person
> could possibly slip on this stuff... I mean you can smell it a mile
> away. For example I know of a better way to organize our democracy--
> consistent with your BS rhetoric--is it your ludicrous suggestion
> that I should forgo seeking public support, and public
> participation, and just build a new democracy in my garage?

Interesting analogy.  As I'm sure you've heard me say on more than one occasion,
I believe that a budget ballot is a long overdue democratic reform.  To that
end, I wrote a paper on the topic for a law school class that I took covering
elections and political campaigns, and I have shared my research with a number
of people who I thought might be sympathetic to my views.  On one occasion, the
idea was actually carried out by a quasi-political body representing some four
or five hundred constituents, and the results were very promising.  Perhaps some
day when I have the time, I will seek private grant money to carry out more
research with other small quasi-political bodies, as I already have what funding
sources refer to as "proof of concept."

[arttworks:]
>
> All [WHATIS] needs is the wind of popular exposure to get off
> the ground. I don't have any copyright restrictions on the basic
> idea-- if somebody is interested in helping-- they don't have to
> suffer my alienating quirks of personality ...all they have to do is
> grab the string and start running. I'm not stopping anyone from
> "flying it" their way...... but that brings us back to the other
> tediously debated truth, there are no idealists trying to fly any
> better-world kites, so your alienation point is moot.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  By virtue of my high profile presence as an
outspoken critic of ODP, I have been approached by quite a few people who are
enormously wealthy and yet extremely idealistic.  Even so, I don't think WHATIS
needs funding as much as it just needs to be done.  In other words, what exactly
is stopping you from setting up a WHATIS database of your own?

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[reckless exaggerater]-- I'll concede this point. To wit, there's
nothing stopping us -- as individuals-- from rising above our crude
origins. However, whenever a good idea becomes too popular, it is
inevitably corrupted and diluted by the masses to the point where its
original proponents would not recognize it, much less claim it as
their own.

[art]-- Do I really have to compile some stupid list of all the "good
ideas" in human history that have not been "inevitably corrupted"?
how about we just stick with the acutely relevant examples like FREE
PUBLIC LIBRARIES  certainly no abundant or inevitable corruption
there-- although I think they are a bit archaic and we should
modernize the investment into something more practical in the 21st
century like a WAHTIS database. Another kind of clean example of good
government would be the "do not call" list --not exactly festering
with corruption. etc.

[forked tongue]-- Indeed, some would say that the Internet is a prime
example of a good idea gone bad -- i.e, it has become much too
commercialized. I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that the
Internet has a tremendous potential for good that remains more or less
unrealized because commercial speech is drowning out other worthwhile
voices.

[art]-- What "some" is saying the "good idea gone bad" stuff ? --I
could use some good leads.

[only the peasants] It is also perfectly sensible that some players
might not want to play the game at all.

[art]-- Well if we all had the right to say, I don't wanna play by the
rules anymore, the average president would have a life span of about
10 minutes and we all would have dioxin leaching out of our eyes.

[skuzy cheaters]--  Indeed, until very recently, America's wealthiest
citizens were renouncing their U.S. citizenship and moving to other
countries where they were not subject to the same tax burden.

[art]-- A reconstitution of the Salem Rich Trials would be appropriate
justice for these turds.

[net]-- Congress has now eliminated that option by forcing wealthy
expatriates to continue paying income taxes whether or not they remain
U.S. citizens.

[art]-- You play here, you pay here....Period

[Uyn Nutjob] I think you're confusing me with Ayn Rand.

[art]-- well all you aristo-tics look-alike to me...kind of like
cockroaches.

[irrelevanttor]-- I do not for one second believe that the amount of
money someone has or doesn't have is a meaningful measure of their
virtue.

[art]-- I don't remember "virtue" having anything to do with anything
being discussed. The point isn't whether the obscenely wealthy are
virtuous (which I would claim, by the way, is impossible-- the old eye
of the needle, going to hell thing) the point is, money is power and
it should be distributed proportionately based on a rational
definition of "earned" or deserved.

[right to gluttonie-er]--  Rather, I think that quite a few people are
unjustly rewarded with ill gotten gains. Even so, I don't think this
entitles or obligates me or anyone else to steal from the rich and
give to the poor.

[art]-- Right...  progressive taxation (and the taxation of completely
unproductive unearned inheritance) is "stealing", and abortion is
"murder". Dogma of the dimwitted.

[Scroogesq]--  And I would argue that We The People need to mind our
own business and stop worrying about whether someone else has too much
money.

[art]-- repeat after me A..B..C..D... money is POWER... money is
OWNERSHIP (of resources and people)... money is CONTROLL!!!

[wrong again]-- Notwithstanding the fact that many wealthy people have
been rewarded with ill gotten gains and use the machinery of
government to keep would-be entrepreneurs in check, there is still
plenty of economic opportunity in the world.

[art]-- No, what there is plenty of is exploitable desperation. And
unless you're willing to be a disgusting exploitalist you have no
competitive hope of securing a seat in any ivory tower.

[wrong somemore]-- and if We The People spent half as much time and
energy generating our own wealth as we do trying to take someone
else's wealth, the world would be a much happier place.

[art]--No it would be France before the revolution... 3% haves, 97%
have nots.

[a fool and his bucket]--  Yes, they can, and I will continue to throw
them into the same bucket ...

[art]-- What caused your retardation?... you get hit in the head with
a golf ball at the public library when you were a kid?

[bucket for brains]--...until every citizen of the United States is
given the right to vote their share of tax revenue to the things that
they think really matter -- like roller derby, golf courses, and
public libraries.

[art]-- So instead of money just meaning control, you would like it to
mean utterly complete control...

[horrorculturalist] I don't believe that "all government is bad," but
I do think that people who turn to the omnipotent cult of the state
when seeking progressive social change are clearly barking up the
wrong tree.

[art]-- Right, they should just Bark to the wind and wait for Santa
Claus to come reengineer the social order.

[Confusius]--  Truth be told, I believe that government can provide a
useful framework for organizing opposition to would-be despots and
tyrants.

[art]-- I think that theory lost credibility when Bill Gates slipped
past the long arm of the law. The election of GWB finished it off with
about 500 billion coffin nails.

[Tyrant for chaos]-- However, no matter how many "democratic
safeguards" are put into place, government is frequently captured by
would-be despots and tyrants.

[art]-- Sure... Anarchy were the rich own everything including all the
guns, bullets, and pitchforks would make a lot more sense.

""". . . . [Y]ou argue that the chaos of "survivalist" cannibalism
creates efficient design."""
[deaf and dumb]-- Yet another straw man argument. I have never argued
anything even remotely similar to this bizarre and incoherent
assertion. What I have said (and continue to say) is that there is
plenty of room for improvement in the way that the Internet is
indexed, and if someone thinks that he or she knows of a better way to
index the Internet, they should go ahead and do it.

[art]-- it will have to wait until after I build my own satellite
launch facilities and my own Inter-State railway system. Oh yes and my
own PUBLICLY FINANCED LIBRARY Network. Can't you get the simple point
that some elements of infrastructure cannot be practically challenged
by any capitalizable for-profit alternative-- similarly you don't
attempt to rebuild an entire car because the one you have has four
flat tires --you just make the needed repairs and move on to the next
life challenge.... you imbecile!

[redundo the narcissist]-- Interesting analogy. As I'm sure you've
heard me say on more than one occasion, I believe that a budget ballot
is a long overdue democratic reform. To that  end, I wrote a paper on
the topic for a law school class that I took covering elections and
political campaigns, and I have shared my research with a number of
people who I thought might be sympathetic to my views. On one
occasion, the idea was actually carried out by a quasi-political body
representing some four or five hundred constituents, and the results
were very promising. Perhaps some day when I have the time, I will
seek private grant money to carry out more research with other small
quasi-political bodies, as I already have what funding sources refer
to as "proof of concept."

[art]-- is the "proof of concept" for the "whois" database archived
somewhere? I will just glue on a couple of sequins and than you can
move on to the next inevitable hoop jumping suggestion.

[cockroach's of a fether]--  I wholeheartedly disagree. By virtue of
my high profile presence as an outspoken critic of ODP, I have been
approached by quite a few people who are enormously wealthy and yet
extremely idealistic.

[art]-- No "idealist" can possibly be sustainably described as
"enormously wealthy". Idealism demands a passion for efficiency --a
rich idealist would by logical necessity demand that their money do
the most possible good-- The first step a temporarily rich idealist
would take would be to convert their wealth into a foundation to
prevent the taxation of the do-gooder power as if it were personal
"profit". Even if an idealist could miss this first logical step
there's no way they could logically avoid the simple "idealist" truth
that no individual possesses sufficient "superiority" of contribution
or need to deserve ENORMOUS personal wealth and they would be
compelled to release the power of that wealth reservoir to do good in
the world.

[DoYouOwn YourOwn]-- Even so, I don't think WHATIS needs funding as
much as it just needs to be done. In other words, what exactly is
stopping you from setting up a WHATIS database of your own?

[art]-- To do it right... a few million dollars and the popularization
[media exposure] of government sanction. To do it uselessly and
futilely wrong... a spool of thread, a crackerjack box and a November
1974 issue of Penthouse magazine. .....I suppose the most economical
approach would probably be to just released the servers currently
hosting the whois database to the "whatis authority" and provide
enough resources to engineer some new software and staff to solicit,
index, and validate the whatis meta-data.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . Do I really have to compile some stupid list of all the "good
> ideas" in human history that have not been "inevitably corrupted"?

I'm really not sure who's more to blame here for letting this discussion get so
far afield from anything even remotely akin to how the Internet should be
indexed, but there comes a point when someone just has to say enough is enough
and stop bear baiting.  Besides, as I am wont to say, I am under no obligation
to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . . FREE PUBLIC LIBRARIES . . . are a bit archaic and we should
> modernize the investment into something more practical in the 21st
> century like a WAHTIS database.

As I have stated before, if a budget ballot were instituted, then you might be
able to get the additional funding for public libraries that you think is so
essential to the implementation of your WHATIS database.  Until that time, you
are and will remain a voice in the wilderness.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . until every citizen of the United States is given the right
> > to vote their share of tax revenue to the things that they think
> > really matter -- like roller derby, golf courses, and public
> > libraries.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . So instead of money just meaning control, you would like it to
> mean utterly complete control...

What a total _non sequitur_!  You're the one who's crying about the need for
additional funding for public libraries and/or the implementation of your WHATIS
proposal.  A budget ballot would give you the opportunity to allocate your share
of the per capita tax revenue to whatever programs you considered worthwhile.

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . some elements of infrastructure cannot be practically
> challenged by any capitalizable for-profit alternative--

Once again, a total _non sequitur_.  Assuming, _arguendo_, that an
infrastructure needs improving, you still have to convince the people who hold
the public purse strings that your idea for improving it is worth funding. 
That's how railroads first got built across America; that's how public highways
first got built across America; and that's how the Internet got built across
America and the world.  So, if you want government funding for your WHATIS
proposal, you should be writing your congressional representatives rather than
exchanging red herrings with me.

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . [W]hat exactly is stopping you from setting up a WHATIS
> > database of your own?

[arttworks:]
>
> To do it right... a few million dollars and the popularization
> [media exposure] of government sanction.

Well, I wouldn't hold your breath on either score.  Why not just start with a PC
and MySQL?  Or perhaps circulate a petition seeking a bond issue to cover the
cost of your investment in the Internet infrastructure?

[arttworks:]
>
> . . . I suppose the most economical approach would probably be to
> just released the servers currently hosting the whois database to
> the "whatis authority" and provide enough resources to engineer
> some new software and staff to solicit, index, and validate the
> whatis meta-data.

Once again, I wouldn't hold your breath, but maybe if you hold a can of Coca
Cola in your hand, sing Kumbaya, and reminisce about the '60s, you will have
better luck with your congressional representatives than you have had in any
online discussion forum.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq