Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments LOL !!!!!!!!!!! » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 9:39 am Come on you guys, wake up… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCGW58DTE4 I did it!!! I got the video embedded. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 8:31 am ot: I don’t usually do this, but if any of you get a chance, take a peek at the New Main at hp. They have an image of Geithner on it that…he looks like ‘The Picture Of Dorian Gray’. I guess it’s his turn now to have hp post the most unflattering images of him they can find… Just awful. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 7:57 am Hello. I must have missed you somehow. I’m abby, and I myself have only been here a fortnight so don’t ask me anything important. A really warm welcome to you, Jan. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 12:38 am Escri: 55.5 minutes, it says, from your link. Now, here is the stat Ad Lib gave us for how long, on average, visitors are staying on PlanetPov,compared with other sites; it is found in her ‘ » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 11:40 pm Thanks…and if you ever get to the bottom of it, please get back to me, because I myself am a little baffled by this piece. What I was chiefly after is Huffpo’s current standing among internet newspapers. Rankings; here, readership. I had it about a month ago and have misplaced it. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 11:23 pm Maybe the Guardian considers AP to be a competitor with the Times. If, as you say, “HP is a news aggregation site that, for the most part, reprints material from AP,” then it might as well be AP, pretty much. If it’s a mirror of AP and AP is competitor with the Times, it would fall out that the Guardian is, virtually, competitor with the Times. Ipso facto! I very much doubt if that is the Guardian’s reasoning, but you never know… Maybe something deep in the article itself explains what they mean, I am looking but I can’t find much… I am just horsing around. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 11:17 pm From the Guardian, April 6 2009: “The HuffPo’s rise has been impressive. Less than four years old and with fewer than 60 staff (including seven news reporters), it is now a competitor to the New York Times, 158 years old and with more than 1,000 journalists. According to the ratings website Comscore, in February the HuffPo drew more than a third of the Times’s traffic: 7.3 million unique users to 18.4 million.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/06/huffington-post-us-newspaper-industry How accurate are these numbers, does anyone know? » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 10:57 pm I was there tonight, was nearly run down by a herd of trolls. Lots of friends still there, though, and worth the stampede. Even though most of the articles have become almost a joke, in the sense that they are so hand-picked to diss the President, there are still posters there who make thought-provoking, sometimes brilliant, comments. They push on, through all the Ari hype and spin and arbitrarily-chosen topics, etc., as if none of that were even there. They are real soldiers. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 9:42 pm You should not have to have pneumonia shots but only a pneumonia shot. A one time thing. Over here we had one that protected you for ten years, but there’s a new one that protects you for life. You get the injection once and never again. Don’t you have it over there too? » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 8:59 pm Escri: This is really interesting, I had no idea. You’d be surprised who reads Huffington. As you inform us, some scientists do. And so do some politicians, some pretty high up, I should think. I wonder if Ari knows. LOL !!! » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 6:44 pm I will second that. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 12:21 am It’s my friend what’sthatsound! Yours is the most perfect reply to a post I’ve ever seen, and I mean that, what’s. Granted, one has to have the background to fully appreciate it… LOL !!!!!!!!!!! Get ready, because this one is philosophical. And logically perfect. Even if you take a hammer to it (or a brick) you will never break it. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 12:19 am Well, I’ve got to go feed the birds now, hoover the carpet, and then do some more work on my argument in defence of nuclear weapons. The one that shows that not only is it not morally wrong to have nukes, it is morally wrong not to have them. “Omg,” says Nellie, clutching her head. LOL !!! » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 12:02 am KQ: You have hit the nail on the head. I get so angry when I see the kind of coverage terrorists get in the media. They thrive on it, it is their oxygen. SKY, and to some extent even the BBC, does specials about bomb-making factories in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan, it interviews the leaders as if they were honorable, democratically-elected politicians. They may have just come from blowing our troops to bits; Sky doesn’t care: they want the story. But there is no story other than watching a bunch of radicals make bombs packed with nails and showing Sky how they do that. As if they were showing SKY how they do something that is quite innocent: like weave a rug or plant corn. I get so mad I could spit. Why do we give them a platform? WHY??? » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 10:09 pm It depends on what kind of terrorism, perhaps. On whether it’s the kind that just kills…or does what they call ‘spectaculars’ (big powerful attacks as happened on 9-11)…or if it’s the kind that both kills and tries to take over a country…and succeeds. One day one of these groups will do that and they will have their ‘Islamic State’. As they say the Taliban wants, in Afghanistan. In that case, you not only get as many or more dead people as you do because of poor health care, but you get the ones that are left alive, millions more, so bending the knee to some zealot dictator that they might as well be dead anyway. The second one seems the bigger problem when it comes to prevention. With the first, you need prevent only deaths; but with the second, you must prevent (the) death of a country . The death of its freedom and democracy as it goes under to the iron-fisted dictates of the Taliban or some other equally repressive group. That is how I’d explain it being the bigger problem, anyway. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 9:30 pm It’s spreading like a disease, almost a pandemic. I mean terrorism. It’s here, it’s there, it’s in Afghanistan, it’s in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, you can picture in your mind one of those images of the planet Earth, and more and more parts colored in. It’s eerie. Eerie and, in my view, unstoppable. At least for the immediate future. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 8:54 pm When you don’t understand why, just say ‘Oil’ . » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 7:48 pm Me too. That’s what makes the question so hard to answer…because you still have to say, in five seconds and DESPITE the similarities, which world would be the worst. I like asking Khirad hard questions. :] » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 7:37 pm I agree. I meant he was right about there being a problem there. I should have made that clear. As for his ideas about solutions, well… God help us! Which would be the worst of these two possible worlds, do you think: Lieberman dictating our Yemen policy, or Cheney? You have five seconds… LOL !!! » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 7:29 pm It’s odd. I recall a story at hp just after that failed terror incident, about Lieberman going on and on, on a talk show, about how Yemen was a problem. I recall how much heat he took for that and not just at hp. But I guess he was right. (He’d know, chairing the committee that he chairs…would he not?) » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 7:19 pm 100 years of a national park done right Pepe: I read this article of yours last night and left a comment and now I’ve just read it again. You know, you could write text for those books they publish about big natural sites like these (or even small natural sites). I read it again just for the joy of doing so, it really is a lovely thing to read. Thanks again. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 6:07 am What a lovely post, Pepe. Packed solid with information and the countryside so lovingly described… Thank you. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 5:17 pm Guns, Knives, Hammers and Bricks* Where has everyone gone? I just got back and it’s like a ghost town in here…yep, I just saw a tumbleweed roll by. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 3:22 am The one just above, Nellie. This one (I will change the ‘for’ to ‘against’): Are you saying that every argument every person has against gun control, is about money? That every person embracing the argument against gun control is motivated to embrace that argument, by money? » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 11:04 pm You certainly did. It was the ones against gun control. My bad. Now that that is corrected, you can answer the question. Because the question is the same. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 10:39 pm Your post, part of it, seems a little ambiguous. Are you saying that every argument every person who is for gun control, has, is about money? That every person embracing those arguments is motivated by money? Hard to know but if you are saying anything like that, I can’t agree. Usually you don’t generalize like that… or at all. Just want to be sure I understand what you’re saying. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 10:25 pm Thanks for the kind words, Chernyn. Especially considering that I left out two or three things that would really have helped prevent confusion around here. I put them in comments (in replies to replies) later on but by then it was too late. I don’t have a gun but my husband does; and I know how to shoot because my Dad taught me. I hate guns, I hate the way they feel in my hand, hard and cold and heavy… I mean pistols. A 22 rifle I don’t mind. I don’t have kids yet but plan to, and when I do I want something in the house I can protect them with if anyone ever bursts in and threatens them with harm. Of course, given my article, I could always use a brick I guess… » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 8:28 pm Quick off-topic: Ad Lib, you have mail. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 9:02 am Ad Lib: I am not taking anything about Bernard’s argument personally. Nothing at all. I have simply asked him to stop assuming things about my thinking on this matter, stop making inferences that aren’t there, and stop putting words in my mouth, or, rather, in my article, that aren’t there. Please review all of his comments about my article, and his replies to my rep-lies, to see if this is not so. I ask only that he give my article an objective reading and stop sewing things into it. Then we can get somewhere. » Posted By abby4ever On January 3, 2010 @ 8:47 amComments Posted By abby4ever
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats