Keyword Hijacking

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:13 am

Personally I think Hugh you would have an easier time of it if you talked about trends,you had noticed and how they fit this pattern. But hell you can say what you want when you want. And how you want. There is often more of value in what you say than you get credit for. This place is better for your being here, hmw thats for sure.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Snakes On A Plane? <hr></blockquote> And you tell me I've lost perspective. Don't infer things I don't imply. I just illustrated triggering, that's all. I have no idea whether retriggering 9/11 was behind it on a spook level or just post-9/11 marketing tag-on or just low-brow roller-coaster juvenalia. And I didn't say it was any of those things. Look again. I asked "what does that trigger?" Daniel Brandt is something else, a real anti-fascist counterintelligence journalist and I've used his namebase search site quite a bit. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>even at those points when your commentary sounds sensible to me, there isn't anything ground-breaking about it.<hr></blockquote> Well, you don't agree that Eichmman's assisstants/little Eichmanns  or Paperclip Project/Project Paperclip is CIA use of the mainstream media to hide the US-Nazi connection from the American people, a project going on since the 1920s and which is a direct threat to public support for all US wars now and in the future, a threat big enough to have the Antidefamation League covering for Prescott Bush on its own website. I say it is. And that is groundbreaking in these and most parts. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>shifting criteria and juggling examples <hr></blockquote> ??

by **HMKGrey** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:36 am

I think we should be paying a lot more attention to Google than we do. This is a seriously aggressive and wealthy company that is seeking to redraw many of the lines between content and commerce, blurring those that suit it, destroying those that don't. They may be credited with the rather ridiculous and meaningless 'Don't Be Evil' corporate moniker, but we saw in China that their interpretation of 'Good' and 'Evil' isn't always what we might assume it to be. Take a look at their Jobs pages. They are hiring thousands of people. Many of these are what they call 'Verticle Market Managers'. A VMM has one goal: own a category or market by employing everything available in Google's armory. This will extend from banner ads, through key words in to print media and so on. Their resources are monstrous. The danger of monopoly is immense. For centuries men have worried about information being held by a single source and rightly so. At Google, they don't want to own, they just want to filter it for us. Today I read that they are about to buy YouTube. Like I said... monstrous.

by **dugoboy** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:40 am

yea i kind of agree joe, but i bet he hasn't done it because of how much time it'd take to put together..but..it would'nt hurt to help answer some questions. its kind of hard to buy what hugh is saying just because he says it for people even if what he's saying is true. and some things might just be conjecture but based on past instances..the conjecture might be true. ___________________________________________ "BushCo aren't incompetent...they are Complicit!" -Me "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell "When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi

by **dugoboy** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:43 am

vertical market monopoly...wow. ___________________________________________ "BushCo aren't incompetent...they are Complicit!" -Me "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell "When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:52 am

Absolutely. They are giving DARPA our search terms, aren't they? And they are recording our searches to 'better provide' answers to us with a cookie that lasts 38 years.. We will end up being told what they think we should be told. And they are trying to become the cyber-encyclopedia to control info on the internet. Talk about an elite-filtered world. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Today I read that they are about to buy YouTube.<hr></blockquote> Ugh. There go the youth who don't read into the maw. I've wondered whether the push into broadband was to get Americans online back to video instead of reading. <a href="http://www.google-watch.org/">www.google-watch.org/</a> <img src="http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/yahdarth.gif" style="border:0;"/> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy policies Google v. copyright Big Broother is well-connected Creepy Gmail Rotten cookie Mozilla evades taxes Subpoena silliness Noncommercial links get buried How bloggers game Google Want to buy Goostock? Spooks on board PageRank sucks googling Valerie Printing more billions Google ♥ Wikipedia Our letter to Playboy Privacy at Google Drug problem You can hotlink to me ! Personal search: Holy Grail or crock? Google's China censorship High time for opt-in Is Google God? Search terms in logs about us <hr></blockquote>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:03 am

Daniel Brandt at Google-watch on our lack of privacy with Valerie Plame as an example. <a href="http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html">www.google-watch.org/valerie.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"I think Google is the biggest privacy invader on the planet, no doubt about it." -- Richard M. Smith, former officer, Privacy Foundation, as quoted by the Associated Press, 2004-03-21 Should Google index telephone numbers? This isn't about spies, it's about the rest of us . . . by Daniel Brandt October 8, 2003 This page isn't about how naughty it is to expose spies. A spy is someone who deceives friends and enemies alike, and breaks the laws of other nations, in order to further the interests of those who are already too powerful. These powerful people are elitist politicians, and the corporations and financial interests behind them. U.S. spies have a sordid history of overthrowing governments, including democratic governments such as Greece in 1967 and Chile in 1973. Many of the non-democratic governments they've overthrown, or tried to overthrow, were doing a better job of providing for their people than the governments preferred by the CIA. Our media's spin machine -- itself guilty of too cozy a relationship with intelligence agencies -- would have us believe that spies put their lives in danger for the rest of us. That's not true. Being a U.S. spy is safer than working in a coal mine.* They need secrecy because this is how they avoid accountability. Speaking of feeling safe, everyone in the world would sleep easier at night if we dismantled the CIA entirely. This page isn't about exposing spies. It's about Google's disrespect for privacy. It's about Google being the only search engine that does reverse lookups of telephone numbers listed in the white pages, and offers you two maps to locate the address. This number can also be used to latch onto other pages that would normally be difficult to find. I use Valerie the Spy as an example, because I have no respect for her privacy. She doesn't represent me. Rather, she represents powerful interests in the government and corporate America that I find objectionable, and which in the past have worked against me. (I have documents from the CIA that prove they spied on me illegally in the late 1960s.) Secret agents of powerful interests have no right to privacy, but millions of ordinary citizens do. Using Valerie the Spy as an example is a good way to demonstrate what ordinary people should find objectionable about Google's indexing. Ms. Wilson joined the CIA right out of college, which would have been around 1985. This was when William Casey was illegally consorting with death squads in Central America. Did she find this amusing or inspiring? This was at a time when there were widespread demonstrations against the CIA. I don't care if supermom, as the Washington Post brags, can handle two toddlers, a career, participate in church groups and community social activism, and sling an AK-47, all at the same time. She can probably bake big apple pies in the kitchen too, for all I care. This is the very same Post that has CIA connections everywhere you look, and you can bet that they have an agenda. Her husband since 1998, Joseph C. Wilson IV, thinks of himself as a liberal, but his record is mixed. By the way, Mr. Wilson, why don't you go on TV and tell us who forged those documents you supposedly investigated? Doesn't that matter to you? Could it have been - gasp - the CIA ? <img src="<a href="http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/garner.gif"">www.google-watch.org/gifs/garner.gif"</a> style="border:0;"/> Washington is watching too much TV! "Mr. Wilson proudly showed off photographs of Ms. Plame, calling her a real-life Jennifer Garner, the actress who plays a spy on Alias on ABC-TV and whom the C.I.A. has enlisted as a spokeswoman to appeal to recruits." -- New York Times, October 2, 2003, p. A23. Valerie the Spy could ask Google to delete her number so that the first line, with her address and those map links to her house, are gone. But this doesn't solve the problem of those other links to her telephone number, which would still appear. The point of all this is that millions of people, when they contemplate whether they should pay their telephone company for an unpublished listing, aren't even aware of what Google will do with their telephone number. Many aren't even aware of Google. They certainly aren't likely to opt out of Google's reverse lookup in the white pages. And even if they do, there's no telling where that number may end up on the web, to be discovered by Google's crawlers. I believe that Google should not index telephone numbers at all. Their reverse lookup in the white pages should be discontinued, and their algorithms for indexing web pages should identify and discard anything that resembles a telephone number. You don't even have to be a spy to agree with me. ____________ * The CIA memorializes 71 who died in the line of duty since it was founded over 50 years ago. According to the Department of Labor, mine fatalities averaged 92 per year during the 1990s. Total miners number 557,000, and total full-time CIA run about 22,000, which when factored in, means miners are three times more likely to get killed on the job. Moreover, CIA employees can resign and find another job, but miners don't always have this option. The other thing that miners lack is a propaganda network of gullible journalists and script writers, who constantly depict CIA people as risking their lives to save the world. You can look up Valerie Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame) at switchboard.com or any other white-pages web site. So far, no problem. But once you have a number, put it into Google and see what you get. Here is a screen shot taken on October 8: <img src="<a href="http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/valerie.gif"">www.google-watch.org/gifs/valerie.gif"</a> style="border:0;"/> <hr></blockquote>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:07 am

Hmph. The pictures from the above post didn't make it. Oh, that's right. Ezboard is a Google website, "Googleanalytics". Ahh. And some still wonder why Jeff's front page got locked up during the big Zarqawi capture wargasm just after he posted evidence of US-UK false flag terrorism in Iraq. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/7/06 12:27 am

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:33 am

"For those not in on the joke, the "progressive" radio station, run by people who should know better, given that there is a freaking movie about it by the same name, named their station after the CIA drug and gun running airline." I think this example does bring up a legitimately important phenomenon- that all too often, I've found the opposition to the Right Wing parroting their "memes." I can't stand the way a lot of people place importance on memes as if they intrinsically conveyed content- they're simply mnemonic wrapping paper, labels that often obscure or confuse more than they inform. Slogans, branding, Madison Avenue ad industry hype bullshit. But memes do have an undeniable importance in the social psychology of communication. There's something about that very shorthand- slogans, branding, Madison Avenue ad industry hype bullshit- that does trigger trains of thought, or image/symbolc associations. So why is it that so many liberal/Left/progressives continue to repeat slogans and brand names thought up by the Rovean mentalities of the world? "Air America", there's one..."compassionate conservative"..."faith-based [anything]"..."weapons of mass destruction"..."conspiracy theorist"..."the media" (a term first wielded for political purposes by the Right Wing, shorthand for any professional practice of the First Amendment)...or they publically refer to themselves by the labels given them by their adversaries: "radical liberal"; "Commie pinko fag"; "effete snob"...this has been going on since the Vietnam days. I'm actually having a hard time remembering the array of buzz-phrases, since I've been going out of my way to jettison them from my vocabulary. There are a lot more, though. In the usual case, when liberal-Left-progressives use these buzz-phrases, they're adopting an arch, sarcastic tone. But they're still passing along the metaphors of the opposition, in effect giving them currency and increasingly their longevity with every repetition. As for sarcasm- sarcasm is inherently an in-joke phenomenon, no one gets it unless they already get it- and even then, sarcasm in politics is tedious. As for trying to persuade people to your ideas with sarcasm, forget it. All it does is turn people off or confuse them, including the all-important people "on the fence." I don't view this as conscious complicity with the right-wing agenda, though. It's simple ineptitude. Michael Moore and Al Franken are two of the biggest offenders. Ironically, a Professor Lakoff has just written a book on the way the the American political Right manipulates language- only to fall prey in person when being interviewed on The Colbert Report by Stephen Colbert, whose arch-parody of the tactic comprises the essence of his comic persona. Colbery simply ran circles around Lakoff- an exchange that made some serious points about political discourse in the process- for instance, that glib bullshit runs rampant over factual content unless it's countered promptly and directly. No stuttering, no fumbling attempts to grope for intellectual agreement, and- this is important- no adopting the lack of ethics of the other side. At one point in the Colbert interview, Lakoff actually said that the tactics employed by the Right as psywar on American liberals would be better employed overseas, on "the terorists"...from there on, it was all downhill for any serious critique of the abuse of language as a tactic in order to manipulate people. Yes, I know there are many Left/liberal/progessives prone to disagree with my view that some tactics should simply be declared off-limits, in the interest of maintaining an ethical high ground. Often, the people who disagree with me about that try to make their case by parroting yet another tough-sounding pseudo-macho horseshit race-to-the-bottom homily..."You gotta fight fire with fire"... Actually,all the restaurants I know about keep fire extinguishers in their kitchens, not flame-throwers. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/6/06 11:53 pm

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:38 am

google suck, but they are conveinient. Scroogle.

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:48 am

"And you tell me I've lost perspective. Don't infer things I don't imply. I just illustrated triggering, that's all. I have no idea whether retriggering 9/11 was behind it on a spook level or just post-9/11 marketing tag-on or just low-brow roller-coaster juvenalia. And I didn't say it was any of those things. Look again. I asked "what does that trigger?"" Why bring it up to support your thesis, if you're conceding that there's probably no agenda behind it? Absent that, you might as well ask "Why do people make scary movies?" or "Why do so many movies get made that lack political content?" which leads to questions like "Why do so many people pay to be frightened by movies?" and "Why do so few people rent documentaries, compared to horror movies?" Not every social question has a political answer, or a political solution. In my opinion. Although I freely concede that through the exertion of enough effort, nearly any symbol, event, or phenomenon can be shown to have political connotations or correlations. To the point of meaninglessness and beyond, ad absurdum. "Don't infer things I don't imply"... Sometimes while reading your scattershot commentaries, it's difficult for me to find out what those things might possibly be. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/7/06 12:02 am

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:10 am

lol. I hear you, RR. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Actually,all the restaurants I know about keep fire extinguishers in their kitchens, not flame-throwers.<hr></blockquote> Damn right. The whole 'politically correct' thing. The left bit on that one hook-line-and-sinker. When they learned the power of language and started to change it, they got scared away with the manufactured slur 'politically correct' as if they were word-Nazis. And they ran away from taking control of language. The PC ploy worked. Of course, Lakoff is right about framing and the left is acting as if they've never heard of this but that is just Spin 101. Guess better late than never even though he manages to make it sound boring and academic, like Chomsky and imperialism. But he's an academic, not an activist. (I'd like to take what the academics and historians know and package it for the activist community while there's still a planet to do it on.) Lakoff co-authored a paper on the use of metaphor back in 1980 that was considered important in the world of linguistics. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.<hr></blockquote> Lakoff, as a cognitive scientist, studies how we think by associating things, a perfect study for the black arts of propaganda and social engineering where behavior is sanctioned by associating it with pain or pleasure, status or scorn. A review of MWLB with mention of another Lakoff book - <a href="http://www.norvig.com/mwlb.html">www.norvig.com/mwlb.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lakoff is finishing a book on the theory of categorization called ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous Ideas'' that explores the experientialist, non-objectivist position in more detail. It includes a non-technical overview in a style similar to MWLB as well as three detailed `case studies' that are more technical. The book is due out from the Chicago Press in 1985. (The unusual title refers to the Aborigine language Dyirbal, a language with four classifiers. Classifiers are used to classify noun phrases-- in many languages one cannot say `a piece of paper' but must instead say `a flat-thing of paper.' One Dyirbal classifier is used for women, fire, and dangerous things, but this does not imply any similarity between them. Another classifier is used for everything that does not fit into the other three categories. Lakoff argues that categories which behave like this are common in language and thought, but are not accounted for by the objectivist model of semantics.)<hr></blockquote> Like synesthesia, metaphor is not something everyone gets. Few, in fact. So what seems either obvious or trivial to us here functions in quite a different way in the subconscious of the target American 'viewer-consumer.' That's something to keep in mind when evaluating the subconscious effect on the bigger part of the bell curve. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/7/06 12:26 am

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why bring it up to support your thesis, if you're conceding that there's probably no agenda behind it?<hr></blockquote> I didn't say there's probably no agenda either! I said I don't know! *testing testing - is this thing on?* But I'll expand to show you why I did mention it. I already said it shows the triggering power of really just two keywords, 'snakes' + 'plane.' Fear of flying plus fear of snakes is very common and fear of 9/11 is a whole new phobia synthesized into a sum greater than the parts. So from now on, plane movies have a whole new application for setting off emotions which support 'anti-terrorist' legislation. AND the whole process is self-referential as a feedback loop of regenerating meaning. Each movie builds on a world filled with the previous movies layering the images on like a pastiche of experience. And what this does to an even more impressionable child's mind...

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:40 am

robertreed I have fighting bushfires for about 10 years, and believe me, fighting fire with fire is one of the most effective and safest (for the fire crews if done right) ways of fighting fire there is. Good luck stopping a eucalyptus crown fire burning on a 3 km front with anything other than, (maybe) if the conditions are right, fire. Its not a "tough-sounding pseudo-macho horseshit race-to-the-bottom homily", just a statement of fact. but you are right about ethical standards. And I dunno if advertising agencies have the same working definition of dawkins original concept of memes. Even if thats where they got the idea. Memes are ideas that work and get passed on to the next generation of ideas. they work because of the way they resonate with certain aspects of human life, and the work underneath the verbal level. they wrap a need in language. Buzzwords try to activate those memes in people in the hope of manipulating their needs and framing them so in that sense your criticism of the left wing types that use the labels of the right is spot on. then again fuck em, I may be a tree hugging socialist dope smoking beer drinking footy loving .... Oh oops.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So from now on, plane movies have a whole new application for setting off emotions which support 'anti-terrorist' legislation. AND the whole process is self-referential as a feedback loop of regenerating meaning. Each movie builds on a world filled with the previous movies layering the images on like a pastiche of experience.<hr></blockquote> Yeah spot on. If this is what you are getting at hugh you are spot on abut it happening. maybe some people might disagree with some of your examples but. However i am not sure this process is wholly or even remotely conscious. It could be something spontaneous in media culture as it lurches from one attention grabbing spectacle to another. Not that certain groups wouldn't take advantage of that. but there is also a series of things happening in a feedback loop that works against the control obsessed manipulation of media. A Yin to its yang or even yang to its Yin.

Keyword Hijacking

Re: no

Re: .Robert Reed

Different tack...

Re: no

Re: no

Re: Different tack...Google. Serious keyword manipulations.

Re: Different tack...Google. Daniel Brandt's comments.

Re: Different tack...Google. Daniel Brandt's comments.

First, DE's comment...

Re: Different tack...Google. Daniel Brandt's comments.

Now, to HMW...

Re: Robert Reed's take on word-mongering

Re: Robert Reed's inquiry about 'Snakes on a Plane'

Re: First, DE's comment...

Re: First, DE's comment...

Who is online