[net1]-- 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.

[art2]-- 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.

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.

[art2]-- 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.

[net3]-- 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.

[art4]-- How helpless any one individual is, I think is a open question, that no soothsayer can close with any authority.

[net5]-- 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_.)

[art6]-- Excessively gratuitous quotation of the long dead, is really a cheap debate tactic.

[net7]-- 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.

[art8]-- 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.

[net9]-- What a truly incoherent jumble of thoughts.

[art10]-- 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--

[net11]-- 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.

[art12]-- 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.

[net13]-- 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.

[art14]-- Do I really have to compile some stupid list of all the "good ideas" in human history that have not been "inevitably corrupted"?

[net15]-- 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.

[art14]-- ...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.

[net15]-- 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.

[art16]-- I have suggested a few possible funding methods, I think the least of which was the implication that "additional funding" should be provided to public libraries. -- I stated quite emphatically that would be my preference that the organization that would maintain the whatis database have only this narrow exclusive role and no unnecessary affiliations.

[net17]-- Your thoughts on funding for your WHATIS proposal are not particularly clear, other than the very general idea that "the government" should fund it. Assuming, _arguendo_, that "the government" ever does fund your WHATIS proposal, the implementation will be very problematic and bear little resemblance to your proposal. Part of the problem is that when pinned down on specifics, your proposal is just as vague and impractical as your ideas on funding.

[art18]-- """the merits of implementing a WhatIs system are self- evident""" YET it's all "vague and impractical" -- a nice clear bit of slug slime.

[net19]-- It's all a matter of context. At first blush, the idea of enhancing the WHOIS database to include WHATIS data fields for site title, site description, keywords, etc. is one of self-evident merit. The problems of vagueness and impracticality arise when you start talking about creating and funding a new government agency to implement the idea.

[art16]--A "budget ballot" would only increase the need for public awareness and support and therefore could only harm the cause. The only gimmicks that are going to help this idea are ones that provide public awareness and exposure. As I implied earlier --give me an audience for 10 minutes-- and the idea will sell itself. Even you have acknowledged that the wisdom is kind of self-evident. Public exposure will get it on the national policy agenda regardless of any democracy enhancements.

[net17]-- A straw man argument at best. To wit, I have repeatedly given you a very practical example of how a budget ballot was actually carried out in the real world, and you have deliberately ignored it in favor of a pointlessly complex model. Even so, the merits of a budget ballot is an ancillary issue that has very little relevance to your WHATIS proposal, which must sink or swim on its own merits. Ditto for the merits of direct democracy in general.

[net18]-- The last half of Bill Clintons' presidency was torpedoed by a loose lips--sink your ship-- fat girl. As I implied earlier I don't think much in our present culture sinks or swims based on "merit". The "facts" and the "merits" seldom get fair exposure and google is just another disgusting extension of a "media system" where the truth is irrelevant.

As 60 minutes deserves a little beating up after that propaganda fluff piece they did on Google-- here's another example of how the media's "merit" system works. More than five years ago (not coincidentally, around the same time I stopped watching) 60 minutes provided a demonstration of how a ark of biblical proportions would be seaworthy by placing a "real world" model made out of Popsicle sticks in a tub of water-- obviously they didn't read my viewer letter "on air" which pointed out that there are only about 6000 laws of physics that made this demonstration absolutely useless as a source of understanding of any practical reality-- other than the reality that propaganda works.

Your "very practical example" of a working "budget ballot" is a similarly flawed experiment, and un-useful if not useless. In my opinion you have not even overcome the theoretical challenges (ie. public/voter ignorance) that negate the usefulness of "referendums" in general... so it is impossible for you to even construct a "very practical" example.

[net19]-- I will not chase this red herring any further. It is a distraction that has little or no relevance to the merits of your WHATIS proposal.

[net13]-- ...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.

[art14]-- What "some" is saying the "good idea gone bad" stuff ? --I could use some good leads.

[art10]-- ... 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.

[net11]-- Sounds like a recapitulation of the ideals espoused by Friedrich Nietzsche.

[art12]-- 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.

[net11]-- ... 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.

[art12]-- 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.

[net13]-- It is also perfectly sensible that some players might not want to play the game at all.

[art14]-- 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.

[net13]-- ... 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.

[art14]-- A reconstitution of the Salem Rich Trials would be appropriate justice for these turds.

[net13]-- ... Congress has now eliminated that option by forcing wealthy expatriates to continue paying income taxes whether or not they remain U.S. citizens.

[art14]-- You play here, you pay here....Period

[art12]-- ...You have some crude power theory where, money makes might, might makes right, and therefore we should all be slaves to some Hillton slut.

[net13]-- I think you're confusing me with Ayn Rand.

[art14]-- well all you aristo-tics look-alike to me...kind of like cockroaches.

[net13]-- ...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.

[art14]-- 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.

[net13]-- ...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.

[art14]-- Right... progressive taxation (and the taxation of completely unproductive unearned inheritance) is "stealing", and abortion is "murder". Dogma of the dimwitted.

[art12]-- ...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.

[net13]-- 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.

[art14]-- repeat after me A..B..C..D... money is POWER... money is OWNERSHIP (of resources and people)... money is CONTROLL!!!

[net13]-- ...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,

[art14]-- 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.

[net13]-- ...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.

[art14]--No it would be France before the revolution... 3% haves, 97% have nots.

[art12]-- ...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.

[net11]-- ... 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.

[art12]-- 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.

[net13]-- Yes, they can, and I will continue to throw them into the same bucket

[art14]-- What caused your retardation?... you get hit in the head with a golf ball at the public library when you were a kid?

[net13]-- ...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.

[art14]-- So instead of money just meaning control, you would like it to mean utterly complete control...

[net15]-- 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.

[art16]--A "budget ballot" is basically policy by referendum. Extensive big-money-financed lobbying would decide what gets on the ballot -- and would shape everything into deceptive legal language to provide exploitable loopholes. Then after it's decided what will be on the ballot, a whole new round of financed propaganda would be used to dumb down every ballot issue in to simplistic jargon that would have nothing to do with actual consequences. For example, look at the "popular rhetoric" surrounding the issue of Social Security privatization -- just a bunch of mush that denies social security's reality as an insurance program, and not a pension program-- Greenspan sensibly called it a zero-sum game as it will do nothing to more efficiently provide for the long retirement of the long living and disabled. It's just a stupid shell game yet there is every prospect that it may become national policy and the next three or four years. Money bought propaganda works!

I believe it is an alterable practical fact that individual voters are unlikely as a group to do the researching and hard thinking that is required to make an informed decision on complex issues. But regular citizens can research, and fully understand the competence of, their representative who they should sensibly expect will make understanding the complexity of issues his full-time job. Bottom line, in my opinion, representative government makes much more sense than government by referendum.

[art12]-- ...Your rigid dogma is certainly showing when you spout this silly "all government is bad" simplistic tripe.

[net13]-- 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.

[art14]-- Right, they should just Bark to the wind and wait for Santa Claus to come reengineer the social order.

[net13]-- ...Truth be told, I believe that government can provide a useful framework for organizing opposition to would-be despots and tyrants.

[art14]-- 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.

[net13]-- ...However, no matter how many "democratic safeguards" are put into place, government is frequently captured by would-be despots and tyrants.

[art14]-- Sure... Anarchy were the rich own everything including all the guns, bullets, and pitchforks would make a lot more sense.

[art12]-- 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.

[net13]-- 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.

[art14]-- 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-- ...

[net15]-- 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.

[art16]--"congressional representatives" don't initiate policy unless they are "paying back" the political influence their contributors have purchased. Unpurchased policy must be demanded by the people (voters) first. I don't think interstate railroads or highways or the Hoover Dam was built because some constituent wrote a letter. These things happened because the government was made aware of a problem-- and solicited the advice of knowledgeable, unbiased professionals to solve it. Four years ago the government solicited advice regarding the Internet and paid the National Academy of Sciences $800,000 to provide it. Unfortunately, as I've stated in other forums-- there are no scientist anymore-- and as your father learned, we're allowing a lot of shameless money whores masquerade as objective professional and devoted scientists. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dns/

[net17]-- Congratulations: You have found the perfect excuse for giving up before you even try. Instead, you can spend the rest of your life crying in the wilderness about what a great idea you have and how self-evident its merits are.

[art18]-- "the merits of implementing a WhatIs system are self-evident" the slug cried to the chirping crickets... Just because, I've learned through long tedious experience (I could wallpaper the House with patronizing form letter replies regarding other issues of merit from congressional representatives) that the seeds of knowledge and inspiration can find no fertile ground in the egomaniacal mind of "politicians"-- I don't think you're being fair to suggest I've given up without trying. Regardless of what you think of my skills as an advocate, I think I at least deserve the concession that I have invested some hard time (5 stinking years) and earned my tears.

[net9]-- In other words, rather than seeking to accomplish your original goals, you are now seeking recognition for what you tried in vain to accomplish. Good luck with that.

[art14]-- ...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!

[art12]-- ... 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.

[net9]-- ...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.

[art10]-- 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.

[net11]-- (BTW, dichotomy is pronounced "DIE"-"COT"-"OH"-"ME".)

[art12]-- 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.

[net9]-- ...In any event, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that we as a species have "made substantial progress [and] learned from history,"

[art10]-- 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

[net11]-- I echo this sentiment.

[art10]-- ...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.

[net9]-- ...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.

[art10]-- 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.

[net11]-- 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?

[art12]-- 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.

[art10]-- ...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.

[art8]-- ...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)

[net9]-- 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.

[art10]-- 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.

[net9]-- ...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.

[art10]-- 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.

[art8]-- ...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.

[art6]-- ..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.

[net7]-- 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.

[art8]-- 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.

[net9]-- 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.

[art10]-- 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.

[net11]-- "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

[art12]-- I do love Einstein quotes --but as implied previously, ideas --not authorities-- should dictate the evolution of a debate.

[art8]-- ...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!

[art6]-- ....As to the apparent point you are trying to make "that nothing changes" and "resistance is futile" it's just preposterous mush.

[net7]-- 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,

[art8]-- Of your bullshitatudes this mantra demonstrates just how void of intelligent character you are. No "intelligent" man has "no desire" to enlighten the ignorant....

[net9]-- 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.

[art10]-- 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.

[art8]-- ...A key component of "intelligence" is knowledge of the innate value of truth and the inherent danger of ignorance.

[net7]-- ...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.

[art8]-- 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.

[net9]-- I'll buy that. However, I don't think that most people consider this situation to be a particularly urgent problem.

[art10]-- I read a recent survey that indicated that 65% of Internet users don't know what a Blog is.

[net11]-- 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.

[art12]-- The fact that Professional Googletts apparently don't Google, Google, is pretty scary.

[art10]-- ...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?

[net11]-- Actually, I don't think that whistle-blowers and advocates need to explain anything.

[art12]-- ... and now for something preposterously silly.

[net11]-- ...Rather, if someone thinks they know of a better way to index the Internet, then they should just get on with it.

[art12]-- 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?

[net13]-- 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."

[art14]-- 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.

[art12]-- ...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.

[net11]-- ... 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...

[art12]-- ...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.

[net11]-- ... alienate everyone who might be interested in helping them get it off the ground.

[art12]-- 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.

[net13]-- 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.

[art14]-- 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.

[net13]-- ...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?

[art14]-- To do it right... a few million dollars and the popularization [media exposure] of government sanction.

[net15]-- 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?

[art16]-- I think the idea needs to be circulated before the petition is circulated. You know the old horse carriage thing.

[art14]-- ... 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.

[net15]-- 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.

[art16]-- So it's also your opinion that my lack of success (ie the censorship of my opinion) on message boards is a failure of mine, for which I deserve ridicule? Maybe if everybody had just been polite and done what the Nazis wanted we wouldn't have had to have that silly war. The "congressional representatives" thing is your dopey idea and it's kind of cheap rhetoric to imply that I'm "hoping" that'll work.

[net17]-- I don't think that anyone *deserves* ridicule, but it should be self-evident to any objective observer that you are the author of your own exile from the various online communities that have purportedly censored you.

[art18]-- With defenders (censorship sympathizers) like you, free-speech doesn't need enemies either.

[net9]-- ...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.

[art10]-- 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.

[art8]-- ...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.

[art6]-- ...During many critical moments in history, the action of one man radically changed the course of human destiny.

[net7]-- 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.

[art8]-- 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?

[net9]-- 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.

[art10]-- 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.

[net9]-- ...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.

[art10]-- 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.

[art6]-- ...History is littered with thousands of examples where people and their principles made a difference in defeating oppressions imposed by both nature and mankind.

[net7]-- 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.

[art8]-- 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"

[art6]-- ...We have defeated most infectious disease and live substantially more healthy, comfortable and longer lives.

[net7]-- 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.

[art8]-- 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.

[net7]-- ...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.

[art8]-- 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.

[art6]-- ...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.

[net7]-- Actually, prior to the agricultural revolution some five to ten thousand years ago, there was no such thing as slavery, ...

[art8]-- 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.

[net7]-- ...and people generally lived longer and healthier lives than they do now in even the most technologically advanced cultures on the planet.

[art8]-- 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. net9]-- 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.

[art10]-- 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.

[art4]-- ...Monica Lewinsky basically changed the world with a tool as prehistoric as a blow job.

[net5]-- 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_.)

[art4]-- ...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.

[net5]-- "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.

[net3]-- For me, the important thing is that I never become part of the problem. Some people never learn this lesson,

[art4]-- Yeah, SOME people are real stupid. Just for clarification what "some people" do you currently considered to be "part of the problem"?

[net5]-- 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.

[net3]-- ...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.

[art4]-- In fairness I don't think this is a strictly accurate definition of the "solution".

[net5]-- 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.

[art4]-- ...It's kind of like saying I'm solving poverty by personally not being poor....

[net5]-- 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.

[art4]-- ... or I guess it's like saying I support the public funding of public libraries, by not actively opposing it.

[net5]-- 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.

[art4]-- ...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.

[net5]-- 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.

[art6]-- 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.

[net7]-- 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.

[art8]-- 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.

[net7]-- ...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.

[art8]-- 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.

[art6]-- ...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.

[net7]-- 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."

[art8]-- 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.

[net7]-- ...In sum, what is wrong with the world is that most people don't know how to mind their own business.

[art8]-- As Marley said "Mankind Was Our Business ..."

[net7]-- ...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.

[art8]-- 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.

[net7]-- ... 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,...

[art8}-- 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.

[net7]-- ...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.

[art8]-- 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.

[art6]-- ..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.

[net1]-- Lost in the noise is the question of how the Internet should be indexed. Sorry about that, folks.

[art2]-- 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.

[net3]-- 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.

[art4]-- 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.

[net5]-- 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.

[art4]-- ...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.

[art2]-- 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.