Article

2004-11-26 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Michael Sheehan 2004-11-26 23:31|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Boy does this writer get it. It's "A World Gone Stupid" in many ways, including wildly distorted perceptions of US military action, and it's only getting worse. And on this topic the western media are sometimes barely distinguishable from the crude propaganda operations that have helped cripple Arab and Third World ability to comprehend the planet they live on.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-11-26 1:46:34 AM|| 2004-11-26 1:46:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Amen. "Janan Ganesh is a freelance writer" - if The Times had any institutional sense, they'd change the author's status, tuit suite. Spot-on and my only regret is that the article is so limited in scope and length. Thx, Michael Sheehan!

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 1:59:35 AM|| 2004-11-26 1:59:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The western media are dominated by a catechism that froze in the minds of adolescent leftists around 1968: Chomsky Lite.

These buffoons have next to no grasp of military tactics or exigencies in general, let alone the phenomenally advanced and exceptionally careful operating procedures of today's American military. For the MSM jokers, every conflict involving America is a battle between national liberationists and "yankee imperialists." Every American sortie or bombing raid is an example of the cowardice of the pampered American soldier, who can only fight from 10,000 feet in the air. Conversely, any bitterly contested, ground battle involving American (or Israeli) troops is another Stalingrad. American wars in the middle east are always "about oil." If America attacks Saddam but not Iran, it's because Iraq is a weak and small country and Iran is a big and powerful one willing to stand up to the US bully.

As absurd, incoherent and utterly detached from reality as this catechism may be, the fact is that the media have been flooded with 1968er know-nothings and groupthinkers for so many years that they dominate hiring, promotions and editorial functions across the major newsmedia in the US and Europe. It would take a generation of fresh talent to displace their moronic memes from the headlines of the NYT, the Guardian, the Beeb, Le Monde, Der Spiegel etc. Much better is to use new technology to sidestep them entirely and go directly to the big audiences, which are for audio on demand and streaming video.

This is too important to leave to the aging 1968er children. There's a war on, and the MSM's incompetence and foolish, reflexive memes are actively undermining this war.

Smash the MSM. Source and report our own stories using people who actually know how the military operates, how the UN flounders, how people in "red" America actually make political choices, how Iraqis really think.

Posted by lex 2004-11-26 2:07:35 AM|| 2004-11-26 2:07:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 lex - I recommend a notion for your consideration. It's a 2-part approach to get your idea off the ground. I look at The Command Post and sigh: good idea, incredibly weak execution.

Part 1: Take their "collective" approach and organize it efficiently as a family of blogs cum outlets - each run by an individual of impeccable credentials regards an important topic and playing editor to N contributors, ala Diplomad. Make it Rantburg-like in format so the feedback becomes part of the story - so much expertise sitting idle at some many other sites, is gainfully employed here. Anyway, it's a starting point for a blog newsbureau structure.

Part 2: Something I've suggested to multiple site managers, including Fred (who brushed me off like lint, heh - but shouldn't have *finger wag*), with no obvious takers: Timelines. The key to understanding is context. They key to dismissing memes of bullshit is facts within context. The key to learning, to anticipating, to predicting is history in context. The best way to present that is via timelines. They save you from wasting time on the screecher moonbats and they convince the ignorant who take the time to immerse themselves in the facts and context of a moment to make sense and give perspective to decisions and events.

Just a thought burning within - and relevant for the confidence and reputation aspects your idea's incarnation will someday face. Gotta kick the pajamahadeen thing sooner or later.

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 2:31:33 AM|| 2004-11-26 2:31:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Who ascertains the facts? Who provides the history? How are the fact-verifiers and hisotrians selected or designated? Is this just another version of AP?

Posted by lex 2004-11-26 2:50:51 AM|| 2004-11-26 2:50:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 My, my. What a surprise.

In the same vein as your dismissive response, are you just another windbag blogger?

Hey, HANL.

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 3:04:04 AM|| 2004-11-26 3:04:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 OK, Lex and .com...

I was also thinking about this. My footing is rather in techie stuff.

There are two ways how the new type of media may take a hold...
A) In an organic way--somehow it will come together by natural evolution;
B) Someone would anticipate the trends, nudge a bit here and there and become self-made murdoch (not necessarily an individual, rather a group of people).

Email me, you two. I'll setup a private space where we can discuss things.

And .com, Lex's question was not dismissive. It presents some problems that need to be adressed if the concept and later the venture is to be a success.

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-26 5:46:26 AM|| 2004-11-26 5:46:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 CornÃ®liÃ«s - Ask yourself why you believe whomever you believe. The blogosphere certainly contains some believable sources, no? Else you wouldn't be here. So why do you give credence to an Internet source? Credentials? That it has been read and, if found lacking, given a fisking - by hundreds or thousands, certainly some of whom have serious expertise? The blogoshphere offers a unique environment - one that is self-correcting, regards facts, particularly if the comments are open and allow anonymity. It is the ultimate fact ascertainer / checker, it is Occam's Razor x 100000, and in conjunction with the medium, the Internet, it is the ultimate historian. I think the only question not obviously answered was the "Is this just another version of AP?"

There has to be a starting point. The Diplomad blog was so refreshing (it's easy to forget nothing is utterly uniform) and obviously useful it filled a gaping hole in one of the hottest topics hereabouts - and prompted my comment. With enough of the major pieces covered - by real experts, people who know their field and have the anonymity to speak freely - it hit me that, perhaps, enough people in enough disciplines with enough expertise are indeed available now to make a collective blognewsbureau work. Each component must generate its own credibility - and maintain it. Command Post has a collective approach, but I visit it less and less, rather than more & more, becasue I just don't like the way it works, how it's presented, the registration now req'd, etc.

I added an external component, a set of stand-alone bona-fides, in the form of timelines. Each area of expertise would need to create its own timeline of relevant events, which could be fleshed out over time to provide the minutia and linkages a true doubter might demand. It would serve in many ways, particularly as a factual check and meme-buster.

Is this all new? No. It's a place to start, that's all, and an organized approach with the greatest truth-verification process ever invented: thousands upon thousands of pairs of eyes who are free to challenge anything, anonymously, or provide additional detail and background.

Okay, enough. This is all obvious, I just don't recall seeing it all said in one place 'round these parts. I'm not trying to be anyone's buddy - or enemy, I'm doing what I would hope others would do if I had thrown down a gauntlet numerous times, as lex has done. When he gets over his indigestion or whatever, he can take this at face value, use it, shit on it, or jump off a cliff. RB was here long before either of us showed up and there's nothing being said that hasn't been said, at least in part, a hundred times before. We're just weaving the bits together - and I was just trying to help.

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 6:27:49 AM|| 2004-11-26 6:27:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I was going to mail lex on this subject later, but i'll happily copy others if they are interested (pxbradley@excite.com). The insight that hit me (and like all important insights its obvious when you see it) is the article covering what has happened in the 24H cycle is dead, as is the need to fit it into 20 column inches. A story becomes a thread over time with a number of components - breaking facts, background/history, context, analysis (from different perspectives), fisking and of course comments.

.com, I agree that Command Post is the closest of the sites I visit, but I have no doubt that it can be improved.

Otherwise what I intended to communicate to lex is a process to get from here to there, while being flexible about where 'there' is. You can't even begin to think about sourcing your own news without a platform to communicate it.

Posted by phil_b 2004-11-26 7:15:13 AM|| 2004-11-26 7:15:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 The format's the key. Show the evolution of the article graphically, like a decision tree, with tons of hyperlinks that allow the reader to drill into background on the author, on the subject, on the context. Create "hubs" around expert "authorities" and allow those hubs and authorities to interact with, link to, benefit from other, parallel hubs and authorities.

Anyone here have a bgrd in collaboration software?
phil has my email - for ref. it's
tom_p_mclaughlin at yahoo

Posted by lex 2004-11-26 7:38:48 AM|| 2004-11-26 7:38:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 w/o picking bits and pieces of what's right and wrong above I would like to applaud the overall idea, point out that the blogs (this one especially) are already doing this to a great extent and add (caution, controversy coming) you NEED the MSM as part of this. OK, before you all stone me, not the "MSM" per se, but they are the grist for this truth mill. And frankly I believe the existence of the blogs is already having a beneficial effect on them, since they (the smarter ones) are realizing they will be fisked at every turn.

Dan Rather inadvertantly became a major impetus for this movement...of course his intentions weren't exactly honorable. But his (and CBS') ham-handed attempt to slip one (more) over on us ignited the blogs like nothing before. But since the bloggers aren't generally going to do their own news reporting, they are more valuable as a validation and expansion of the news than the actual launching of it.

Just random thoughts...up early (West Coast) and still bloated from Thanksgiving. Speaking of which...Happy (late) Thanksgiving to ya'll!!!

Posted by Justrand 2004-11-26 8:54:15 AM|| 2004-11-26 8:54:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#12
#4 [Sniff!] I didn't brush you off -- never have, never will. So there.

I'm stuck with two constraints: bandwidth and time. Bandwidth is the reason there's no video and such pictures as we have are highly compressed and only recently introduced. Bandwidth is a problem that can be solved, as will eventually happen, by simply buying more every month.

Time is the big one. I work 8-12 hours a day, depending on project status, sleep 4-8 hours a night, piss away another hour or two on dinner, family, that sort of thing, and spend most of the rest on Rantburg. Steve, Steve and Emily have similar constraints. I've got a half dozen features on this site that're half-finished or neglected. Maintaining Thugburg and the Organizations List would be a full-time job in itself.

Up until about the time of the war, I tried to keep something like a timeline going by linking back to the last significant happening on a subject. When the number of articles to keep track of got too big to do that efficiently, I added in the search functions for organizations and people, so that you'd get everything we had on them in chronological order. And I've added in the Never-ending Story to try and maintain the timeline and weed out the background noise. I haven't had time to bring it up to date since September, so Yasser's still alive and the election hasn't happened yet and Fallujah's still unthumped. I have to add yet another button to the editors' control panel to pop an article onto the list.

On the larger subject, blogs aren't going to replace AP, Rooters, AFP, etc., in their hard news capacities. Somebody's got to go sit in the hotel bar and retype press releases. Every once in awhile a tiny percentage will actually head into the field and do some actual good (or perhaps just as often bad) reporting. Blogs are better suited to analyzing the nuggets of fact that come out of that exercise, making sense of them, and pointing out which are cBS-quality.

What I'd like to see is a collaboration among blogs. There's an awful lot of them, more than one person can read in a day, much less make sense of. That's why I'd like to see more title links to good blog articles on the WoT, and guest posts of hard news articles by other bloggers. Headland is trying to do that, though he's got to start including links to the original posts.

And don't forget to cc me, Phil. I'm always looking for ideas to make Rantburg better.

Posted by Fred 2004-11-26 8:55:47 AM|| 2004-11-26 8:55:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 "Anyone here have a bgrd in collaboration software?"

Well, not that it is my speciality, but when I have to... Challenge never did hurt me.

I can setup an email list or message board so we don't steal RB's bandwidth. Whichever would be more preferrable.

.com, despite your 'special relationship' with lex :-), I would like you to participate, please email me your addy. I am sure that hot buttons can be cryonized.

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-26 9:10:20 AM|| 2004-11-26 9:10:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Fred, ...time, the final frontier...
I can imagine. Having that issue too.

I'll add you to the list/forum, if you're interested.

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-26 9:22:10 AM|| 2004-11-26 9:22:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I've been working on the overall concepts you all are talking about but have a looong ways to go. You do need the main stream press, it's the only way to get the facts short of having your own reporters in place.

The key is to sift the truth from the twisted truth and other anti-war, U.S. and west propaganda and present it in a decent format and I've found it very difficult to find a format I'm happy with.

Your all right about it being very time consuming to go through the various articles and sift out the rewrite it all to publish. I was making an effort to do this during the Fallujah operation and found it taking so much time that I was ignoring other parts of the blog.

I agree with Fred that the ultimate goal of a blog should be to sift and expose the lies and twisted truths that are common in the msm, but I also think that a blog can bring out stories that are lost in massive flow of information. That second concept was the original intent of my blog and where I'm going to try and take it back to along with a general overview of the days events and a ton of links so that people can educate themselves.

I'd love to be in any private conversation you guys have on this. Email is whershey@comcast.net.

Posted by BillH 2004-11-26 9:50:28 AM|| [http://www.worldwar4.net] 2004-11-26 9:50:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 That's why I'd like to see more title links to good blog articles on the WoT, and guest posts of hard news articles by other bloggers. Headland is trying to do that, though he's got to start including links to the original posts.

Fred -- I'm trying on headland to find articles that are interesting to those following the WoT, but articles that are typically on proprietary sites, and thus cannot be found on a simple Google News search. I then paraphrase a portion of the meat of the article, to keep well within the boundaries of fair use of copyright, and then usually end with a comment. Occasionally, I may miss a publicly accessible version of the same article, though, at least once in recent days, the publicly accessible version was on a site that did not obviously have a legal right to quote the entire article verbatim. I know that the readers in the blogosphere expect to have a link to the original, so that they can read it for themselves, and are justifiably suspicious of a site that doesn't give such a source. So, here's my dilemma: find information that many cannot access and share the important bits -- or stick to publicly accessible information that anyone can find for themselves. I think sites like Rantburg are an excellent clearing house for the articles in the second category. People shouldn't come to a single blogger and expect to find the breadth that can be provided at a board like this one. So, I see the role I can play on a little blog to be the first of those two tasks. When I don't know a source to be in the public domain, I now see I need to make explicit note of that. If I'm wrong, a reader can give a link to the original in a comment.

Posted by headland 2004-11-26 10:48:31 AM|| [http://headland.blogspot.com/] 2004-11-26 10:48:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Ironic that in post about linking, I'd mess up the link to my own website by leaving out the 'http:' prefix. I see the link is in the signature line, so that will do.

Posted by headland 2004-11-26 10:55:19 AM|| [http://headland.blogspot.com/] 2004-11-26 10:55:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 piss away another hour or two on dinner, family, that sort of thing,

Hmmmmmm, where Ethels E-mail address.... :)

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-26 11:01:54 AM|| 2004-11-26 11:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 A note on linking to blogs at Rantburg:

Rantburg "works" for me (and it works very, very well indeed) because of its formula of links to "hard news" articles + reader commentary. Change that formula significantly, and Rantburg no longer "works"-- for me, anyway.

And allowing linking to blogs at Rantburg would be just such a change, unless it were handled very carefully-- such as putting such links (like to headlands, for example) in a separate section. We already have "Page 1", "Page 2", and "Opinion"; I see nothing wrong with setting aside another section, "In The Blogosphere" if you will, for links to blogs. But please, PLEASE let's not start mixing blog links in with the hard news items, willy-nilly; do that, and Rantburg in my opinion is destroyed.

And keep in mind that if we begin linking to large number of blog articles here-- whether it's done in a separate section as above, or with blogs links mixed in with hard news-- referrer tracking is eventually going to lead to an ENORMOUS increase in the number of commenters here. Do we really want that?

One last opinion: I would propose an absolute, no-exceptions-whatsoever, TOTAL prohibition on people posting links to their own blogs here; allowing that invites abuse from people who only want to drive up their own hit counts by piggybacking on Rantburg's readership.

There. FWIW. Dave D. OUT.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-11-26 1:21:01 PM|| 2004-11-26 1:21:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm interested in talking about RB, now. It is my primary news source and my only real concern. Everyone who wants can work the other game, I'm no longer interested.

Fred - That was a good-natured *finger wag* - I commented on some threads a couple of times and got no response, so yeah, lint. The key is as you said: time. I see "content area" (for lack of a better term) as being responsible for their own timeline - no one person could do it, unless it was a full-time job, and maybe not even then. The "Never-Ending Story" is an across-the-board timeline, making it useful in the broad WoT info game - your focus - but not really as a tool for proving points, meme-busting, etc. It would take a book to describe what I had in mind regards timelines, it seems, so I'll leave it there.

Rantburg is the only interactive newspaper on the 'Net. Period. Lucianne comes closest, particularly in content level, but Fred's software blows everyone away because of presentation / accessibility to content, ease of feedback, ease of contribution of new articles, etc. Absolutely all of the other "big" sites have significant / fatal failings. InstaPuppy has little depth - it's mainly a "tip sheet" and doesn't pretend to be more. Lucianne has limited feedback and poor presentation / accessibility / collaboration features, LGF only covers 5-10 stories per day - almost all of its value comes via feedback - and registration kills certain avenues of information. Command Post went from hundreds of comments to a piddling few now - primarily due to registration, I presume, and a very poor presentation portal. Sans an XML aggregator, nothing comes close to RB's features, functionality, and level of content. IMHO, nothing else is worth warm spit, relatively speaking, for a quick "take" or instantaneous feedback... It only lacks the related links for drilling down for further detail, which are occasionally provided by the commenters. If there were some means of adding a set of "related content" links it would be light-years ahead of everyone else as an information source / investigative resource.

As for collaboration software - and other capabilities, such as Social Network Analysis to find "hidden" relationships between individuals, events, etc. (something I'm sure Dan Darling and others are interested in using...) - there exist many tools... but I suspect that for RB, it would require something at least semi-custom as tools such as the aggregators seem to be unable to deal with the sheer level of RB content, while losing the functionality. In essence, I would guess that the desirable end is more likely a family of RB's with a top-level summary RB (its own aggregator, in effect) as the primary portal. CP has, after a fashion, organized itself this way with a "timeliness" approach - only the most recent N stories are shown at the top level and only the one before and one following within an article - and fails miserably, IMHO.

The more info that is "hidden" (there, but inaccessible without drilling down), the less effective the site. Flat sites, though the content may initially seem overwhelming (a presentation issue, actually), beat the shit out of pyramid sites which obscure the available content. RB rocks in this regard - and the top-level should not lose its best feature, ala CP. There is a balance in there somewhere - or not changing the info level, just changing the presentation by simple means, such as font size, to break content sections visually.

Note that RB content presentation bears no resemblance to newspapers - it is a pseudo (when posted has no bearing on when the news "broke") chronological presentation with only one differentiating criteria, Pg1 vs. Pg2. In essence, itâs a "breaking news" approach just as the news services (AP, AFP, UPI, et al) use - only hugely interactive and "collaborative" since contributions are accepted. More content-related presentation, visually, might be the way to manage the level of posting we're seeing now. Inserting the content sections as headers, with a 2-point font-size change between sections and its subordinate articles, and articles displayed chronologically within each section, would be more traditional - and intuitive: newspapers evolved over time to their format for a reason, after all.

Visual content and the raw reportage content - both requiring on-the-scene presence - will continue to be the MSM's forte for the forseeable future. The analysis and fabrication of the new resulting big picture, with this info woven in, will be the function of the "new" media which will be Internet (or whatever the future holds) based, as it is now. No one with a brain relies upon the MSM for the analysis... you have to apply a filter as dense as the MSM editor, heh.

That's my $0.02 at this point. Oh - I wish those who pursue the alternative news effort the best of luck. You're smart people and you'll figure out the best approach, I have no doubt.

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 2:24:56 PM|| 2004-11-26 2:24:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 .com - I was in no way trying to be dismissive or snippy in my "AP" response! I was simply pressed for time this a.m.--have many family obligations today (shoppingcookingbillspaying toddler's sleep n screaming his schedule rules!!i can't take it no mo') and I was trying to do you the courtesy of getting back a very quick response in the miniscule window I had. I value your responses greatly; please don't take offense.

To your last comment:
Visual content and the raw reportage content - both requiring on-the-scene presence - will continue to be the MSM's forte for the forseeable future. The analysis and fabrication of the new resulting big picture, with this info woven in, will be the function of the "new" media which will be Internet (or whatever the future holds) based, as it is now. No one with a brain relies upon the MSM for the analysis

I think the area where the blogs and Rantburg add unique value is something that is both lighter/quicker and more profound than heavy analysis. I'm talking about establishing a counter-meme to the MSM's idiotic memes that are woven into their coverage: not just a debunking of the MSM angle but the substitution of an alternative, more accurate and more powerful meme that in turn generates its own media articles.

This is done almost always by the application of insider expertise that MSM journos and editors lack, and you see it most often in articles dealing with or relying upon the military, technology, foreign affairs. Often the MSM are careful enough to seek expert counsel and quote those experts in the course of their reportage but this safeguard falls flat when the meme is so deeply ingrained, so crucial to the 1968er MSM editors' worldview, that alternate and superior expertise is not consulted. Perfect example is the UN as Peter Ustinov and Kumbayah meme, exploded by the insider, expert testimony of the Diplomads.

In sum, holy grail is to access thousands of high quality authorities/experts like the Diplomads so that we can present counter-memes to MSM reportage in real time.

Best regards,
lex

Posted by lex 2004-11-26 3:12:11 PM|| 2004-11-26 3:12:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 lex -- I'm not sure one site can do that. Right now it seems to me the right-blogosphere as a whole is set up for what you're talking about, with Glenn Reynolds propagating the results out to a wider populace. Obviously this arrangement has a bit of latency and only works on issues at a certain level of visibility, but it's where we're starting from.

Posted by someone 2004-11-26 4:03:08 PM|| 2004-11-26 4:03:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Dan D writes: I would propose an absolute, no-exceptions-whatsoever, TOTAL prohibition on people posting links to their own blogs here; allowing that invites abuse from people who only want to drive up their own hit counts by piggybacking on Rantburg's readership.

Alas, this is probably the right policy. I'll abide by it, from now on, unless I'm given explicit permission to do otherwise.

Posted by headland 2004-11-26 4:04:00 PM|| [http://headland.blogspot.com/] 2004-11-26 4:04:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Just a note... The list is on and these of you that voiced an interest should have 1-2 messages in your mailbox with prefix [blogmedia]. Would be nice if you acknowledge that you, indeed, received them, and note your format preference: list or forum (message board). Majority wins.

If you did not received anything, click on my nick to email me you've got zip.

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-26 4:33:28 PM|| 2004-11-26 4:33:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 lex - Thanks - so none taken. I empathize with the schedule, heh, been there myself, lol!

The only relevant thing which has occurred to me since that last comment is that I recall CNN used to have a "home video" thing going - where they solicited video from individuals. I don't know how it worked, did they pay, etc., but it is a potential source of visuals - and video is literally a world-wide phenom, now.

A major campaign, especially if it pays for exclusive rights, might mitigate some of the lack of bureau press. Same for stringers in locales you want covered - bidding for services eBay-style, as you proposed, would make this content yours and a way to build a brand. Obviously, CNN began this way. And all of the other services would hate you and outbid you, grumbling all the way to the bank, lol!

Best Regards,
.com (aka PD, Paco DeGaillo)

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 4:42:01 PM|| 2004-11-26 4:42:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 .com in case you decide not to particpate in the list cornilies is setting up, I have a couple of comments for you. You nailed it on presentation - flat, simple, clean is what works. RB does rock and the formula could be applied elsewhere. It happens my major grievance with the MSM is not the WoT, its coverage of scitech issues, particularly but by no means exclusively 'climate change'.

The future is a blank canvas, waiting to be written on. I could be content to bitch about what others write, or could try and write a piece myself. Why not?

Posted by phil_b 2004-11-26 6:57:56 PM|| 2004-11-26 6:57:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Personally - I think rantburg is the future. Technology and time will continue to tweak - but I think Fred has provided the clearest window into the future of tomorrows interactive news that is available today.

On thing that would be so incredibly cool would be a weekly or monthly summary - something that sums up the news by trusted sources, for those too busy to read daily and just want to keep up. I'd be willing to pay a healthy subscription rate to get that from rantburg.

Posted by 2b 2004-11-26 10:58:58 PM|| 2004-11-26 10:58:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Fred's RB software is the state of the art, hands down. I think that some think-tank, such as Dan's buddies, or news org will snarf it up, someday, and give Fred a consulting gig to brand it for them, maintain and enhance it. The fact is, nobody comes close and he's already there. I've studied and developed portals and interfaces since the beginning when Berniers Lee had his "Aha!" moment.

So Dan, baby, tell your guys they get first look - Fred's gotta eat and you know somebody, somewhere along the line, will "get" what we get and buy the RB software - they should grab it while it's hot, trademark / servicemark / patent it! Actually, Dan, I'm dead serious. RB is serious "presence" software - only lacking the marketing effort and branding.

2b - A digest - of hotlinks? Lordy, that would be easy for The Man, heh. Oops, mebbe I shouldn't have said that!

Posted by .com 2004-11-26 11:41:10 PM|| 2004-11-26 11:41:10 PM|| Front Page Top

23:59 Thomas J. Jackson
23:56 Thomas J. Jackson
23:42 RWV
23:41 .com
23:38 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:19 .com
23:16 .com
23:15 lex
23:08 .com
22:58 2b
22:57 Glereper Cligum7229
22:51 Mitch H.
22:44 Mitch H.
22:37 2b
22:27 someone
22:26 2b
22:21 lex
22:15 Mike Kozlowski
22:06 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
22:06 CrazyFool
22:05 Frank G
22:03 Frank G
22:03 Frank G
22:01 Frank G