“The solution is just not to go there anymore, nor to reference them in any communication and to counsel others to do the same. For example, a while back some telemarketing call center called me and asked me if I wanted to subscribe to the NYT. I told the telemarketer, “The New York Times can go to hell.” And if a link inadvertantly takes me to one of their articles, I immediately BACK-AWAY; as if I encountered a leper.”

I keep wondering why someone doesn’t implement this in software and distribute it.

Simple version:

An app, which, when you run it, makes a local dns entry for nytimes.com and points it to a page somewhere explaining that this computer is participating in a boycott of nytimes content.

Complex version:

The app contains a locally stored redirection as before, but instead of just going to a static page, it goes to a site with a staff that reads the articles, and for the ones with awful bias points them to a rebuttal instead, and for anything that’s not that bad, redirects the user to the original. That way, over time, the NYT can learn that the stuff they do that is not biased gets more hits.

Looks like these items still abide in that venue. Maybe they HAVE learned their lesson after all.

I think the REAL test will be the proverbial ‘test of time’, i.e., if they are still there six months from now. I’ve noticed that some thinks have a tendency to ‘disappear’, when no one is supposedly watching them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. tanstaafl….

“Obamanation”!!!!!!! Too dang funny…..

Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair

Well, uh, lemmee see…hmmmm…the fact that 80% of the MSM (hey, I can make up statistics, too) are in the pocket of the statist/collectivist one world order citizen of the world guy to be the next socialist leader of the United States of America ?

John Boy was already mentioned for possible Attorney General in the new Obamanation.

Dollars to donuts an Edwards’ speaking gig at the Denver convention doesn’t happen.

…that you pointed out is STILL there. So far…so good.

As for the date is was entered, I figured out their footnote system.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. -- George Bernard Shaw]

Are you asking me if I’m a baby? It’s sweet of you to think so. I’ve been online in one form or another since 1989. I wish I were a baby.

Censorship is nothing less than government interference. It’s not censorship when the cool kids don’t let you ride in their car. It’s not censorship when you’re unpopular.

I’ve had my comments deleted. I didn’t cry. In one case I figured the moderator didn’t like my comment — or didn’t like me — and I let it slide. I stayed at the site as a contributor, and in fact I developed a decent relationship with the moderator over time. Maybe it’s because I let it slide in the first place, instead of throwing a tantrum. In another case I stopped patronizing that site and I let them have their own site to themselves. These things happen.

There’s no constitutional right to participating in wikipedia, and wikipedia is not the be-all-end-all of internet authority. It’s a great site but it’s not the Bible.

As to your other question, Wikipedia has a history page where you can see all changes to a very fine detail. Go to the John Edwards page and give it a shot. You’ll see all the changes in excruciating detail, including dates and times.

If you’re lucky you may even have one or two of your prejudices flattered.

Is there any way to know when that item was added?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Let’s see how long it endures. That might be a telling indicator of your supposition.