tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post113778115155504573..comments2023-05-13T02:24:42.139-07:00Comments on Stones In the Field: Go, Google!Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01846076773328384778noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1138658832755112842006-01-30T14:07:00.000-08:002006-01-30T14:07:00.000-08:00Hiya, Sue--glad you're here.Hiya, Sue--glad you're here.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01846076773328384778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1138465606271333162006-01-28T08:26:00.000-08:002006-01-28T08:26:00.000-08:00I agree. They use a reason that is heinous to get ...I agree. They use a reason that is heinous to get their foot in the door so they can do whatever they want. <BR/><BR/>I also agree that Yahoo, Microsoft and the whole Internet community needs to stand with Google on this one. <BR/><BR/>I don't know if the White House pays attention to our letters and emails or not, but congressmen and senators do. They depend on us for votes much more than the President. A letter is given much more weight than just one letter. I don't know the ratio, but if you write about a TV show or product or anything they believe you are speaking for others. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the post, Mac. This is ProsperitySue at AW saying hello!Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12130159732026998535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1138188109796425572006-01-25T03:21:00.000-08:002006-01-25T03:21:00.000-08:00Hurray! Welcome back, Carrie--I've missed you.Hurray! Welcome back, Carrie--I've missed you.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01846076773328384778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1138164078676261332006-01-24T20:41:00.000-08:002006-01-24T20:41:00.000-08:00That's awful. People say "child porn" to get stric...That's awful. People say "child porn" to get stricter government control, as in the Supreme Court case that dealt with this back a few years ago. According to the principles being used then, "child porn" included such films as "Traffic" and Lyne's "Lolita," as they both simulated minors involved in intercourse. A friend of mine's father was the defense attorney in that case. My friend said when her father introduced himself to people, he often got punched in the face "for defending perverts." This administration is all knee-jerk, all the time. <BR/><BR/>Besides, back a while ago, I helped a friend research a blog project cataloguing sexual fetishes that can't be enacted -- sex with invisible people, sex with cartoon animals, etc. I did lots of prurient Googling.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I'm Carrie, formerly of Secede from the Union (Flash!topia). I'm finally back on the scene with "Is there no sin in it?" Hello!A White Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04378226135352153241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1138080784861196252006-01-23T21:33:00.000-08:002006-01-23T21:33:00.000-08:00I heard a fascinating conversation on NPR today ab...I heard a fascinating conversation on NPR today about this topic. You can listen to it here:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/7euj5<BR/><BR/>and read an accompanying story:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/cz7nfohdawnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01995493308490806364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1137888695177321092006-01-21T16:11:00.000-08:002006-01-21T16:11:00.000-08:00I'm 100% behind Google and their stance. That said...<I>I'm 100% behind Google and their stance. That said, WTF are they keeping ARCHIVAL databases of all this stuff???</I><BR/><BR/>This is my feeling, too. I think I'm actually more uncomfortable with the idea that Google knows everything I've ever searched for/looked at then I ma about the gov't being curious about it.<BR/><BR/>Thought neither of them make me especially happy...Staciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07969399927758009095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1137818855432078272006-01-20T20:47:00.000-08:002006-01-20T20:47:00.000-08:00I'm 100% behind Google and their stance. That said...I'm 100% behind Google and their stance. That said, WTF are they keeping ARCHIVAL databases of all this stuff???<BR/><BR/>How many years from now will someone be able to figure out what my web searches were in 2005? Just seems dumb.ohdawnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01995493308490806364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1137804871223550542006-01-20T16:54:00.000-08:002006-01-20T16:54:00.000-08:00I'm not often in a position to applaud Google, but...I'm not often in a position to applaud Google, but...<BR/><BR/>Go Google, Go Google, Go Google.<BR/><BR/>Shame on Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL for not standing with Google on this one.Mark Pettushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14650234232914657192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-1137782109085360072006-01-20T10:35:00.000-08:002006-01-20T10:35:00.000-08:00This really bothers me, Mac. A lot! As writers, ...This really bothers me, Mac. A lot! As writers, we do lots of research. So who's gonna decide who's doing what and why? Besides, whose business is it anyway???<BR/><BR/>I completely understand the criminal aspects of child porn. Those engaging in it should be shot after they've been castrated...but, that is not cause for the rest of us to be spied upon.<BR/><BR/>Google, hold your ground!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com