Two New Site Features and Other Changes
I just added two new features to the site. Neither of these are major, but were requested by a number of users and should come in handy for some.
User Contact Forms
User's can now contact other users privately. To allow someone to contact you privately click 'my account' on the left hand panel, and edit your settings to have 'Personal contact form' checked. To contact another user view their profile (click their name), and click the 'contact' tab. If the user allows private messages then you will see a contact form, otherwise you will be notified that the user does not allow private messages. Anonymous users are not allowed to contact you. These private messages are sent via email, and are not archived on this site. Please note that your email address is NOT made public by doing this. However, if you contact a user your message will be listed as coming from your email address. So in other words, if you contact someone they will see your email address, but if someone contacts you they won't see your email address (unless you reply to the email obviously).
Printer Friendly Pages
Now when you view a blog entry or news story you will see a 'printer friendly version' link at the bottom of the post. If you click on this link you will be taken to a page which removes all of the site themeing, ads, etc. and will get a 'printer friendly' page to print. This will take all of the links in the article, insert appropriate notations next to the text that is linked, and provide a listing of web references at the bottom of the page. This feature should be pretty handy. You can get an idea of how it works by checking out this article and then see how it appears when it is printer friendly.
If there are any obvious issues with these new features please let me know. Also, please be sure to update your profile if you would like to allow other users to send you private messages.
As for other things I'm working on for the site.. I have a working page to go in the blog section called 'Top User Blogs'. This new section shows the top 20 user blogs ranked both by the average rating of their blog entries, and the number of blog entries they have. This section won't be added until I have other things in place most likely. I am hopeful to get the main blog page replaced with a new main blog page which allows for filtering by blog entry rating, and next after that will be auto-hiding low rated comments (ala digg.com). These changes may take a while, but they have taken priority over the other abilities I was looking into (chat specifically).
Also, today I upgraded our hosting server. It now is allocated twice the CPU and RAM and I hope this will help us better cope if/when we get 'dugg' again. This was also in response to a 40 minute downtime which occurred today from not having enough RAM to handle the number of SQL queries we were getting. I believe this is tied to a larger issue which has recently been addressed in drupal, and I will be looking into applying a fix for this issue tomorrow night. If at any point the site goes down please contact me.
Best wishes all!
Thanks, dz!
Very much appreciated.
Thank you, dz.
The PM function is quite a luxury, IMO.
i personally didn't see much
i personally didn't see much use in it, but we got a few people who wanted it, and i just had to turn it on ;)
now the 'printer friendly pages'.. that mess is actually pretty cool.. a lot of the better written cumulative blog entries by GW and others can be turned into make-shift fliers this way.. it lists out all the URL's at the bottom of the page, etc.. i bet this will come in handy..
i was hoping to get more work done last night on the blog section, but i got drug off to look at wedding invitations - not that you care ;)
thanks!
Thank you very much, dz!
Thank you very much, dz, for adding the PM function (IMHO, NOT a luxury for a site that is devoted in part to coordinated activism).
Thank you also for the "Printer Friendly" page formatting functionality.
As for your intention of adding a function for "auto-hiding low rated comments," this may prove to be problematic for your readers' "want-to-know" rights and for the "free speech" rights of those with possibly-important but unpopular news, opinions, science, and research -- depending on how you implement this function.
If there is a page-by-page, user-selected "On-Off" button for this function, and if the default state is "View All Comments," then it should be no problem.
However, if the default state is "Hide Unpopular Comments," then you may be unintentionally subjecting your readers to the whims of the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps.
In all popular social change movements and in all investigatory "truth movements" (e.g., JFK, 9/11, etc.), the Cover-Up Perps and the PsyOp Perps will attempt to delay activist communications and to delay the exposure of the truth. The 9/11 Truth Movement, of course, is no different.
Auto-Hiding comments based on comment popularity ratings as the "default" would enable IP-spoofing 9/11 Cover-Up Perps & 9/11 PsyOp Perps to manipulate what most readers will see based on what comments & truths that the Cover-Up & PsyOp boys & girls want most readers to see.
All in all, dz, thank you very much again!
That would be a lot of work
for the IP-spoofing minions of evil, as they would have to register in order to rate posts and blogs.
It's interesting that on the one hand, you think of blogger as a site for coordinated activism, yet on another, in the case where it might be argued that bloggerites are indeed acting in the most coordinated way, you have a problem. That is, comment rating is not a "popularity contest," it is a coordinated effort of motivated individuals here to steer discourse in what they believe is the direction MOST ADVANTAGEOUS to a real 9/11 Truth movement.
Me Thinks that the Lady Doth Protest Too Much...
Casseia:
About the potential for PsyOp manipulation of what most 911Blogger bloggers & readers might read under an "Auto-Hide Unpopular Comments" regime or scheme, you say: "That would be a lot of work."
The 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps have virtually unlimited assets, budgets & resources to accomplish their goals & objectives (wittingly, semi-wittingly, unwittingly & witlessly).
You say: "[C]omment rating is not a 'popularity contest,' it is a coordinated effort of motivated individuals here to steer discourse in what they believe is the direction MOST ADVANTAGEOUS to a real 9/11 Truth movement. "
You may be naive. Many if not most 9/11Blogger bloggers (including you) may currently use their comment-rating abilities in the manner that you describe. However, given that 911Blogger is one of the most popular 9/11 sites on the internet, if the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps & the 9/11 PsyOp Perps were not active at 911Blogger, then they should be fired for incompetence!
A page-by-page "Opt-In" auto-hide of unpopular comments may accomplish the objectives that dz may be attempting to accomplish -- without many of the spook-manipulable downsides.
The solution suggested above recognizes the potential problem and provides a solution. If you have a better solution, then please let us know.
Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
Do you know how Digg works?
As I've said in another post, I am in favor of a system that simply puts one more level of "selection" between the new user and posts that represent a counterproductive fringe.
Regarding the presence of "perps" here at blogger: I suppose you would know as well as anyone.
911Blogger Parental Controls to Auto-Hide Unpopular "Truth"?
As indicated above, "put[ting] one more level of 'selection' between the new user and posts that represent a counterproductive fringe" by auto-hiding unpopular comments may have a great potential to be used by the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps to cover up and manipulate the real truth about 9/11.
Sometimes, the real truth is initially very unpopular. I trust the "9/11 newbies" who come to 9/11 Blogger to be able to sift through the news, blogs, and comments to find information about 9/11 truth that works for them. And I certainly do not want to install "Parental Controls" by popularity ratings on what the truth is -- especially since 9/11 newbies might NOT ordinarily know that possible 9/11 truth is being filtered for them by use of these "9/11 Parental Truth Controls."
Manipulated mob rule on the "Truth" is what makes "1984"-type societies work for the elite powers behind the scenes (the ones who are actually controlling the game -- and "The Truth").
If 9/11 newbies and others would like to use a page-by-page "Opt-In" button to auto-hide unpopular comments & blogs, then they should be able to do so.
You also say: "Regarding the presence of 'perps' here at blogger: I suppose you would know as well as anyone."
Casseia, you are quite correct. I have 35+ years of experience in controversial social change movements and investagatory truth movements, Including but not limited to opposition to the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, JFK, Tesla-type "Free Energy" technologies, opposition to U.S. & other suppression of democracy & economic development in Third World countries, 9/11, etc. Many if not most of the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement know me or know who I am. In addition, I have acted as Literary Agent for some of them (so, maybe I really am an "Agent" -- LoL).
Every one of the above groups was infiltrated by "Cointelpro"-type & other "agents" (some more than others). One of the favorite tactics of these "Divide-and-Conquer Agents" is to accuse other people in the group of being an "agent." This induces a sense of paranoia, and it has a tendency to undermine trust, communications, and activism.
Thus, although you may see me asking questions about the possibly-unintended EFFECTS of some of the communications at 911 Blogger, you will ordinarily not see me accusing others of being an "agent." Such namecalling is ordinarily counterproductive in the extreme, and it ordinarily only helps the agenda of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.
Neither the 911 Blogger Admins nor we should unwittingly do anything to make the job of these almost-always-present-but-often-subtle 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps any easier.
Inexplicit Parental Controls to Auto-Hide Alleged "Truth" may have the great potential to help the 9/11 Perps to do their job even better than they already have (for 5 years and counting). Therefore, I oppose such controls on alleged & unpopular possible truths -- except on an explicit, user-controlled "Opt-In" basis.
Not popularity, not "parental" controls.
It would be, rather, a process of natural selection, whereby very unpopular ideas are forced to prove their worth BEFORE they use a very powerful tool of meme-dissemination like unfettered representation on 911blogger.
You know, Thomas, it really doesn't matter if your purpose here is to cultivate paranoia or not. It is a rare post from you that does not go into "cointelpro" and "perps." It makes little difference whether you call people names directly or not; you constantly invoke the specter of faceless disinfo agents, polluting 911blogger discourse for their nefarious purposes. I'd say that harping on a possibility/probability most of us here accept "undermine(s) trust, communication, and activism."
What's in a name? A rose is a rose & censorship is censorship.
Hi, Casseia:
As Shakespeare once said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo & Juliet (II, ii, 1-2).
Yes, a rose is a rose; and censorship is censorship.
Regardless of what name that you call it, potentially-PsyOp-controlled auto-hiding of unpopular comments & blogs is censorship.
You say: "Not popularity, not 'parental' controls": It would be, rather, a process of natural selection, whereby very unpopular ideas are forced to prove their worth BEFORE they use a very powerful tool of meme-dissemination like unfettered representation on 911blogger."
By definition, user ratings of comments & blogs are a popularity contest in which the name of the game can then become: "Vote Early & Often" (not just applicable in Chicago, Florida & Ohio).
911 Blogger registered-user ratings are not even a scientifically valid poll of all 911 Blogger readers, are not a scientific peer review, can be irrational, and are definitely based on the likes and dislikes of self-selected 911 Blogger registered users (by definition).
You indicate that this is warranted censorship and "a process of natural selection, whereby very unpopular ideas are forced to prove their worth...[emphasis added]."
Darwin's "natural seclection" is semi-scientific. A self-selected popularity contest is not "natural," and it is not "sceintific." In addition, there would be no proof of the "worth" of unpopular ideas except for unnatural, unscientific popularity contests by non-scientists (who could easily be card-carrying members of the team of 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps).
Casseia, you say: [You know, Thomas, it really doesn't matter if your purpose here is to cultivate paranoia or not. It is a rare post from you that does not go into "cointelpro" and "perps." It makes little difference whether you call people names directly or not; you constantly invoke the specter of faceless disinfo agents, polluting 911blogger discourse for their nefarious purposes. I'd say that harping on a possibility/probability most of us here accept "undermine(s) trust, communication, and activism." {Emphasis Added}]
LoL.
. Are you suggesting that anyone who talks about Cointelpro, agents, perps, disinfo & paranoia should be banned from 9/11 Blogger (self-voluntarily or otherwise)? That might include a large number of registered users at 911 Blogger. Although you once sugeested that I voluntarily ban myself from 911 Blogger, wouldn't your comment above qualify you for this "natural" self-selection process?
You know that most of my comments are about "free speech," open communicatoins, potential censorship, scientifically-oriented debate, etc.
You should not and I do not and we should not fear the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps. We should welcome them! We can & often do learn more from the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps and from what they try to cover up and how they try to spin the 9/11 debate about "9/11 Truth" than from almost anything else.
This was definitely true for the JFK Assassination "Truth Movement," and it is also true for the 9/11 Truth Movement. (Have you ever clicked the trigger in rapid succession on a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- supposedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate JFK? I have...)
What I am suggesting is that we not let these semi-"faceless disinfo agents" control the speed of the debate and the dissemination of possibly-false but maybe-true "9/11 Truth" by their self-selected votes in some well-intentioned but possibly-counterproductive 9/11 Blogger popularity contest.
As for "parental controls," most sincere 9/11 newbies don't need Daddy DZ & Mommy Casseia (and others) determining what they see & don't see first. They want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Lies & disinfo can often expose "Truth" better than mere assertions of the truth.
If 911 Blogger readers want to filter "9/11 Truth" through the lens of some type of self-selected popularity contest, then let new & old 911 Blogger readers choose to do this BY CHOICE (not by fiat).
My suggestions to DZ: Trust the people. Don't baby them. By any other name, a rose is a rose, and "In loco parentis" is censorship.
Let me know. Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
We've reached the agree to disagree point.
Although I strongly disagree with you, you might note that I don't stoop to childish name-calling like "Mommy casseia."
You have not persuaded me. I will continue to be skeptical of your motives. I am done arguing this topic with you for now, since we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
Good luck. Adieu. Gracias.
Semi-Affectionate Name-Calling?
Hi again, Casseia:
Thank you.
Of course, you & I had reached the point of "We agree to disagree" a long time ago. In these comment posts, we were not talking to each other. We were talking to others (including DZ).
If you think that semi-affectionately calling you "Mommy Casseia" is name-calling, then you may not have seen some of the other posts & comments at 911 Blogger. Or maybe you have.
I have seen you approve of some if not much of the name-calling at 911 Blogger. This may be why you approve of the possibly-impending 911 Blogger policy of "Auto-Hide Unpopular Comments" You are on the semi-popular "winning" team. If you want examples of your approval of name-calling, then you probably know that I can give them to you.
Casseia, you say: "You have not persuaded me. I will continue to be skeptical of your motives."
Really? Do you promise? I really like people who diagree with me. Questioning my sincerity is another matter; however, I can also deal with that.
As you say (and I agree), "Good luck. Gracias." If you will please excuse my one additional example of semi-affectionate name-calling, then the only thing that I have to add is: "Hasta la vida, loca!"
Thomas J Mattingly
Taking advantage of your expertise...
Let's imagine a completely hypothetical situation for a moment, Thomas. I am honestly curious about your thoughts on this matter.
Let's say, as is in fact probable, that "disinfo perps" and "cover-up perps" are hard at work at 911blogger. What if they developed a strategy whereby a very far-out idea would be purposefully introduced into the dialogue here. Let's say, for instance (and purely for instance, not as a jibe) that they wanted the idea to be "The WTC never existed at all."
What if their purpose was two-fold? On the one hand, they knew that this theory would capture the imagination of many of the people here, people who would find it a very interesting theoretical avenue to pursue. So interesting, in fact, that they wouldn't be motivated to continue investigations or discussions of other topics. Others, who found it unacceptable, maybe because they believed that they had had personal experience of being in the towers, were drawn to threads discussing the topic out of intellectual outrage or a personal sense of offense. All in all, much time and lots of bandwidth would be consumed by an idea that was, in fact, false and artificially introduced.
OTOH, the perps recognized, as did some but not all of the non-perp people at blogger, that this idea would be very, very difficult to promote in the public imagination. After all, many people believe that they'd seen the towers or been in them, and so forth, although compelling evidence could be produced that would suggest otherwise (and would be produced in many blogs.) Even if it were true, it would be very difficult to persuade the general public that the towers never existed at all. Whenever the idea was addressed in popular culture, it would be with ridicule, and yet the idea would have great power (maybe because it was so ridiculous? or so counter-intuitive?) and would become fundamentally associated with the idea of 9/11 Truth in the minds of many people who were otherwise not well informed on the topic. So that, for example, if I were out leafletting or giving away DVDs, it would not be at all unusual to run into someone who would dismiss me with the pronouncement "You're the guys who think the towers never existed at all!"
So, then, here's our completely hypothetical scenario: Disinfo/ cover-up perps are real. They inject an idea which is FALSE, along with enough information to convince a lot of people that it is not false, or at the very least, to entertain the possibility. Perps work to keep the idea prominent at blogger, along with well-intentioned people who are simply curious and open to ideas that are very unconventional. The idea becomes so established in the discourse here (and elsewhere) with its jargon, examples of evidence, and so forth, that it leaks into the general public's awareness, where additional perps in the media are ready and waiting to exploit it, magnify it, and use it to undermine the perceived credibility of everyone with a skeptical attitude toward the official version of events, even those who believe that the towers really did exist, without discriminating between the two groups.
How could a community like blogger defeat/derail a disinfo strategy like that?
The "9/11 Truth" PsyOp that Ate the "9/11 Truth" Cover-Up???
Of course, your proposed hypothetical Red Herring of "The WTC towers never existed" is easily debunked by scientific & other evidence.
There would be no need to resort to a name-calling, personal-attack-full verbal food fight to debunk such a hypothesis. Thus, my suggestion would be to use simple, truthful evidence to debunk such a ploy. In addition, enforcing the 911 Blogger rules against name-calling, personal attacks, and carrying over personal disputes from one thread to the next would also be a good idea. At the moment, these policies may be more honored in the breach.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the hypotheses at which the possibly new 911 Blogger policy of "Auto-Hide Unpopular Blogs & Comments" is directed are not so easily debunked. There is substantial evidence on both sides of these hypotheses.
At the moment, similar to the formerly radical proposition that "The Earth Is Round," there are many more people at 911 Blogger who are opposed to some of the radical semi-new 9/11 propositions about which others & you are complaining (and are negatively rating).
The solution is to tell the truth and show the contrary evidence -- early & often. The solution is NOT to vote -- early & often.
Science is not a popularity contest. 9/11 Truth is not a popularity contest. However, the Cognitive Dissonance PsyOp of "9/11 Truth" may very well be the planetary prime directive of the current set of 9/11 Cover-Up Perps & 9/11 PsyOp Perps -- achieved primarily by polarizing popularity contests between and within the different groups that are still focused on "What happened on 9/11, and what do we do about it?"
If we effectively throw those with whom we disagree out of our group, then all that will remain is a group of like-minded individuals engaging in intellectual incest. If we are ever to do something effective to find out what really happened and to counter the results of 9/11, then we need a diversity of thought, opinions & ideas at 911 Blogger and elsewhere.
"Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior; in laymen's terms, it is the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance.
Although I disagree with Fintan Dunne on a regular basis, you may want to check out the new segment of his "9/11 without Tinfoil" series at www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=963. This segment is all about the PsyWar that is currently occurring in and between our "alternative" 9/11 community, the mainstream, community, and the middle ground community. Others & you may want to pay special attention to his audio by clicking on this link: http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel061004a.mp3.
The psychological phenomena of Cognitive Dissonance may be heavily at play in all three (3) of the above communities. Cognitive Dissonance works best with an appeal to emotion and when there is no diversity of opinion in a small group.
An "Auto-Hide of Unpopular Comments" is an effective way to virtually eliminate the diversity of opinion & ideas that is necessary to effectively combat "The '9/11 Truth' PsyOp" that may be about to eat "The '9/11 Truth' Cover-Up."
Please do not underestimate the intelligence of the readers who come to 911 Blogger. They can figure out what 9/11 truth is -- and what it is not. Our 911 Blogger readers do not need us to hide the possible truth. If we do, then it may be another five (5) years before we discover that our 9/11 truth world is figuratively round -- and another five (5) years thereafter before we are able to take effective action. The truth about the JFK Assassination may be a semi-perfect example of these phenomena.
Not an answer to my question!
Feel free to substitute any theory you wish for my "WTC never existed." The point would be 1) it is an assertion that is false 2) it is an assertion that is deliberately injected into the stream of discourse 3) it is an assertion that has persuasive power for some fraction of the 911blogger community 4)it is an assertion that is not easily debunked.
I think a legitimate answer would address those issues or consist of an argument that such a "psy-op" could not take place.
Beauty and Truth Are in the Eyes of the Bee Holders
Casseia, IMHO, my answer to your question goes to the heart of the matter. As usual, you disagree. Of course, disagreements are still allowed at 911 Blogger (at least, for now).
In answer to your question about how 911 Blogger should deal with deliberately false assertions that are complex & semi-persuasive, I suggested that full discussions & debates of the scientific & other merits of these false assertions should be allowed to play out in open view on the pages of 911 Blogger and that 911 Blogger policies against personal attacks, name-calling, and thread-to-thread grudge matches be strictly enforced. That's my answer, and I'm stickin' to it.
911 Blogger readers are smart people. Even if they don't immediately figure out what's false & what's true, they eventually will figure it out. Effectively limiting the debate will not help in this process. It can only hurt -- just as it did in the JFK Assassination "Truth Movement."
The proposed 911 Blogger policy to "Auto-Hide Unpopular Comments" may be similar to the new Google News policy of favoring mainstream media sources in Google rankings. This too is censorship.
As for what is true and what is false, DZ and the other 911 Blogger Admins know that imposing what they think is "9/11 Truth" is not the mission of 911 Blogger. Enabling a small group of self-selected popularity contest voters to choose what "truth" is presented first at 911 Blogger is tantamount to the same type of censorship -- achieved by proxy.
IMHO, some or much of what is accepted as "9/11 Truth" dogma may be false. The best way to expose these "false truths" is not by effectively kicking the proponents of these Red Herrings off the pages of 911 Blogger. The best way to expose these Red Herrings & Limited Hang Outs is with scientific & other evidence and truth. Speak it early & often.
You disagree. I like it! Thanx. --TM
Sorry, posted twice.
.