Reply With Quote
LoL, staking.
Told you.
Thanks for admitting you are staking me.
Spell fail!
If you're really not into being stalked you should leave spurstalk forever.
Told you.
Thanks for admitting you are stalking me.
LoL, staking.
Told you.
Thanks for admitting you are staking me.
Spell fail!
Thanks for admitting you are stalking me and care deeply about my missed keystrokes.
Why are you desperate for male affection?
I am not. Your desperate hope to give me some does not make it true. Neither does your admitted stalking.Why are you desperate for male affection?
Yes you are.
THis whole act of whining like a little girl about being stalked because you ran out of tricks 3 yrs ago ever since whott has owned you is pretty pathetic.
You get called out for being a moron on a thread, and you instantly turn it into messed up attention whoring thread.
If that isn't the case and it's just that you're desperate for male attention and affection. I expect you to post next, and i'll leave since this is a sad scenario.
Nah.
Nah, I'm just noting what you are doing. There really isn't much more of an explanation for your continued obsessive posting about me, is there.THis whole act of whining like a little girl about being stalked because you ran out of tricks 3 yrs ago ever since whott has owned you is pretty pathetic.
Nah, you couldn't help yourself to make a post about me because that's what you want to do when you see me here, and you are now spending all your time reinforcing the fact that you can't help posting about me.You get called out for being a moron on a thread, and you instantly turn it into messed up attention whoring thread.
Quit stealing from me. If you didn't want to give your male attention to me you would have stopped posting about me when I gave you the chance.If that isn't the case and you're just desperate for male attention. I expect you to post next.
Too late.
You failed.
Now I'm leaving for the night. I'm sure you will refrain from posting about me again because you are not obsessed with me and want to give me attention.
But of course, you are going to post about me again, because you fancy me and want to give me attention. Sorry, I just don't feel the same way about you.
.. sorry that you crave so much attention, and your 47,000 posts here prove it. I'm gonna leave and set you up with some help.
http://www.bigmentor.org/
you're in good hands now.
Google most definitely has a political agenda. This was pretty obviously proven about a day or so after Sarah Palin was nominated for VP. When she was initially nominated you got typical results, within a day or so after her nomination when it was revealed how popular she was you would immediately get back similar type links but the excerpts from those links would be these trumped negatives that were non-existent prior to her nomination added into the articles about her. For example...when you typed her name and it brought up her wiki bio, the excerpt was from the negative part of that bio, an excerpt that wasn't even part of her bio right after she was nominated. It wasn't the top of the page, it wasn't the bottom of the page, it wasn't only the new information added, yet it was the part Google excerpted. And I made a post about it on this forum after they did it.
Google also supported Obama for President..and they made contributions to his campaign.
Wikipedia has an agenda as well, it is pretty much the future of textbooks and it's primary authors on subjects of historical and political nature are liberal college professors...this is only going to get worse as liberals overwhelmingly outnumbers conservatives on the internet, and it gives them first shot at the kids. If the conservatives really want to do something about they can start getting on the internet more.
It's pretty obvious that most of the multinational corporations, particularly the media owned ones, were behind Obama, was it just the digital rights legislation? Or something more sinister...like dismantling the economic and military power of the United States of America, the worlds last remaining Superpower and pretty much the only obstacle to the UN, uberich like Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet and their respective charities, and the EU covertly becoming the de-facto world government. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama has global money behind him, in addition to the American money Bush had. He's also a lawyer, which means he is totally for sale...it's a huge problem for anyone that likes the US being the leader of the free world(which I do), especially if the alternatives are the EU and or the UN...not to mention Bill Gates and his ilk.
The President of Google is an adviser to Obama. Sadly, looks like more of the Chicago political machine in action.
When I type in the entire word "climategate" today, Google suggests
climate guatemala
climate guatemala city
yep, Google is the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you betcha.
You guys don't like your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy getting push back? nope, conservative and Repugs are all bunch of pussies when their bluff is called.
I present you with hypothesis and the data and means to test that hypothesis. Clearly, this is a foreign concept to you.
Bing.com only seems to offer the "climate/hyphen/gate" (climate-gate) spelling in their suggestions, no "climategate" or "climate gate".
It's a conspeeeeaaaarrracy maaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!
the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is well do ented.
Google does have all the links and metadata for climategate, but those Google engineers are sneaky bas s. You can bypass their "security through obscurity" with a little java scripting.
Here, this is how you get to it.
So it is just a coincidence that huffpost gets on the page one of every type of search?
Last edited by spursncowboys; 12-07-2009 at 01:30 PM.
Results 1 - 10 of about 31,000,000 for climategate
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200,000 for climate gate. (0.21 seconds)
type it as one word or two and you get a crapload of hits. what's the beef? do ya'll give up after "climategat?"
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 12-07-2009 at 02:01 PM.
Maybe it's a huge left-wing conspiracy to inconvenience conservatives by making them enter more specific search terms, but I'd wager it has more to do with page hits. A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change, compared to an overwhelming majority of liberals. Given the population is basically split 50/50, libs win the higher proportion, and their news source of choice reflects it.
how did neocons find anything whatsoever on the web before the invention of "Query Suggestions?"
Then how do you explain the op? there is no way huffpost gets more hits than wsj, or foxnews.
Don't you think it's at least plausible that those particular pages get more hits on HuffPo than they do on Foxnews or the WSJ for the reasons I stated in my last post? Honest question.
I'll be the first to admit I'm basing my proportions of interest between libs and cons on climate change on my personal experience with people in both groups and that I may, in fact, be totally wrong. But I do think it's plausible.
I'm surprised the neocons can even find google. don't they give up after "goog?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
