Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
TechnologyReview: Google, Yahoo Not Indexing All TPM Pages
MIT's Technology Review has some interesting charts depicting social networks and linking. Our review of Google and Yahoo may be of interested to TPM editors: It appears some of the TPM pages are not getting indexed. This comes in the wake of DOJ not providing TPM with some press releases.
One example is a search in Yaoo and Google using this TPM-published blog content. The content initially appeared in the search engines, the NYSun, and the local Philadelphia indexes. However, a key word search for both names in the title produces no hits. It's as if the two names no longer exist, or are not searchable using any external search engine. It's as if the confirmed link between the two names is no longer information others want publicly known, researched, or discussed.
It remains to be understood how long Google and Yahoo have chosen not to index specific TPM content; or why information pubilcly available is no longer listed on the search engines. We encourage others with an interest in the Wecht case to review whether content you post is or isn't getting indexed, and share your results.
- Do you have problems getting access to any TPM content?
- Are the search engines providing explanations why some TPM pages are not getting indexed?
- Are you aware of any TPM webpages the search enginges are not indexing related related to the Wecht case, DOJ, or FBI interviews of Wecht Jurors?
Comments (25)
I would imagine that any website whose content is constantly changing, isn't going to have all of its content indexed. Those Google search engines only scan on a periodic basis, so it's easy to see that a lot of reader posts here will have come and gone before the engine comes along to scan again.
That said, I'm sure that there's a whole department of the FBI/Homeland Security that is reading this right now and taking down names.
April 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but the blog post in question seems to be (a) of little importance, and (b) questionable validity. I see no reason to believe that Yahoo and/or Google would go out of their way to suppress it. The comments there seem to come exclusively from 4 people - tester, JamesDD, GSB27, and Al in Austex. As for validity, I'm left wondering how tester could've gotten access to TPM's data on IP addresses in order to make the claim he's making. Like many commenters here at TPM, I know enough about networking to understand the various means of gathering such IP addresses, so I'm highly suspicious of the claim and suspect that this particular post is only intended to draw further attention to it. Next thing I know, we'll find out that Opus and I also share the same IP address.
April 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current indexing-searching-reporting problem appears to narrowly related to efforts to ensure searches using both names produce no results. The failure mode does not appear to be related to suppressing TPM pages, only worldwide searches including both names. Now, it is virtually impossible to use a search engine to find common content using both names; while it is possible to find content including both names, as long as the two names are not included in the search.
Something about the two names together is doing something unusual in the search engines. Content on TPM that contains both names is visible if the two names are not included in the search. The issue isn't narrowly the content of the page, but the ability to use the search engine to search for key words that should be visible on the TPM site.
Updated Content Does Not Explain Exclusion
The explanation of "constantly changing"-content -- as an explanation why some pages aren't getting indexed nor searchable using two words -- isn't supported by our research. Other TPM pages which do change with equal frequency because of comment updates are indexed and visible with a search engine search. The issue appears to be narrowly on the two names.
You're right, not all the content is indexed when that content is updated, but this doesn't explain why the unchanging content is also not visible, searchable, or getting indexed. The content may change, but this doesn't explain why the content -- which was originally posted and indexed -- is now not visible.
For example, by contrast, another page, with the same names, is also visible as a page under the search engines, but not visible when the two names are searched. Try searching for (wecht AND "white House"): That TPM page is visible despite changes to the content. However, the same page does not appear when the two names are used to search for that page. Again, there are no hits in the search engines. Even with pages that are not suppressed, or getting indexed, the problem is narrowly on whether those two names are or are not triggering reported pages. They are not.
Periodic Search Engine Indexing
We've also lookoed at different weg pages on TPM that have similar content, and should be getting indexed the same. The issue doesn't appear to be related to content changes, but the key words. Specifically, this comment may be true, but doesn't explain why some pages are not visible, while others are after the search engine first reported/indexed the page, but then stopped indexing that page, and it is no longer available:
Content should be visible regardless the search. It appears the two names, when searched together, are not producing any TPM pages. In truth, the pages exist, but the search engines are not reporting content despite that content existing on TPM.
Names As Signals To Suppress TPM Content?
One theory might be that the two names, when listed on the same page, are used as a signal for the search engine to exclude that page from the updates. If that were true, then we can't explain why some content with both names is visible, while other pages are not. Specifically, one TPM page that does have both names listed, is searchable as a page on the search engines, but does not report as indexed if only the two names are used. This suggests that the two names are not linked (yet) with a total blackout of all TPM content containing those names. The failure mode at this juncture is only in the failure of the search engines to report any TPM content when both names are used to search for any content.
Public Accolades, Private Suppression
Some might have others believe TPM content is raising some eyebrows at national levels on the Wecht issue. However, if the content with key names is not being indexed by design, then we're being led to believe that there's great publicity of TPM content, but an apparent countervailing effort to make that TPM content not searchable through the search engines.
- How can anyone claim that they are "impressed" with the "great TPM coverage" when the content with their names is not visible through the search engines? The issue isn't the content, but the search with both their names.
- Is the ruse for TPM posters and editors to believe the TPM content is widely available, while it is not being properly indexed? This question is not premised on a valid assumption. Rather, the content is available as long as the two names are not requested at the same time
- Are some asking TPM to believe there is "great TPM national coverage" while they know of efforts to electronically suppress that content worldwide? Again, other content with both names is visible as long as the search request does not include both names.
- Who would ask the search engines to not report content when both these names are listed on the search request? It's unclear whether specific pages and key words have been targeted for exclusion; whether this is automated, or by a person; or whether this is an error in the Google algorithm. However, this issue isn't unique to one search engine, yet the error mode occurred at the same time across the search engines. This is not isolated to Google.
- Is there an effort to suppress some TPM content, information, and background information of interest to TPM readers related to a specific TPM user history and credibility? The content with both names appears to be visible if the search request does not include both names.
Here are some unanswered questions:
- Is the effort to suppress information not related to TPM or the content on TPM, but merely the content that combines both names in a search; if so, why?
- Why is it now impossible to find with a search engine TPM content that contains both names; but one could find content that may contain their names, just as long as their names are not included in the search request?
- Does someone have an interest to block content and access to discussion related to both names, or efforts to compare both names posting content and profiles?
- Are these names being used as a flag or signaling system for others to know which TPM content to suppress using specific searches;
- If the names are signals, why would some content on TPM with both names still be visible, but other pages also containing both names not be visible when those names are searched together?
April 20, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who in the hell would even think of performing a search on both names? Do you not realize what a very, very narrow slice of the population we're talking about here? (Possibly 4 people out of 6.6 billion?) Why in the world would Google and Yahoo go to the trouble of making sure these 4 people couldn't perform that search?
If anyone's "suppressing" this search (and I highly doubt it), it'd be TPM via a robots.txt "no follow" entry (telling bots devoted to crawling the web to not go to that directory). The only reason they might do that (and I doubt they have) is because they're embarrassed by the paranoia demonstrated there (which of course would only feed said paranoia).
April 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look in the Mirror
A computer science professor not interested in unusual things. That defies reason. You even said,
Your question contradicts what you are asking others to do, conduct searches:
You thought of googling yourself, and encouraged others to do so. You never googled your own name and another term? That defies reason.
- What if someone, after googling your name, wasn't able to find something? It appears n some people's universe, that's not an acceptable starting position, much less a discussion. You're asking us to possibly do what you request -- google your name -- but not talk about curious things we might find when we attempt a name-search. You appear to have a double standard: Others can do things if you permit them; but if they do something slightly different, they've got a problem.
Troll Marathon: Day 5 Results
Put aside the above, take a look at the the following. The name Genghis goes to your profile. That's considered good humor, and enjoyable. You chose to make changes. Excellent.
The issue here is slightly different: Two names, unrelated to each other, appear to be linked by their common inability to produce search results. Changing a name is acceptable; what's at issue here is why doesn't the search engine track these names? If you want to change the name of your profile, that's fine. The issue is when one set of data links to two different profiles, but there appears to be deception. Your profile change is considered an enjoyable, and good natured joke.
Perhaps there is or isn't a relationship between the change in profiles; the common content; and the search problem.
Technical
A TPM "no follow" would apply to content; and doesn't explain the search problem: Some of the content on some pages is searchable, but is then changes, and is not searchable only when the two terms are used. Recall, pages with both names are appearing. The issues is the search term: If you search with both names, there are no results. Anywhere.
There has yet to be an explanation why, when including both terms in a single search, there are no reported results; but if either name is used separately there are results.
Again, content that is searchable using ("White House" AND wecht) does include both names, but those pages do not report when searching with those terms.
Something Changed
The search no longer produces a result, as it once did. Something changed:
For those who are not interested in discussion what might explain the change, perhaps you could discuss that:
- Why spend time and energy posting on a topic if the intent is to convince others, "This isn't worth spending time on"?
- Why would anyone spend time attempting to convince others that something isn't worth time?
- If some think this is a waste of time without answering the issue of what changed, why do some think it is a valuable use of time to justify not spending time on this?
- Without an explanation, why are some quick to spend time saying, "This isn't worth spending time"? You have no basis to know what is or isn't worth spending time on, especially when we have no answer. Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's something.
- Who would like others asking questions about their content, blogs, and public statements: "Are you really sure you want to spend time on that," yet still not be able to provide a satisfactory answer? Nobody is forcing you to post here. You like to change you ID out of a joke. This is different. Perhaps someone is using multiple IDs
- What's the basis to suggest "paranoia": Simple questions should not generate accusations of mental problems. Paranoia is an unreasonable belief about something. In this case, we have specific evidence of something. If some are not interested in discussing those reasons, why change the subject from "We don't know the answer" to "the questions must be linked with a problem with those asking the question".
The issue appears to be in the search engine. Maybe it's not. That is an electrical device. Suggesting that a person using that device and asking questions "may" have a problem hardly addresses the question: What changed, and why? Perhaps you have a good reason not to discuss. In theory, when Josh Marshall asks questions about things, nobody asks him to explain, "Why do you care about that?" He just does it.
I have no explanation for what is happening. Maybe you do. Why the interest in dissuading a conversation; and why change the subject from the unusual search issue, to whether or not someone does or doesn't have a "valid" reason. Maybe when you share your reasons for dissuading action, or explaining this away, maybe others might share their views.
If some would like to enjoy changing profiles, encouraging others to do things, but then -- when others do those things -- insult them, shame on them. You bring discredit upon your original encouragement, and bring discredit upon yourself. The intent here is to discuss the search problems, not pretend others have problems for doing what you are doing: Changing your profile name, and encouraging people to review your content connected with your name. Wouldn't you like to know if there was a problem with doing the very searches you asked others to do?
It's one thing to accuse others of having problem. It doesn't take much to realize that those we supposedly charge with leadership positions in higher education are quick to stifle independent thinking. You've considered using search engines and name changes and encouraged others to do it. The question is why you are surprised when someone does something slightly different. Does this explain why some teach rather than do? Thanks professor, another on the list of people who like to call themselves leaders, but are quick to stomp on others with hypocrisy.
Let's Start Over
Why is there this much attention to dissuade a casual discussion about what might be going on? You're a computer science person, but show more inclination to not ask questions about new things.
Mr. Comp Sci, if you would like to use profanity despite your encouraging others to google your name, you can explain your inconsistency:
Maybe you're upset that you didn't think of it. If you think ther is only a "narrow" slice of people looking at things, why are you asking/encouraging others to google your name:
Perhaps you do not realize that your name is only one (1) out of 6.6 billion. Four (4) is more than one (1). YOu want others to look at four; but do not want more than one looking at two. That defies reason.
Your question is a good one, which you appear not interested in discussing:
Then maybe the content with other names has an arbitrary "no follow", but you're not wiling to ask that, Comp Sci Prof. I"m sure you'll find a way to ignore asking that. "Far too scary."
You're the one asking/encouraging people to google your name, but when there's an unusual search result, you don't want to talk about it. Rather, you'd like to change the subject from whether there is or isn't a technical issue (your expertise), to whether or not the person may or may not have an issue:
Nice distraction and mis-direction. Starting to see quite an interesting pattern here: One standard for you, another one for others. Why would someone want to take a class from you, and spend time listening to your hypocrisy? You stop acting with double standards, and maybe others won't ask you questions about your hypocrisy. Is that sinking in, Comp Sci Guy? You change your behavior and questions, and maybe you won't look at the world through the "paranoia"-lens. (Your word).
What's your answer? Again, the idea of academic leadership is to inspire others to take seriously your peer reviewed articles. You have not well demonstrated that standard here on TPMM. When you stop suggesting others have problems in doing what you yourself do, advocate, and suggest, we might have a serious discussion about something. Until then, you picked the wrong place to camp.
April 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said before, I'm a CS grad student and not a professor. Having an interest in one's self is normal, so I don't see the comparison here. Also, I don't care if you choose to Google these names—I just find it ludicrous to assume some kind of conspiracy because the search doesn't work. It might be an interesting question, but since I don't care about these two people (or one if they are the same person), it's not one I'm going to spend time thinking about. I can understand that if you're the one doing the research, it's interesting to you. I can even understand bringing up the oddity that the search results don't agree with your intuition. But to go from there to assuming a conspiracy at Google and Yahoo, is, yes, a little insane.
And, yes, as has been pointed out numerous times, there are so many other problems with TPM's software that it is most definitely the likely culprit here.
Again, I don't mind that you brought up what you find to be an interesting problem. We can't all be interested in the same things. Just consider other alternatives and find some real evidence before you start implying conspiracy on the part of Google and Yahoo.
April 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sample links: Name doesn't match a profile. That's not at issue here.
April 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another sample: Name changes to someone else. The issue here is whether the names are searchable. If I wanted to search both these names, but Google had a problem, there's be no way to find the common links. Is that intended? You're the one with the two names. How does someone find you as you suggest? "Oh, we can't do that . . ."
April 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, the name at the comment doesn't match the profile. If someone wanted to search for both names to see others also included, then we'd have to be able to do more than only search one name. By changing names, but not answering, "Why can't we search with two terms," we can't adequately review your comments. What use is that?
April 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, you're the one with two profiles: One (incorrect) name on your comment; but that comment links to your real name at your profile. Until we can search more than one name, and find out what the problem is with the TPM content and search engines, we'll have no way to enjoy your good humor.
This is what you say about yourself, why should we take seriously what you conclude about complicated issues:
But, if someone doesn't want to know the answer, does that mean they have content under different name that they don't want someone -- student, or an academic peer -- to find? Would you say this about yourself unless you maybe thought you could be going crazy; and perhaps feared you might be thought of as Schizophrenic. Maybe this issue with the Google search problem with two names on TPM is a joke.
April 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why stop there. Here is a comment from you, where you clearly know the comment is in the gutter, difficult to read, and that is the joke. Again, if we don't have a way to use multiple names on TPM Searches, how will people find your good humor: Using one image and name; and linking that with a second profile?
- Aren't you curious how people are going to google your name, and cross index that with your excellent humor on TPM TrollAThons?
It would be such an honor for you to put on your CV:
April 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting quote:
Why would someone who is "studying" neural networks, not want to know why there may be a potential problem with the tools used to access, search for, and analyze that network?
One answer may be this, your "favorite" quote:
We don't have an answer why the two names produce no results when they are searched together. But we have some incredible excuses to not consider the question, much less explore what might be causing it. These are issues which could potentially relate to the same DOJ-level issues Josh Marshall looked at in re the US Attorney firing. Or, it may be something else.
If you have more excuses to change the subject, or project your self-described insecurities onto which you do not take the time to understand, we'll have more of what hasn't worked. Which profile are you going to use next time?
What You Ignored
Said another way: We're still not sure why this is happening; or what solutions there might be. What if there is a potential solution with the network:
- Is there a workaround: Can someone withhippocampal damage be taught to access the existing information in a new way?
- How much of the memory problem has to do with the mechanism to access that tagged information?
- Is it possible the reason you're reluctant to consider this issue with "problems with the two-named search" is that this is the very problem/failure mechanism you have rejected in your hippocampal damage research?
- How are the models used to conduct data searches with a search engine invalid, and leading to erroneous conclusions about the failure mode with hippocampal damage?
- What if one part of the hippocampal damage-model are the flawed assumptions about how the brain retrieves, stores, and manages data?
- What if our current model of how hippocampal damage occurs is based on a flawed premise about how the brain really accesses information; and an invalid assumption about how the brain-body remember things?
- Could it be that the tagging mechanism attached to that memory could be accessed with a different system, approach to bypass the physical damage with the hippocampal damage?
-What if the problem has less to do with hippocampal damage than with unknown methods to tag, retrieve, and trace existing information in the brain using assisted learning schema, models, or other memory aids?
- What if there was a way to access what was learned, despite problems with the damage?
- Rather than inhibit something, what if the inability to inhibit could be used to leverage skills, and focus energy to better store, access, manage, and interpret information?
- What if the signaling device were affected in a controllable way, and this could be selectively focused or not focused depending on the type of skills needed, the time of day, or the phase of a given project?
- What if the information is still there, but could be tagged with a back-up system that is reliable as the primary mechanisms failed?
- Could people be taught originally in a new way so that as this foreseeable problem occurs, they can still access the information because it was learned with the assumption it would have to be retrieved within a damaged brain?
April 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you've got me. That's exactly the mechanism that I rejected. Now that I've realized that I'm sure all of my research will suddenly make sense.
Look, I'm not trying to criticize your interest in the problem, although I understand it could come off that way. I'm merely criticizing your assumption that this is some sort of nefarious cover-up. The reason I mentioned how few people are interested in it isn't to discourage you from being interested in it, but to point out that Google and Yahoo would have no interest in hiding information that almost no one else cares about. How many people would they have to employ to selectively filter out all the "two-named searches" that might possibly be interesting to people looking for matching IP addresses?
April 20, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between putting a URL in URL-line in a browser; and using a URL as a search term. This suggests the following questions which you may have avoided:
- Is it possible that people studying hippocampal damage might be looking at the wrong assumptions about what information is; how it is really stored; and what we really use to make decisions; or how that information is really connected with subsequent uses, decisions, and actions?
- Do we make decisions based on information and signaling devices that is only affected by hippocampal damage; or is the issue that we may be looking a the brain the wrong way: It doesn't store information; but it acts like an arena or forum where chucks of information are connected in novel patterns, and those results are organized in a novel way? If this is the case, then how might we more creatively use the existing arena-model of decision making, to bypass perceived limitations with hippocampal damage?
Getting Back To The Search Problem
When we put this website link into the search engine search box (not the URL line), we get no hits:
People would have to know about your content to ask for it, as opposed to the stumbled upon-approach using just your name. Perhaps that is intended. I suspect there are things that can be done with various internet tools that you do not quite fully appreciate.
You have an existing problem with your own website not getting indexed nor accessible, and are not aware of it. Yet, by your own admission, you've said you are not willing to contemplate the issue of the "inability to find content linked to two names".
You might want to find out:
A. Why, when that link is placed in the search engine, is there no hit to TPM; is TPM blocking Google from searching your page, or is the issue with all the search engines?
B. Is your website at your campus getting blocked, by design; if so, why are you posting your link, and encouraging others to google your name, but the page doesn't appear as a search term in Google?
C. Until you have an answer why the link -- when placed into a search engine, not the URL line -- doesn't produce any hits, are you really in a position to question why others are or are not doing things?
D. Is there something about your CS Department that is an issue; or have you posted a link to a site that your department has said not to index?
Seems curious you're talking about "no follow" on a site, when your site doesn't show up in google. Why are you posting a link to your site on TPM, but not making sure that page is getting indexed by Google, unless you don't want people to find your pages after you told them to google your name. Indeed, your site also has a block on it so that the change aren't getting updated. Was that intended; if so, why did you bother to post the link so that it only appears on TPM, but is not visible anywhere else?
You do not appreciate the issue of "inability to search two names" because you do not understand how these limitations relate to your personal issues, understanding of technology, and how things do or do not work. It appears the reason you're rejecting the question has less to do with a conclusion that the approach is invalid; but with an erroneous conclusion based on a narrow frame of reference. That is called an invalid assumption, something you as a PhD student should be learning about, challenging; not blindly accepting because you refuse to consider novel questions. ABD is not the same as PhD.
The issue is not the question, but your apparent limitation in experience to appreciate something slightly different, which comes as a surprise given your good sense of humor on TPM Troll Day 5 postings. It appears your flaws with your research are linked with, in part, your apparent inability to consider other views with the spirit that they are intended: To challenge to find truth, seek clarity, and understand reality. When you show you can do this on TPM, maybe others will take you more seriously as a PhD student and a PhD. Your comments appear linked with a credibility problem.
April 20, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that there are twice as many assumptions as there are researchers, I'd consider that to practically be a tautology. One area we do research (we don't research hippocampal damage per se)) is how decisions are made. We don't make single assumptions. We make multiple assumptions, while simultaneously believing none of them to be actually true, but merely approximations. Our models operate at the synaptic (and sometimes molecular) level, so there's a lot more that we don't know than we do. It's a given.
I'd guess that TPM has "no follow" rules in place for profiles. I believe that's standard practice for most similar blogging sites.
Considering that it turns up as the first hit in a search for "Ben Hocking", the answer is no, it's not being blocked. The hocking part of the path is merely an alias for ~abh2n which I created since it's easier for people to remember. I'm not surprised that the search engine prefers the actual directory name rather than its alias.
I suppose not. Nor am I willing to assume it's a conspiracy, however.
April 20, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
It is really not worth arguing with Testing. He/she is very set in his/her views. You are simply going to get more antagonistic responses.
April 22, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you learn how to argue, you'll be taken of the 'no-notice'-ban list:
If you say this interchange is "not worth" anything, why are you spending time here? When you stop suggesting others "not do" what you're doing, you may have some credibility.
Read the TPM policy on harassing content. Stop.
May 12, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice flaming another person that disagrees with your crazy conclusions.
You truly are an asshole Testing.
April 22, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to read the TPM posting policy:
May 11, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated crap on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants on this blog. If you chose to leave a comment on his blog that does not agree with his wacked out conspiracy theories, the blogger will in turn attack you. He has a history of flaming people throughout the TPM site. He rants that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow connected to the DOJ, attempting to spread misinformation since the poster does not agree with him, or attempts to connect the poster to another poster in a means of discrediting him/her.
While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.
April 22, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to read the TPM posting policy. When you stop spamming, you will not be subject to a non-notice ban.
You've posted this same comment, but are not providing credible discussion or other views. You're the problem:
You've done an excellent job at muddying the water on "jury poll". You've not provided any specifics.
When you learn how to argue, you'll be taken seriously.
May 12, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
NIce flaming another person that disagrees with your crazy conclusions.
April 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the TPM posting policy. This isn't your blog. You're not an invited guest:
If you're not happy with the posting policies on TPM, find somewhere else to post.
May 12, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!
All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated allegations on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants on this blog.
If you chose to leave a comment on his blog that does not agree with his conspiracy driven dribble, the blogger will in turn attack you. He has a history of flaming people throughout the TPM site.
He rants that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow connected to the DOJ, attempting to spread misinformation since the poster does not agree with him, attempts to connect the poster to another poster in a means of discrediting him/her, or attempts to claim the commenter is violating TPM policy for posting a divergent point of view.
While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.
Proceed at your own risk.
May 13, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are some important concerns. If you or others reading TPM would like more information, or share your detailed concerns about this problem, please consider visiting here. If you would like attention to this issue, please consider recommending the linked content. Others will have the information they need.
May 14, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment