Marty wrote:
> I wonder how SPI would respond to that statement.
Would be interesting, wouldn't it. I mean you are talking about a
collective of individuals who have decided that some software should be
funded. Just because they say it is "in the public interest" doesn't mean the
public wants or even cares about their opinions.
> I would settle for another search engine that doesn't selectively
> obscure information for equally obscure reasons. Somebody already
> mentioned one called gmane.org, which I plan to check out.
gmane.org, you mean the mail<->news gateway? Gee, wonder why they would
have a higher hit for mailing list traffic.... Hmmm, might be that pesky part
about them being a mail<->news gateway. Again, Google obscures nothing. Just
because Google doesn't return the hits you're expecting doesn't mean they're
obscured, either. Just means your search is not specific enough. No more, no
less. Hardly anything insidious in that.
> No, it's just some recent change that google made.
So you claim. And your proof is... what?
> Get off your high horse.
Sorry, mine's more of a pony compared to that war charger you're on. How
about you dismount first?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
