Comments on: Lack of Balance Ain’t Just an MMO Issue http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117 A delicate blend of sarcasm and spite. Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:34:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Body Waxing blog http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-62353 Body Waxing blog Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:39:40 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-62353 <strong>Laser Body Waxing...</strong> Information on Body Waxing... Laser Body Waxing…

Information on Body Waxing…

]]> By: Moorgard.com » Blog Archive » Moorgard 2.0 http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-22072 Moorgard.com » Blog Archive » Moorgard 2.0 Fri, 11 May 2007 21:43:36 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-22072 [...] Green!), Psychochild spent the day musing on the pitfalls of Web 2.0. As this echoes some of my recent prattle on content creation and responsibility for it, I provided a rather grouchy reply that makes me [...] [...] Green!), Psychochild spent the day musing on the pitfalls of Web 2.0. As this echoes some of my recent prattle on content creation and responsibility for it, I provided a rather grouchy reply that makes me [...]

]]> By: Richard http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-18758 Richard Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:33:29 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-18758 It'd be nice if National Public Broadcasting was forced to remove all partisan entities and solely be fact based. That is how it is supposed to be, since it is for everyone. Generally, people get their news from AP, Fox, CNN, etc and they all slant based on who is reporting and editing. If we could set up a simple and effective nonpartisan reporting entity monitored for strict adherance to facts without even the slightest hint of biased allowed, everyone wins. Except the oped based media posing as reporters, that is. Some level of partisan bickering is healthy. However, the lack of a single fair reporting entity hurts the people enveloped in the rat race who are looking for accuracy but don't have the large amount of time required to 'sort' through the mess. It’d be nice if National Public Broadcasting was forced to remove all partisan entities and solely be fact based. That is how it is supposed to be, since it is for everyone.

Generally, people get their news from AP, Fox, CNN, etc and they all slant based on who is reporting and editing. If we could set up a simple and effective nonpartisan reporting entity monitored for strict adherance to facts without even the slightest hint of biased allowed, everyone wins. Except the oped based media posing as reporters, that is.

Some level of partisan bickering is healthy. However, the lack of a single fair reporting entity hurts the people enveloped in the rat race who are looking for accuracy but don’t have the large amount of time required to ‘sort’ through the mess.

]]> By: Ralyssand http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17708 Ralyssand Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:00:36 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17708 I know that I'm naive when I say that the "solution" (if i were to be so bold as to call it that) is educating people to have "sort skills'. If we afford our society the right to freedom of speech, then we need to be able to afford the education to everyone of how to use it and be swayed by it - government can at least help in that without being accosted by scandal and political warfare (...maybe). If people are smart enough to stop and say "I heard X, Y, Z! but it was on the Oprah Winfrey Show so really amounts to squat", then i'd say that's one battle won. Sadly i fully admit to being naive on this "solution" and extremely cynical to it ever happening. Media warfare's a bitch, and everyone's a victim. Gullible people, and spam are the weapons. It's a numbers game, and objectivity is the needle in the haystack. I know that I’m naive when I say that the “solution” (if i were to be so bold as to call it that) is educating people to have “sort skills’. If we afford our society the right to freedom of speech, then we need to be able to afford the education to everyone of how to use it and be swayed by it – government can at least help in that without being accosted by scandal and political warfare (…maybe). If people are smart enough to stop and say “I heard X, Y, Z! but it was on the Oprah Winfrey Show so really amounts to squat”, then i’d say that’s one battle won. Sadly i fully admit to being naive on this “solution” and extremely cynical to it ever happening. Media warfare’s a bitch, and everyone’s a victim. Gullible people, and spam are the weapons. It’s a numbers game, and objectivity is the needle in the haystack.

]]> By: n0kn0k http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17628 n0kn0k Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:16:27 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17628 Just watch the BBC instead of any American news program and you're fine ;) Or just don't watch it at all, it's nearly all negative anyway. Just watch the BBC instead of any American news program and you’re fine ;)
Or just don’t watch it at all, it’s nearly all negative anyway.

]]> By: Moorgard http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17622 Moorgard Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:32:40 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17622 If there was an ideal solution, it would be in place already and we wouldn't have to debate this. However, I still think the "do your own legwork" is impractical. People are lazy. They want to be fed information, not seek it out. The most effort the average person wants to do is fire up a Google search and read the top entry. So yeah, I do think we need filters. Smart filters. And they need to be watched and reviewed, with points and counterpoints and moderation. Because the alternative simply does not work in today's explosion of available information. The good stuff has to rise to the top some way other than a popularity contest. If there was an ideal solution, it would be in place already and we wouldn’t have to debate this.

However, I still think the “do your own legwork” is impractical. People are lazy. They want to be fed information, not seek it out. The most effort the average person wants to do is fire up a Google search and read the top entry.

So yeah, I do think we need filters. Smart filters. And they need to be watched and reviewed, with points and counterpoints and moderation. Because the alternative simply does not work in today’s explosion of available information.

The good stuff has to rise to the top some way other than a popularity contest.

]]> By: Adele http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17607 Adele Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:22:41 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17607 People will believe anything they read in the news these days. It is scary really because it is hard to tell who is telling the truth and who isn't. For example my husband who is a 26 year old healthy male was denied for life insurance because he has social anxiety disorder. When asked why he would be denied for that the State Farm rep said because Oprah wrote an article on the dangers of medications used to treat social anxiet disorder! I was like wth? Oprah isn't a doctor! She is a freaking talk show host! Another example would be the blog over at the forge where Matt talks about the soccer mom telling a friend how horrible gaming was and how screwed up it was making children because of an article that she had read. What people read and watch in the news helps them decide what they will believe and can really manipulate their minds. People will believe anything they read in the news these days. It is scary really because it is hard to tell who is telling the truth and who isn’t. For example my husband who is a 26 year old healthy male was denied for life insurance because he has social anxiety disorder. When asked why he would be denied for that the State Farm rep said because Oprah wrote an article on the dangers of medications used to treat social anxiet disorder! I was like wth? Oprah isn’t a doctor! She is a freaking talk show host!

Another example would be the blog over at the forge where Matt talks about the soccer mom telling a friend how horrible gaming was and how screwed up it was making children because of an article that she had read.

What people read and watch in the news helps them decide what they will believe and can really manipulate their minds.

]]> By: Screw Fair. Screw Balanced While You’re At It. at MMOG Nation http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17574 Screw Fair. Screw Balanced While You’re At It. at MMOG Nation Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:44:17 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17574 [...] responds (there, and on his own site): Good lord, I’m not sure I could disagree more. How is the average [...] [...] responds (there, and on his own site): Good lord, I’m not sure I could disagree more. How is the average [...]

]]> By: Screw Fair. Screw Balanced While You’re At It. at MMOG Nation http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17575 Screw Fair. Screw Balanced While You’re At It. at MMOG Nation Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:44:14 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17575 [...] responds (there, and on his own site): Good lord, I’m not sure I could disagree more. How is the average [...] [...] responds (there, and on his own site): Good lord, I’m not sure I could disagree more. How is the average [...]

]]> By: Raph http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-17527 Raph Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:07:03 +0000 http://www.moorgard.com/?p=117#comment-17527 So the most fundamental answer is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who decides what "objective" is? How is the average person supposed to decide who to trust? By doing the legwork. What is the alternative? That you are TOLD whom to trust. Why is that preferable? It's a "believe everything you read" scenario. So the most fundamental answer is “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Who decides what “objective” is?

How is the average person supposed to decide who to trust? By doing the legwork. What is the alternative? That you are TOLD whom to trust. Why is that preferable? It’s a “believe everything you read” scenario.

]]>