GOOGLE officially ignores U.S. Memorial Day again

[flacaltenn]

Then how do you explain their Vets Day graphic?

They put less effort into that wimpy graphic than they do tracking my every move on Chrome. TODAY -- the Rachael Carson logo links to a full page of links on the woman..

Yesterday, it just looked like a million other little pesky ads and rabbit traps that one sees on their pages. Didn't even bother to blend into their theme of customizing days..

There WAS a bit of probable laziness or disinterest on their part.

And what exactly would you have them link Memorial Day to?

Isn't a subject such as Rachel Carson, being less known that Memorial Day, more in need of links by definition?

I for one had no idea it was Rachel Carson's birthday, but nobody had to tell me it was Memorial Day. Think about it.

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So in summation:

1. OP'er jumped the gun by starting this thread yesterday.
2. OP'er has a rather ghastly and unhealthy obsession with rodent vaginas.
3. OP'er can solve this problem of not liking google by simply using another search engine.


Howd I do? :*)

You failed, naturally.

I didn't jump any gun. I was correct. No wonder you were lost from the first post.

I am far from obsessed with your ilk. But when I notice such varmint hideousness, I am free to mention it. In disgust.

And no matter which search engine I use, Google is still behaving in a ghastly fashion.

As I say; you failed, quite fully.

Wow. 2 days later and you are STILL bitching about this?

My ilk would have nothing to do with the likes of YOU. So, please feel free to ignore me.

Hey, math genius:

It's the NEXT day; not TWO days later.

And I was responding to your fucking ignorant stupidity.

Don't want that? Fine. Then don't make post your ignorant stupid comments.

Now, go insert a tampon and stem the massive flow of your blood. Then have a huge steaming mug of stfu.



Enjoy.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

OP is a weak, disgruntled man that angrily complains and cusses at nearly everything.

The original post is not a man. Op does not mean the original Post-er.

And the person (me) who put up the OP is not disgrunteld except with the obnoxious behavior of the Google honchos.

I do cuss once in a while.

Get over it, ya stupid bitch.

TC is a weak, disgruntled old man that angrily complains and cusses at nearly everything.

^ the Godless Asshole-a is just a stupid twat that whines and bitches about others when she has little control over her own stupid nature. And she never has any such control.

Sucks to be her.

 

[Pogo]

They put less effort into that wimpy graphic than they do tracking my every move on Chrome. TODAY -- the Rachael Carson logo links to a full page of links on the woman..

Yesterday, it just looked like a million other little pesky ads and rabbit traps that one sees on their pages. Didn't even bother to blend into their theme of customizing days..

There WAS a bit of probable laziness or disinterest on their part.

And what exactly would you have them link Memorial Day to?

Isn't a subject such as Rachel Carson, being less known that Memorial Day, more in need of links by definition?

I for one had no idea it was Rachel Carson's birthday, but nobody had to tell me it was Memorial Day. Think about it.

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're on. It's a bet. Show your figures.

We'll let the OP hold the kitty. He knows all about bets.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And what exactly would you have them link Memorial Day to?

Isn't a subject such as Rachel Carson, being less known that Memorial Day, more in need of links by definition?

I for one had no idea it was Rachel Carson's birthday, but nobody had to tell me it was Memorial Day. Think about it.

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're on. It's a bet. Show your figures.

We'll let the OP hold the kitty. He knows all about bets.

Apparently more than poor pathetic pogo.

He seems to imagine that there is such a thing as a one-sided bet.

 

[FA_Q2]

They put less effort into that wimpy graphic than they do tracking my every move on Chrome. TODAY -- the Rachael Carson logo links to a full page of links on the woman..

Yesterday, it just looked like a million other little pesky ads and rabbit traps that one sees on their pages. Didn't even bother to blend into their theme of customizing days..

There WAS a bit of probable laziness or disinterest on their part.

And what exactly would you have them link Memorial Day to?

Isn't a subject such as Rachel Carson, being less known that Memorial Day, more in need of links by definition?

I for one had no idea it was Rachel Carson's birthday, but nobody had to tell me it was Memorial Day. Think about it.

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You would think that this is both painfully obvious and very simple. The fact that so many refuse to acknowledge this simplicity is really telling of the self inflicted blindness here.

They don't care. Most don't care that they don't care either which is why your original statement is spot on... "There IS something to this. Not much -- but a detectable cultural bias.."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

0 logo art for Memorial Day <

logo art for Rachel Silent Spring Carson's Burfday.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is another reason why I avoid GOOGLE. I've set up my browser to use another search engine. I block their ads. I never go to the GOOGLE site. I refuse to use Android devices.

It's a truly evil company.

"truly evil?" And what makes you say such a thing? Care to elaborate?


Other than the company is made up of mostly hippies that disagree with your political views I don't really see where you would come up with such an accusation. That hardly makes them evil.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hey it's Rachel Louise Carson's 107th birthday today. Google's doodle is commemorating it today, the 26th of May. Check it out.

Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. She is known around the world. Memorial Day is an American holiday, honoring Americans and celebrated by Americans.

And many of the things that they commemorate are country specific (such as the fourth of July). That does not change the fact.

This is a baseless statement.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're saying they're biased to the conservative then?

Rachel Carson was after all a conservationist, and that is a conservative issue...

What do you think we can do to rectify this obvious Google conservative bias?

Or do we even need to?

It is after all...... a SEARCH ENGINE...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And let's consider WHO Google celebrates:

Rachel fucking Carson.

Yeech.

* * * *
As detailed by Roger Meiners and Andy Morriss in their scholarly yet very readable analysis, &#8220;Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic,&#8221; Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to advocate and legitimatize &#8220;positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking.&#8221; Carson &#8220;encourages some of the most destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world.&#8221;

Carson&#8217;s proselytizing and advocacy raised substantial anxiety about DDT and led to bans in most of the world and to restrictions on other chemical pesticides. But the fears she raised were based on gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that, if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious academic misconduct. Her observations about DDT have been condemned by many scientists. In the words of Professor Robert H. White-Stevens, an agriculturist and biology professor at Rutgers University, &#8220;If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.&#8221;

In 1992, San Jose State University entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences, offered a persuasive and comprehensive rebuttal of &#8220;Silent Spring.&#8221; As he explained in &#8220;The Lies of Rachel Carson,&#8221; a stunning, point by point refutation, &#8220;it simply dawned on me that that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about [pesticides] and that I was being duped along with millions of other Americans.&#8221; He demolished Carson&#8217;s arguments and assertions, calling attention to critical omissions, faulty assumptions, and outright fabrications.

Consider, for example, this passage from Edwards&#8217; article: &#8220;This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse effects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that &#8216;in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.&#8217; The World Health Organization stated that DDT had &#8216;killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.&#8217;&#8221;

In addition, DDT was used with dramatic effect to shorten and prevent typhus epidemics during and after WWII when people were dusted with large amounts of it but suffered no ill effects, which is perhaps the most persuasive evidence that the chemical is harmless to humans. The product was such a boon to public health that in 1948 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr. Paul Müller for his discovery of the &#8220;contact insecticidal action&#8221; of DDT.

It is extraordinary that anyone in the mainstream scientific community could continue to embrace sentimental claptrap of &#8220;Silent Spring,&#8221; so we were surprised to see the commentary, &#8220;In Retrospect: Silent Spring,&#8221; in the scientific journal Nature in May by evolutionary biologist Rob Dunn. Science is, after all, evidence-based, but Dunn&#8217;s puff piece is a flawed and repugnant whitewash of Carson&#8217;s failure to present actual evidence to support her assertions, and of the carnage that she caused. It also demonstrates that Dunn knows little about the history or toxicology of DDT.

Although the use of DDT is not risk-free, there is a vast difference between applying large amounts of it in the environment &#8212; as farmers sometimes did before it was banned in the United States &#8212; and using it carefully and sparingly to fight mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects, as it is used in a handful of African and Asian countries even today. It is sprayed or dusted indoors in small amounts to prevent mosquitoes from nesting, so exposures are extremely low. The now well-known problems associated with the thinning of raptor&#8217;s eggshells &#8211; while always exaggerated &#8211; can be completely avoided by using DDT with care exclusively in residential areas, because the chemical remains largely near where it is sprayed. No study has ever linked DDT environmental exposure to harm to human health.

A basic principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison, and with modern regimens both environmental and human exposures would be very low. But &#8220;Silent Spring&#8221; condemned essentially all use of chemical insecticides and rejected the firmly established principle that products with known but small risks can offset far larger risks and provide a net safety benefit.

Carson&#8217;s disingenuous proselytizing spurred public pressure to ban DDT in many countries, with disastrous consequences: a lack of effective control of mosquitoes that carry malaria and other diseases. Malaria imposes huge costs on individuals, families and governments. It inflicts a crushing economic burden on malaria-endemic countries and impedes their economic growth. A study by the Harvard University Center for International Development estimated that a high incidence of malaria reduces economic growth by 1.3 percentage points each year. Compounded over the four decades since the first bans of DDT, that lost growth has made some of the world&#8217;s poorest countries an astonishing 40 percent poorer than had there been more effective mosquito control.

It is bad enough that the case against DDT was based on anecdote and innuendo, but Carson and Dunn and the regulators who banned DDT failed to consider the inadequacy of alternatives. Because it persists after spraying, DDT works far better than many pesticides now in use, many of which are just as toxic to birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms. And with DDT unavailable, many mosquito-control authorities are depleting their budgets by repeated spraying with expensive, short-acting and marginally effective insecticides.

Another advantage of DDT is that even when mosquitoes become resistant to its killing effects, they are still repelled by it. An occasional dusting of window- and door-frames is extremely effective at keeping mosquitoes out of homes, schools, hospitals, and other buildings. When used in this way, the exploitation of DDT&#8217;s repellency also exposes people to lower amounts of insecticide than occurs with the only comparably effective alternative, bed nets soaked in various other pesticides. Moreover, limited DDT spraying does its work at a fraction of the cost.

The legacy of Rachel Carson is that tens of millions of human lives &#8211; mostly children in poor, tropical countries &#8211; have been traded for the possibility of slightly improved fertility in raptors. This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century. It is shocking that Dunn, an assistant professor of biology, remains ignorant of Carson&#8217;s shortcomings, and deplorable that university students are exposed to a scientist who manifests such ignorance and failure to respect the norms of science. Likewise, Nature&#8217;s decision to publish Dunn&#8217;s commentary reflects either an antiscientific bias or a failure of peer-review.

* * * *

-- excerpt from: Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies - Forbes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're saying they're biased to the conservative then?

Rachel Carson was after all a conservationist, and that is a conservative issue...

What do you think we can do to rectify this obvious Google conservative bias?

Or do we even need to?

It is after all...... a SEARCH ENGINE...

Fashion it into a false controversy for some perceived political gain.

Otherwise, the notion that being concerned about the environment is somehow ‘anti-conservative’ is both sad and telling.

 

[Pogo]

And let's consider WHO Google celebrates:

Rachel fucking Carson.

Yeech.

You're abandoning the premise of your own thread now?

Well considering how badly it was conceived I can't blame ya but you might wanna note that this particular tangent is already out there. And yeah I mean, "out there".

Actually it's kinda fun. Much handing of asses.

 

[justonemorevoice]

No...you geniusdumbfuck. You started this crybabywoeisme dumbshit thread on sunday. Dont you remember fucktard?

And like i said....stil bellyaching about it. What pathetic life you must have. 'Sa matter? Did even your mongrel mutt reject your advances?

My bad: it only seems like 2 days worth cuz your shitfirbrains drivel goes onandonandonandonandonandofuckwadonandonandonanoandon.

 

[Nutz]

No...you geniusdumbfuck. You started this crybabywoeisme dumbshit thread on sunday. Dont you remember fucktard?

And like i said....stil bellyaching about it. What pathetic life you must have. 'Sa matter? Did even your mongrel mutt reject your advances?

 

[flacaltenn]

And what exactly would you have them link Memorial Day to?

Isn't a subject such as Rachel Carson, being less known that Memorial Day, more in need of links by definition?

I for one had no idea it was Rachel Carson's birthday, but nobody had to tell me it was Memorial Day. Think about it.

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're on. It's a bet. Show your figures.

We'll let the OP hold the kitty. He knows all about bets.

Before I enjoy taking your money [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] -- perhaps you want to take a guess at the percentage of folks who don't know who we fought in WW2 ????

Lordy, Lordy -- another pile of leftist booty..

 

[Vigilante]

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're on. It's a bet. Show your figures.

We'll let the OP hold the kitty. He knows all about bets.

Before I enjoy taking your money @Pogo -- perhaps you want to take a guess at the percentage of folks who don't know who we fought in WW2 ????

Lordy, Lordy -- another pile of leftist booty..

Subscribing, just for the fun of it!

 

[flacaltenn]

OK.. No guess. I've got other shills to pawn..

http://www.newsweek.com/take-quiz-what-we-dont-know-66047

Who did the United States fight in World War II?


Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Correct: 60%
Incorrect: 40%

Since you're so oblivious to what potential voters DONT KNOW -- you might also want to check out..

How Many Americans Know U.S. History? Part I

All this is why I don't a give a good crap about polls telling me what the American people "think".. Because LARGELY -- they don't.
Small unmarked bills please...

 

[Vigilante]

OK.. No guess. I've got other shills to pawn..

http://www.newsweek.com/take-quiz-what-we-dont-know-66047

Who did the United States fight in World War II?


Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Correct: 60%
Incorrect: 40%

Since you're so oblivious to what potential voters DONT KNOW -- you might also want to check out..

How Many Americans Know U.S. History? Part I

All this is why I don't a give a good crap about polls telling me what the American people "think".. Because LARGELY -- they don't.
Small unmarked bills please...

Thank you sir, bookmarked for ANOTHER OCD Pogo fuck up!

 

[Pogo]

I did think about. In a nation where 30 or 40% of the adult population can't TELL YOU who the US fought against in WW2 and even MORE cant' tell you when the Korean war happened, I'll bet you only 25% can tell you about the origins of Memorial Day.

Not even a link to page of Google search RESULTS?? Yeah -- there's a minor attitude issue at Google.

You're on. It's a bet. Show your figures.

We'll let the OP hold the kitty. He knows all about bets.

Before I enjoy taking your money [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] -- perhaps you want to take a guess at the percentage of folks who don't know who we fought in WW2 ????

Lordy, Lordy -- another pile of leftist booty..

In too late, sorry, greener pastures elsewhere. Making a gushing thread into a Silent String, if you know what I mean. Defending a great conservative. Somebody's gotta do it.

What gives you the idea I'm a "leftist" anyway?

And who mentioned "money"?

Now your chart down there -- are those Googlers? Because that is the topic here... not that such table has anything to do with what your claim was...