Tuesday, October 14, 1997
Hey, thanks for the nice review. Can I get some sort of "as loved in Netsurfer Digest" graphic?
Jim Rosenberg
I think there's some sort of graphic on our redistribution page. Either there or somewhere else on our site. - LN
>From NSD 3.30: "Interesting, isn't it, how the characteristics each culture attributes to animals vary from society to society. For a prime example of the difference, read this handful of Mayan folk tales. The rabbit, for instance, seems to be very near the top of the pecking order in Mayan perception, a cunning opponent often nicknamed 'the Mayor'."
So how's this different from Bugs Bunny? :-)
David Hakala
Brilliant, just sheer brilliance. - LN
I've been getting and reading NSD for over a year now and really love and look forward to each issue. The latest one (NSD 3.30) is especially good with links to great folks/places. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Art Burns
Just want to let you know that I LOVE Netsurfer Digest!
Pam Hoffer
Thanks so much for your write-up of my site, Honeycomb Hideout ("Back to the '70s", NSD 3.31). I've got a ton of hits since then, and lots of warm letters from fans. I'm curious as to how you found it, since Yahoo has it buried under "Honeycombs", which happens to be an engineering term... I tried to get them to re-list it, to no avail.
Valerie
I think someone recommended it in our pressroom@netsurf.com mailbox, either an adoring fan of yours or perhaps a press release. It's also possible I saw it mentioned in another e-zine, like Mr. Media. - LN
Hi there. I just wanted to say, I hope you'll be doing your annual Halloween issue this year! We enjoy NSD -- keep up the good work!
Paul Hildebrand
I'm working on it.... - LN
Thank you for profiling our page "Canadian World Domination" in your latest issue (NSD 3.31). We appreciated the attention and traffic this brought to our site!
General Claire
PS: We'd also appreciate it if you did not publish this note in your Letter To The Editor section as the military staff here does not want to perpetuate the common stereotype of Canadians as self-effacing, horribly polite people (this being a falsehood, of course).
Really? I can't print that? (I'm not too self-effacing, horribly polite myself am I? Then again, I'm an anglo Quebecer....) Uhoh, too late. - LN
Folks, you are doing a great job of providing surfing info to your subscribers. I have been with you since the early days and have enjoyed the new additions along the way. I particularly like the hyperlinks in the e-mail updates. What a wonderful way to find new information on the Net. Thanks a bunch!
Milton R. Lege
I have to take a moment and tell you how valuable I find your information. I tend to cut and paste the info and send it to friends, on things they may be interested in, or just use it myself. Someone asked me the other day, "how did you get so smart on the Web?" The answer is, I am fortunate enough to have your Digest every week, amongst other things!
Thanks again for the great work you do, and service you provide.
Debby Young - Moorpark, Calif.
I keep meaning to tell you what an outstanding job you do. I receive dozens of listserv items and time is tight so I must select which items on my Win-d OLR from circularlogic.com to read through.
Yours is nearly always the first choice over Slate, Intiac, CNet and some others. When d/ls of text, my preferred method of playing catch up, arrive, I hop to what you sent, make some notes and keep forgetting to say thank you! Thanks!
Jeanne Khan
In NSD 3.28, you wrote about Princess Diana: "Despite the superficial glitter, a rather tragic life ended last week for a woman who, perhaps naively, tossed herself into the vicious glamor of British royalty."
A British friend is unhappy about, among other things, the inaccuracies that have been printed regarding Princess Diana. I have been told by our friend that, before she became Princess Diana, she was Lady Diana Spencer. Her background and upbringing were directly parallel to that of the Windsors. When you say "perhaps naively", are you taking those facts into consideration? Our friend thinks Lady Di was seduced by the prospect of becoming Queen.
I'm not so sure what is so great about being a queen, there are lots of them in my neighborhood. Of course, none of the ones I see are Queen of England, merely drag queens.
Karl C. Johnson
Princess Diana came from a noble family, but I'm not sure if she had claim to the title of Lady when she married. Maybe, maybe not. When we wrote "naively", we were thinking of the glare of the public spotlight. No doubt, Diana was exposed to public scrutiny more as princess than as a teenager.
Did Diana realize the extent of that scrutiny? Did she marry Charles knowing that her every hour would be spent avoiding unauthorized photographers? (And whether they are to blame for her death or not, she had said she felt imprisoned by them.) Did she have any clue that her cheating husband's tampon conversation would be broadcast worldwide? That her own horseman lover would be interviewed only because he "did" her?
I think not. Whatever her motive to wed, she had to have been somewhat shocked at her eventual treatment. - LN
I am wondering why you would publish a link to a body piercing/mutilation site ("Body Modification E-Zine: You Pierced Your What?" NSD 3.28). Do you have any idea what kind of sickness you are spreading? Do you care? I know, I know... you are going to give me the old crap about "journalistic" objectivity and freedom of "speech" (or whatever you term it online). But whatever happened to integrity and concern for the moral tone of what you cover?
When these kinds of things are made available through media such as you, they add a great deal of negativity and illness to the planet. And then people wonder why their children are psychotic, or why their neighbors are secretly murdering people and eating them.
Look in the mirror, Netsurfers.
Ladyhawk
It's just ear piercing carried to extremes. Nobody forces you to look at it, let alone participate. Get over it, get a life, and show some cultural sensitivity.
(GAK! I'm being politically correct! Somebody shoot me!). - AB.
Uggh. Those big ugly animated GIF banners on the new issue (NSD 3.29) are definitely more noise and less signal. That is what's called defeating the purpose. Please purge them in the future.
Duane Healing
They're place holders for rotated ads. If we don't sell an ad at a particular time the default Netsurfer banners get displayed. The ad rotation software from our ad network (Flycast.com) is unable to just deliver blank space in case an ad position has not sold at the particular time you look at it. Basically the whole thing is done on the fly, and what you see depends on when you download the page.
As for having ads in the first place, I'm sure you won't argue with the proposition that we need to have them in order to pay for the Digest. Unless you want to subscribe for real $$. :) - AB
I'm sure that, oh, 425 million people have probably e-mailed you about this already, but I suspect you may have exaggerated the population of London a tad in NSD 3.31's "Live in London".
Regards (and thanks for an always amusing read!),
Andrew Treloar - Melbourne, Australia
No, it's true. I counted them all when I flew over England on my way to Stockholm to get my Nobel prize. - LN
I'm educated as a math geek, but more like a real bean counter in temperament. So I am uniquely qualified to let you know that you flubbed it when you wrote this headline "Famous Bean Counters Tell It Like It Is" in NSD 3.32. "Bean counter" is a slightly pejorative term for accountant, not mathematician.
I love the newsletter. Keep up the good surfing!
David L. Gorsline - Reston (Fairfax County), Virg.
Thanks for an entertaining issue - NSD 3.31 was one of the best in a while, but you've got to get out your maps. The USS Constitution ("Old Ironsides") story gives the impression that all this interesting stuff is on Cape Cod. That's at least a three-hour drive away. Old Ironsides is berthed in Boston, and the Web site you mention belongs to the Marblehead Reporter Newspaper, on the North Shore, 20 miles northeast of Boston. Marblehead was the destination for the big sail event last July. And it's a looong way from the cape, at least by land....
By the way, there is an official USS Constitution site run by the Navy with lotsa links to other related info, including the one you mentioned in the article, and another museum Web site. For real Old Ironsides fans, these are the places to start serious surfin'.
George Allen - Boston, Mass.
I was disappointed in NSD 3.32's bashing of the people opposed to the launch of Cassini. They have legitimate concerns.
1) Many of those concerned live within a possible fallout range. 2) Titan rockets have had a 1 in 20 failure rate. 3) The use of radioactive material for this mission is not justified. 4) The amount of radioactive material is great.
This is not paranoia. I live in Canada and can see from here that NASA has backed a project without properly reviewing it, and then after approving it, is standing behind it. It appears to be eerily like the Challenger tragedy.
If there was no risk, why are hospitals in Florida receiving radiation treatment training?
Of course you or I are at a larger risk of getting hit by a car. But when a potential nuclear accident is involved, I want better odds than NASA is giving.
I sincerely believe that the controversy over this launch is justified. I hope that this launch goes off successfully and I also hope that there are no further missions with nuclear fuel. And if these protests lead to the ending of the use of nuclear fuel for space missions, then that alone makes the protests worthwhile.
Alex Laney
WHAT???!?!?! Look bub, riding in a car might put you in greater danger than this launch but obviously you haven't considered a few things:
* NASA is not going to include in their danger reports that they are putting ALL of us on that rocket.
* Challenger. NASA, always a innovator of great new ideas. A high school teacher. You remember those kids faces on the TV?
* Let's say this mission goes fine. Great. When's the next one? You know they want the cheapest engine possible, not the best one. They're feds fer cryin' out loud.
Look around the Net a bit. You'd be surprised at the level of alarm raised by many of these "wackos". And I don't think that it has so much to do with them being insane - it's just that these days, any non-party position is considered extreme. Think about it.
I do not know your mission statement. It would seem you folks are a slighlty journalistic Web-only group of information hunters. I realize this may not actually get to anyone there, but I wanted to at least try and make some of you use your brains.
Joshua Morast, Concerned Citizen of Our Rock
Calling people who are wary of the Cassini launch "loonies" is obnoxious and just makes your newsletter look like it is edited by ignoramuses.
Did any of you happen to see the "60 Minutes" segment on the controversy? CBS had people speaking intelligently of the potential dangers, and they were longstanding members of the scientific, and, as it happens, NASA community. They were not "loonies".
I realize that you want to come off as having an edge, and sounding like smartasses can be cute. Fair enough. But calling people with legitimate scientific and environmental concerns "loonies" just makes you look like ignorant reactionaries. Leave that crap to the AM radio hatemongers. You should be ashamed.
Robert McNamara
I very strongly object to the NSD comments about Cassini loonies.
Until now, I had considered this publication to be both informative and intelligent. However, it now proves to be neither. Cancel my subscription immediately.
S. Lee
Referring to the protestors as "nuclear paranoia crowd" and "loonies" is a bit lame. Particularly considering several scientists and physicists have protested this launch on television. A high ranking NASA official even resigned her post in protest of this launch.
NASA has itself reported that nuclear power is not necessary for its experiments, and that high voltaic solar power would do the job with "zero impact" on mission objectives and flight trajectories.
The fact that a launch mishap could have caused the evacuation of large parts of Northern Florida, causing more health problems than did the Chernobyl accident is, in my opinion, a just cause for protest.
After all, I doubt you would like to be referred to as "free speech paranoia crowd" and "loonies" regarding your position on the Communications Decency Act.
By the way, I enjoy receiving NSD, and continue to anticipate its arrival every week. Thank you for the hard work.
Stephen J. Cherin - West Hollywood, Calif.
Since I wrote the Cassini digest I should probably respond. The objectionable quotes were apparently "The nuclear paranoia crowd has threatened to block or disrupt the launch because Cassini uses a plutonium power system." and "watch the loonies on TV", referring to the aforementioned paranoia crowd. Basically it seems these readers object to lumping all the protestors under the paranoid loonie label.
OK, let's delve deeper into my admittedly jaded perception of the various agendas involved. Who wanted to stop the mission?
First, there are the anti-government-on-principle people who just don't trust NASA (which frankly has a better record of veracity then most other government institutions) and object to everything nuclear just because it's...well, nuclear. Kind of a spinal reflex from the truly loony fringe. In my opinion they'll be the ones waving signs at the gate, since the sane ones know that this is totally ineffective and will spend their time on potentially more fruitful methods of protest - i.e. the courtroom.
There are the "experts" who will kill to get 15 minutes on 60 Minutes because it's good for their career and will boost sales of their next book decrying the evil of something or other - plutonium, pollution, engineering, cosmic rays - take your pick. They're a natural match with the journalists who see a chance for some ratings by combining the words "nuclear" and "disaster". Both more calculating then looney, and both feed off the paranoia attached to the word "nuclear".
Next, there are the good scientists who will honestly tell you, that yes, there is a chance things will go horribly wrong. They will even quote you the estimated one in a million odds, which they determine after inherently imprecise study - the numbers are hard to pin down. They will honestly tell you that though the risks are small and possibly unknown, the disaster could be big, and they don't think the tradeoff is worth it. They are clearly in the minority. Since science thrives on differences of opinion that's nothing new. Of course the media has no clue about how this works and will seize on the "it could happen" part and totally ignore both the "it's so unlikely that you'd have to be clinically paranoid to worry about it" and "the returns justify the risks" bits of the equation. Which leads directly to the next group.
The sincere ordinary folks who watch the "debate" on TV, figure where there's smoke there's fire, and since they've been screwed by official assurances so often in the past figure this is just one more thing they should be worried about. All the while they ignore the much larger risks they live with every day of their lives in favor of the exaggerated risks they see hyped on TV.
Can Cassini be a disaster? Of course. Does that mean that we should abort it? Of course not. Human endeavor is full of actions which could lead to disaster. The point is, we engineer around the problem and life goes on, usually all the better for it.
Bottom line, I'd rather not live in a world where we don't take those chances. In such a world we'd still be worshiping some titanic cannibal and probably sacrificing the odd sacrifice protestor to assure better crop yields.
-AB
I'm a 35-year-old male bilingual French-Canadian.
Thanks for sharing your correspondence with us. The problem with arguing with a separatist is that they generally believe they occupy the moral high ground and act as though they have a monopoly on the persecution complex.
Times have changed. Le francais is alive and well. The Quebec government is free to pursue its policies of cutbacks to the detriment of all of its citizens while the general population meanders through the fog of divisiveness created largely by the Parti Quebecois.
The situation reminds me of a cheap magician who distracts the audience with the wave of a silk hanky while he pulls that hidden coin from his sleeve. Their rationale goes like this: "keep the troops busy with hot button non-issues so they will not notice our outrageous attempts to screw up the social and economic climate." It will be interesting to see how low the PQ will allow the province to sink in order to reinforce their grip on the hearts and souls of the party faithful. It is quite amazing how forgiving these "patriots" can be towards their leaders. If only they knew the level of contempt felt towards them by these leaders.
Case in point: Do you really believe that a seasoned politician like Parizeau would accidently let his ethnics and money comments slip?
Things that make you go "eh":
I do not believe that 92 to 95 percent of able voters actually cast their ballots in the last neverendum. If they did not, who did it for them, eh ?
Nice bunch we have here, n'est-ce pas ?
Andre Ranger
"Things that make you go 'eh'." Hehe, I like that. - LN
Mr. Nyveen, don't sweat the negative reaction. This debate will go on for some time, because there its merit to both sides, but not merit that can be easily reconciled.
The Quebecois see their language surrounded by a sea of English, and are correct that left to its own this sea is likely to win by sheer force of numbers and economics. They see it as bad, and it is bad.
The problem is that they see it as so bad that it must be stopped at significant cost, namely the violation (according to the Quebec Supreme Court) of the more fundamental right of people to communicate in their language of choice. They think that culture should be protected by legislation or it will die. They refuse to accept that languages and cultures are supposed to change, intermingle, wax and wane; that this is part of their natural order, and like life, full of both good and bad.
And yet who among us has not felt the temptation to rail against the great masses who overwhelm our own cultural ideas, to wish we had the power to bring down a legislative arm and protect them.
In doing so they are, oddly enough, suprisingly Canadian, for it is in Canada that the philosophy of legislating culture has its strongest roots. And ironic that Anglo-Canada with its Canadian content laws sees itself on the other side of the issue. I approve of neither sets of laws, but for those who approve of CanCon and not La Loi 178, the difference is that CanCon blocks the rights of gwai-lo, and Bill 178 blocks the rights of Canadians.
That the Quebecois would sacrifice fundamental rights, even when told no by their own supreme court, was a big part of what set Anglo-Canada more firmly against them, and the cause of the rejection of Meech and Meech II: The Revenge (Charlottetown).
Brad Templeton
I've been eagerly reading the correspondence to NSD about your comments about the OLF. Give 'em hell, Laurie.
The separatist movement won't last. They just started broadcasting Howard Stern on Montreal radio.
Vive le Quebec Vide.
David Tanenbaum
You clearly forgot to strike me from your listserv. So I did receive your latest issue, the one with the inflated mailbag. In fact, I got such a charge from savouring your readers' lambasts about Quebec and the Basques that I think I'll cancel my cancellation.
First: did you ever see such a beautiful example of "damned if do, damned if I don't"? I've been wondering whether you shouldn't try to take the opposite tack, just to see what reader reaction would be: defend Quebec's "control of advertising language" action AND the Net's spontaneous censorship of the IF site. In both cases, you'd for once be on the side of true democracy - not your strange definition of it.
Two: did you ever think that if you applied your obviously capable intellect to understanding the Quebec situation (and some others) rather than defending the biased platitudes you've been fed, you might render some signal services to the cyber-community at large - I mean outside the PC ambit? Just one example:
One element missing from our exchange was in one of your answers to the other writers -- I quote: "No one has an innate human right to be served in any language". From which I understand, correctly I hope: anyone has the right to express himself as he sees fit, but no one has the right to understand what is being expressed - it's their business to force that by individual - and basically economic - means, if they can afford it. If they can't, too bad. If you're a wimp, suffer. Do you truly believe this?
Guess that's precisely where we differ: same as you, we believe that anyone may say whatever he wants to say, but contrary to you, we think that the community has the strict right to force them to do so in an way that'll be understandable to most others. Especially in the case of economically disadvantaged minorities. If this isn't democracy in your book, I wonder what is: the law of the jungle?
I have enough respect for you to doubt that you thought for even a split second before writing that. The consequences are apalling not only for Quebec, but for any of the planet's weaker cultural societies faced with the American commercial infotainment juggernaut. If their (our) only defence is their consumer's individual economic muscle, as you imply, without any recourse to the collective action permitted by democratically elected government, the end result is obvious. And, to us, unpalatable. Just wait until its effects reach you....
Quebec might never separate from Canada, but since we ARE a different country already - and probably uneradicably - ask yourself if forcing us to remain an undigestible, unassimilable, and unsatisfied part of Canada forever is such a good thing for the whole country. My feeling is that good neighbours are better than unwilling tenants.
Yves Leclerc
I can't believe the patience shown Yves on behalf of the editorial staff of NSD. But it was said a long time ago: a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still! While you made excellent points to support your point of view, sometimes its best to let the obsessed have their last word and move on to someone who might listen.
P. Turcotte - Ontario
I am referring to the answers you gave in the Letters to the Editor of NSD 3.29 about the wacky PQ government's language policy on the Net. I agree that sometimes the office goes to far, but we simply ask a two-language versions of Web pages (software allows it, easily).
Your reasoning is simply through the prism of the liberty (American flavor) of speech, which brings, sometimes, unfortunately, all kinds of other excesses.
Alain Johnson
Sigh.... I promised myself I would let readers have the last say, but I want to make one little point in reply to this letter. The government doesn't ask for bilingual pages, it legislates them. Nothing's wrong with asking, but something's wrong with criminalizing those who don't. - LN
I still think your missing the whole point of the Basque terrorism debate. I am not approving of any type of hacking, nor am I against free speech (though this may seem hard to prove). I am against contradiction and pure misinformation. I'll try to spell it out simple.
IGC is said to support peace. HB the political wing of a terrorist organization that openly supports violence and murder. Violence and murder contradict peace. IGC contradicts itself in giving free support to HB.
IGC is obviously quite free to contradict themselves, at least as much as I am to point it out. Who is obviously no longer free to argue is Miguel Angel Blanco or thousands of other similar victims of similar organizations or individuals all round the world.
I suppose it is all matter of the relative importance of principles. For you, new support for HB is a triumph of free speech, for me it is a shame but at least the British site doesn't pretend to support peace in any way. What about you?
Peter Hodgson
P.S. After seeing Letters to the Editor 3.29, I still think you should take more care. I must point out that the GLIC page is a commentary, not an information source.
Address your letters to
editor@netsurf.com.
Letters and signatures edited for clarity and brevity.