Obama Campaign Bought the Google Search for Goldman Sachs SEC!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 21-4-2010 @ 09:52 AM by kinda kurious

reply to post by glad_to_be_His

Thanks A Million! That is great.

We CT'ers are a skeptical bunch and I ,for one, am simply lazy.

As part of the DENY IGNORANCE mantra, it is always useful to provide sources, In My Opinion. Thanks for doing so. Sorry if I came off as gruff.

reply posted on 21-4-2010 @ 11:45 AM by Stewie

Obama would like to "appear" to be going after Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. Anyone with any sense knows they are criminal organizations now.
But, what we will actually learn from any action taken is that it will be wholly inadequate.
Like giving a bank robber only a parking ticket.

reply posted on 21-4-2010 @ 01:23 PM by glad_to_be_His

reply to post by kinda kurious

Whenever I post I am afraid of posting TMI - which is why I thought simply suggesting some research on a few terms would suffice.

Also, I was just listening to Rush (......waiting for the heavy sighs and rolling of eyes to pass.......) and a caller claiming to be a former Google employee was explaining the adword method - quite to the letter - and mentioned that when someone buys these phrases they can also set a budget so as not to go bankrupt if there is a lot of "clicking" going on. Once the budget is reached for the day (or whatever time period) the ad is removed until the next period begins. This would explain why the ad disappeared for some. Of course since I heard this on Rush and I don't have DNA confirmation on the caller - it probably isn't true.

j/k ...sort of

But really it makes sense that it would work the way the caller described.

reply posted on 21-4-2010 @ 02:29 PM by kinda kurious

Originally posted by glad_to_be_His

Thanks for the update. IMO, this is sounding less sinister and nefarious all the time.
Especially coupled with this astute find from page 1:

Originally posted by maybereal11

Some search engines sell their search results, in addition to showing ads. A sold result means that a link to the buyer’s page is put at or near the top of the results page, just as if the search engine thought it was one of the best results. Usually, there is no indication that the page’s result location was bought and paid for.

Google never sells its search results. If a web page appears in Google’s search results, it’s because Google thought it was a relevant result for your search, not because someone paid Google to put it there.

www.googleguide.com...

Of course since I heard this on Rush and I don't have DNA confirmation on the caller - it probably isn't true.

That is OK, we just need the caller's bank acct# and PIN.

As far as listening to Rush, I'd rather get a root canal.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply posted on 22-4-2010 @ 11:01 PM by mishigas

reply to post by glad_to_be_His

from Kinda Kurious

Thanks for the update. IMO, this is sounding less sinister and nefarious all the time.
Especially coupled with this astute find from page 1:
Originally posted by maybereal11

Some search engines sell their search results, in addition to showing ads. A sold result means that a link to the buyer’s page is put at or near the top of the results page, just as if the search engine thought it was one of the best results. Usually, there is no indication that the page’s result location was bought and paid for.

Google never sells its search results. If a web page appears in Google’s search results, it’s because Google thought it was a relevant result for your search, not because someone paid Google to put it there.

www.googleguide.com...

Just be aware that Kinda Kurious conveniently omitted the most important line from the 'astute find': the line that immediately preceded the quote. It said...

From Google

See, that implies that the 'astute find' was a direct quote from Google, when nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, if you visit www.googleguide.com you will see this disclaimer:

For Google tips, tricks, & how Google works, visit Google Guide at www.GoogleGuide.com. Google Guide is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by Google.

By Nancy Blachman and Jerry Peek who aren't Google employees. For permission to copy & create derivative works, visit Google Guide's Creative Commons License webpage.

But KK wanted you to think that the 'astute find' was directly from Google.

That's a lie. That's spreading disinformation. That's a no-no. That's KK for ya!

[edit on 22-4-2010 by mishigas]

reply posted on 22-4-2010 @ 11:35 PM by kinda kurious

reply to post by mishigas

So you have nothing left and are forced to quote yourself now.

You had made a good point the FIRST time you posted that, but the SECOND time not so much.

Speaking of spreading Disinfo, do you have any relevant FACTS or EVIDENCE to justify your OP other than parroting neocon blogs and websites?

I service what I sell, bring it.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply posted on 23-4-2010 @ 12:17 AM by mishigas

reply to post by kinda kurious

Reply to the charge that you spread disinfo, KK. Don't try to change the subject.

Why did you omit the line From Google?

Until you explain why don't expect to be included in the discussion.

reply posted on 23-4-2010 @ 12:33 AM by kinda kurious

reply to post by mishigas

It was omitted because as you pointed out, it was misleading. I included the source in my quote. ANYONE is free to review ENTIRE thread. Isn't that the purpose of a "discussion forum?"

Weak sauce strength argument. You started the thread, you don't own it.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply posted on 23-4-2010 @ 12:43 AM by mishigas

reply to post by kinda kurious

It was omitted because as you pointed out, it was misleading.

So instead of exposing the misleading statement, you decide to mislead further.

Makes a lot of sense.

You've lost all credibility on ATS, KK.

reply posted on 23-4-2010 @ 07:23 AM by kinda kurious

reply to post by mishigas

Coming from you, I'll consider that a compliment. I invite you to put me on your ignore list. Just because you keep dropping little 'nuggets' off here doesn't make this your own personal litter box.

By the way, I think it is high time you return your Jr. Mod module back to the lab for a firmware update. You are starting to come off as a bit "bossy."

reply posted on 23-4-2010 @ 06:08 PM by mishigas

reply to post by kinda kurious

By the way, I think it is high time you return your Jr. Mod module back to the lab for a firmware update. You are starting to come off as a bit "bossy."

Timeout, calls mishigas.

Sorry, KK, if what you say is true. I didn't realize it, and never meant to be. I hate bossy attitudes meself.

Back to the action....

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^