🚀 go-pugleaf

Sarlo (sarlo@ripco.com) wrote:
: Christine Henry (goddess@ripco.com) wrote:
: : Sarlo (sarlo@ripco.com) wrote:
: : : Jesus. I can't belive they actually printed that. I was completely faced and 
: : : was rambling for hours. The guy seemed pretty clueless about anything online 
: : : as well.

: : <rolling eyes> well, well, well, aren't we feeling sanctimonious and superior 
: : today . . .
: Aren't I always?

: : the article wasn't FOR people in 2600, it was for 3rd word readers, a lot of 
: : whom are probably online in some way shape or form, and may well have a 
: : passing interest in your little hacker club . . . what'd you want from aaron, 
: : anyway, a treatise exalting your every word, every action?
: Gosh. You sure told me.

My commentary, and I believe Sarlo's response (sarlo, hon, you seen the 
pitiful article yet? Really quite sad.) had little to do with whether or 
not 2600 was portrayed as "exalted beings" (I could give a damn, I have 
no involvement with them whatsoever...) and quite a bit to do with the 
fact that the article was BAD.  Pathetic, sad, lame.  I wish I had it in 
front of me, I'd quote, but suffice to say that it's of the same 
intellectual calibre as any random slice of the mainstream media's 
attempt to portray "those kooky, wacky hackers (or as they put it, 
"haqrz" *nudge* ain't that just kooky...?) on the 
cyber-virtual-information-superhighway-thingee-that-we-don't-even-make-
a-half-assed-attempt-to-understand.....LOOK, WE'RE CUTTING-EDGE 
NOW...Coming up next week: nutty love stories about computer geeks who 
met and fell in love over e-mail!!! Ain't that weird??"

Etc.

Puke.

Lisa/narcisse/blahblahblah.