Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Facebook sucks

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    ... Which opens the can of worms question as to whether or not Facebook is an appropriate venue for the promotion - more accurately called here propaganda -
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, James Stewart <jds@...> wrote:
      >
      > Unless you want to promote something ... like Anthroposophy!
      >
      > Jim
      >
      Which opens the can of worms question as to whether or not Facebook is an appropriate venue for the promotion - more accurately called here "propaganda" - of Anthroposophy, when it seems to be more a game of self-promotion.
      Frank
      ___________
      > On Friday, December 02, 2011 6:24:38 PM, Frank Thomas Smith wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow%40yahoogroups.com>, Maurice McCarthy
      > > <manselton@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Have a look at the section on Facebook here
      > > > http://anonymous-proxy-servers.net/en/help/wwwprivacy.html
      > > > It comes from developers at the Technical University of Dresden. It is
      > > > the commercial arm of their effort to improve privacy on the internet.
      > > >
      > > > M
      > > >
      > > Thanks Marice, very interesting. Btw, I'm not mad at Facebook because
      > > it's not working for me. I hardly ever go there and am only registered
      > > because a beautiful exotic chick insisted. In fact I was trying to
      > > figure out how to unsubscribe, but it ain't so easy. To me it's one of
      > > the biggest rip-off of all time.
      > > Frank
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      ... That s right. However, a lot depends on who they are. The crooks who stole money from my bank account are at least honest in they profile: crooks.
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
        >

        > Don't trust the privacy of emails and text messages either. Remember, being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya -- right Frank? ;)

        That's right. However, a lot depends on who "they" are. The crooks who stole money from my bank account are at least honest in they profile: crooks. Whereas crooks like Sugarboy call themselves "social". Citibank - also crooks - at least provide a necessary service, one which should be non-profit but ain't.
        Frank
        ____________

        >
        > Tarjei
        >
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
        > <manselton@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Have a look at the section on Facebook here
        > > http://anonymous-proxy-servers.net/en/help/wwwprivacy.html
        > > It comes from developers at the Technical University of Dresden. It is
        > > the commercial arm of their effort to improve privacy on the internet.
        > >
        > > M
        > >
        >
      • Frank Thomas Smith
        ... ____ Tarjei: Rip-off? How much did you pay them? FB is full, FULL of ads. Propaganda and profit is its raison d etre. But it promotes itself as a social
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 3, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
          > <fts.trasla@> wrote:
          >
          > > Thanks Marice, very interesting. Btw, I'm not mad at Facebook because
          > it's not working for me. I hardly ever go there and am only registered
          > because a beautiful exotic chick insisted. In fact I was trying to
          > figure out how to unsubscribe, but it ain't so easy. To me it's one of
          > the biggest rip-off of all time.
          ____

          Tarjei: Rip-off? How much did you pay them?

          FB is full, FULL of ads. Propaganda and profit is its raison d'etre. But it promotes itself as a social service, a lie. The schmucks read these ads - subliminally or not - and buy the shit offered. A rip-off, slightly more sophisticated than the ATM crooks, because its legal.
          Frank
        • elfuncle
          ... But it promotes itself as a social service, a lie. The schmucks read these ads - subliminally or not - and buy the shit offered. A rip-off, slightly more
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
            >
            > Tarjei: Rip-off? How much did you pay them?
            >
            > FB is full, FULL of ads. Propaganda and profit is its raison d'etre. But it promotes itself as a social service, a lie. The schmucks read these ads - subliminally or not - and buy the shit offered. A rip-off, slightly more sophisticated than the ATM crooks, because its legal.


            Hmmm... Facebook hasn't cost me a dime yet, although I've been using it for a few years. To buy shit offered, and to be a schmuck for that matter, is an act of free choice. Being ripped off is not. It usually means that you pay for a brand new Cadillac and get a fifteen year old Chevy instead, for the same price. Or you go to buy some good marijuana, pay for it, and then discover they've sold you poison ivy. You try to buy cannabis and end up with shoe leather. (I think I was ripped off like that once, in my teens. Maybe FB hasn't succeeded in ripping me off yet because experience has made me savvy, hehe.)

            Tarjei
          • Maurice McCarthy
            Tarjei I do appreciate what you are saying. That the internet was intended as a means of communication and the cultural gift of the world wide web made that
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Tarjei

              I do appreciate what you are saying. That the internet was intended as
              a means of communication and the cultural gift of the world wide web
              made that even easier so that privacy was never intended, quite the
              contrary. But things change. It has developed into a global, social
              world of it own. Consequently, in my judgment there ought to room for
              a person to have both a private and a public life within it. As an
              individual I find times of privacy important. Maybe I should just
              switch off the computer - I'm sure it would be the best way. But is
              anonymity a crime on the web? Why should I accept google and others
              tracking my every move like Big Brother and the thought police? It is
              the grey area between truth and error where Ahriman thrives.

              I was pleased when I was _not able to open my own bank account from
              behind the jondo proxy and nor from running the triple encrypted i2p
              protocol. (An attempt to have a safe protocol where no host is trusted
              by utilising the unused upload bandwith on home computers to create a
              secret net within the www. At present it is very slow because only so
              many thousand use it. One way to speed it up a little is to take down
              your firewall !!! But if you cannot read the open code then you need
              to be able to trust whoever wrote it. ) http://www.i2p2.de/

              Kindest Regards
              Maurice



              On 03/12/2011, elfuncle <elfuncle@...> wrote:
              > The internet is not a private thing, and it never has been. Those who
              > treat social media like FB like their own bedrooms or something get what
              > they've been asking for imho when their perceived and delusional online
              > privacy is violated by the owners of the domains they're using, whether
              > it's Yahoo or Google or Facebook or whatever. I've been saying this for
              > years, but nobody listens to to the deep wisdom of Uncle Taz.
              >
              > They can "improve privacy" until they're blue in their faces, I still
              > wouldn't trust them. The only thing one should demand is the security of
              > online banking and transactions and protection against the kind of ID
              > theft that Frank's better half has been victimized by. If, on the other
              > hand, people wish to upload their drunken underwear pictures and then
              > feel embarrassed about them afterwards and scream bloody murder when
              > "Zuckerboy" sells them to the ad industry, -- well, no comment.
              >
              > Don't trust the privacy of emails and text messages either. Remember,
              > being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya -- right Frank? ;)
              >
              > Tarjei
              >
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
              > <manselton@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> Have a look at the section on Facebook here
              >> http://anonymous-proxy-servers.net/en/help/wwwprivacy.html
              >> It comes from developers at the Technical University of Dresden. It is
              >> the commercial arm of their effort to improve privacy on the internet.
              >>
              >> M
              >>
              >
              >
            • elfuncle
              The assault against online anonymity now spearheaded by Facebook is troublesome. Facebook is trying to capture the entire web through a log-on system that
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 4, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                The assault against online anonymity now spearheaded by Facebook is troublesome. Facebook is trying to capture the entire web through a log-on system that combines all your registered accounts through one single password. I don't go for that. I use separate accounts for separate services and domains, for as long as such an option lasts.

                The powers that be probably wish to get at all the pirates and the hackers and the spammers and so on by eliminating online anonymity. You can't even buy an anomymous cell phone anymore, at least not in Norway, like you could in the late nineties, when you just bought a phone, put a cash card in it, and you had a phone number belonging to nobody. Now every phone -- and especially every sim card (which carries your phone number) has to be registered in a real person's name, it's the law -- probably a Taliban sort of thing. Yep, that's it: The Taliban doctrine. We're losing our anonymity because of the Taliban, because of ABB, and we comply and don't complain because otherwise them trrrr-sssts (like GWB called them) will come and get us in the middle of the night.

                On the other hand, if you're in a forum like this one for a long, long time and everybody else is anonymous as though it's terribly dangerous to opine about anthroposophy and philosophy and so on, that's poor and dumb netiquette imho. It reminds me of Glenn Frey's Smugglers' Blues, 2nd verse:

                No matter if it's heroin, cocaine, or hash,
                You've got to carry weapons
                Cause you always carry cash.
                There's lots of shady characters,
                Lots of dirty deals.
                Ev'ry name's an alias
                In case somebody squeals.

                It's the lure of easy money,
                It's gotta very strong appeal.

                 

                Glenn Frey: "Smugglers blues" 


                Tarjei



                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <manselton@...> wrote:
                >
                > Tarjei
                >
                > I do appreciate what you are saying. That the internet was intended as
                > a means of communication and the cultural gift of the world wide web
                > made that even easier so that privacy was never intended, quite the
                > contrary. But things change. It has developed into a global, social
                > world of it own. Consequently, in my judgment there ought to room for
                > a person to have both a private and a public life within it. As an
                > individual I find times of privacy important. Maybe I should just
                > switch off the computer - I'm sure it would be the best way. But is
                > anonymity a crime on the web? Why should I accept google and others
                > tracking my every move like Big Brother and the thought police? It is
                > the grey area between truth and error where Ahriman thrives.
                >
                > I was pleased when I was _not able to open my own bank account from
                > behind the jondo proxy and nor from running the triple encrypted i2p
                > protocol. (An attempt to have a safe protocol where no host is trusted
                > by utilising the unused upload bandwith on home computers to create a
                > secret net within the www. At present it is very slow because only so
                > many thousand use it. One way to speed it up a little is to take down
                > your firewall !!! But if you cannot read the open code then you need
                > to be able to trust whoever wrote it. ) http://www.i2p2.de/
                >
                > Kindest Regards
                > Maurice
                >
                >
                >
                > On 03/12/2011, elfuncle elfuncle@... wrote:
                > > The internet is not a private thing, and it never has been. Those who
                > > treat social media like FB like their own bedrooms or something get what
                > > they've been asking for imho when their perceived and delusional online
                > > privacy is violated by the owners of the domains they're using, whether
                > > it's Yahoo or Google or Facebook or whatever. I've been saying this for
                > > years, but nobody listens to to the deep wisdom of Uncle Taz.
                > >
                > > They can "improve privacy" until they're blue in their faces, I still
                > > wouldn't trust them. The only thing one should demand is the security of
                > > online banking and transactions and protection against the kind of ID
                > > theft that Frank's better half has been victimized by. If, on the other
                > > hand, people wish to upload their drunken underwear pictures and then
                > > feel embarrassed about them afterwards and scream bloody murder when
                > > "Zuckerboy" sells them to the ad industry, -- well, no comment.
                > >
                > > Don't trust the privacy of emails and text messages either. Remember,
                > > being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya -- right Frank? ;)
                > >
                > > Tarjei
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
                > > manselton@ wrote:
                > >>
                > >> Have a look at the section on Facebook here
                > >> http://anonymous-proxy-servers.net/en/help/wwwprivacy.html
                > >> It comes from developers at the Technical University of Dresden. It is
                > >> the commercial arm of their effort to improve privacy on the internet.
                > >>
                > >> M
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                >
              • dottie zold
                Hey Taz, my experience is that even though I have not connected the yahoo or any phone to the facebook account they actually have been given privledge somehow
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 4, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Taz, my experience is that even though I have not connected the yahoo or any phone to the facebook account they actually have been given privledge somehow to my yahoo names which coincide with facebook friends. I see such interesting occurrances in my spam mail that shows me this.
                   
                  A post of pictures just went up on Facebook of my photo album and I didn't sent it up they sent it up to keep conversation going or whatever...strange strange strange.
                   
                  Good Sunda to you,
                  d

                  "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner



                  --- On Sun, 12/4/11, elfuncle <elfuncle@...> wrote:

                  From: elfuncle <elfuncle@...>
                  Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Facebook sucks
                  To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Sunday, December 4, 2011, 12:13 AM

                   
                  The assault against online anonymity now spearheaded by Facebook is troublesome. Facebook is trying to capture the entire web through a log-on system that combines all your registered accounts through one single password. I don't go for that. I use separate accounts for separate services and domains, for as long as such an option lasts.

                  The powers that be probably wish to get at all the pirates and the hackers and the spammers and so on by eliminating online anonymity. You can't even buy an anomymous cell phone anymore, at least not in Norway, like you could in the late nineties, when you just bought a phone, put a cash card in it, and you had a phone number belonging to nobody. Now every phone -- and especially every sim card (which carries your phone number) has to be registered in a real person's name, it's the law -- probably a Taliban sort of thing. Yep, that's it: The Taliban doctrine. We're losing our anonymity because of the Taliban, because of ABB, and we comply and don't complain because otherwise them trrrr-sssts (like GWB called them) will come and get us in the middle of the night.

                  On the other hand, if you're in a forum like this one for a long, long time and everybody else is anonymous as though it's terribly dangerous to opine about anthroposophy and philosophy and so on, that's poor and dumb netiquette imho. It reminds me of Glenn Frey's Smugglers' Blues, 2nd verse:

                  No matter if it's heroin, cocaine, or hash,
                  You've got to carry weapons
                  Cause you always carry cash.
                  There's lots of shady characters,
                  Lots of dirty deals.
                  Ev'ry name's an alias
                  In case somebody squeals.

                  It's the lure of easy money,
                  It's gotta very strong appeal.

                   

                  Glenn Frey: "Smugglers blues" 


                  Tarjei



                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <manselton@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Tarjei
                  >
                  > I do appreciate what you are saying. That the internet was intended as
                  > a means of communication and the cultural gift of the world wide web
                  > made that even easier so that privacy was never intended, quite the
                  > contrary. But things change. It has developed into a global, social
                  > world of it own. Consequently, in my judgment there ought to room for
                  > a person to have both a private and a public life within it. As an
                  > individual I find times of privacy important. Maybe I should just
                  > switch off the computer - I'm sure it would be the best way. But is
                  > anonymity a crime on the web? Why should I accept google and others
                  > tracking my every move like Big Brother and the thought police? It is
                  > the grey area between truth and error where Ahriman thrives.
                  >
                  > I was pleased when I was _not able to open my own bank account from
                  > behind the jondo proxy and nor from running the triple encrypted i2p
                  > protocol. (An attempt to have a safe protocol where no host is trusted
                  > by utilising the unused upload bandwith on home computers to create a
                  > secret net within the www. At present it is very slow because only so
                  > many thousand use it. One way to speed it up a little is to take down
                  > your firewall !!! But if you cannot read the open code then you need
                  > to be able to trust whoever wrote it. ) http://www.i2p2.de/
                  >
                  > Kindest Regards
                  > Maurice
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On 03/12/2011, elfuncle elfuncle@... wrote:
                  > > The internet is not a private thing, and it never has been. Those who
                  > > treat social media like FB like their own bedrooms or something get what
                  > > they've been asking for imho when their perceived and delusional online
                  > > privacy is violated by the owners of the domains they're using, whether
                  > > it's Yahoo or Google or Facebook or whatever. I've been saying this for
                  > > years, but nobody listens to to the deep wisdom of Uncle Taz.
                  > >
                  > > They can "improve privacy" until they're blue in their faces, I still
                  > > wouldn't trust them. The only thing one should demand is the security of
                  > > online banking and transactions and protection against the kind of ID
                  > > theft that Frank's better half has been victimized by. If, on the other
                  > > hand, people wish to upload their drunken underwear pictures and then
                  > > feel embarrassed about them afterwards and scream bloody murder when
                  > > "Zuckerboy" sells them to the ad industry, -- well, no comment.
                  > >
                  > > Don't trust the privacy of emails and text messages either. Remember,
                  > > being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya -- right Frank? ;)
                  > >
                  > > Tarjei
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
                  > > manselton@ wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> Have a look at the section on Facebook here
                  > >> http://anonymous-proxy-servers.net/en/help/wwwprivacy.html
                  > >> It comes from developers at the Technical University of Dresden. It is
                  > >> the commercial arm of their effort to improve privacy on the internet.
                  > >>
                  > >> M
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Frank Thomas Smith
                  I think it s time to launch a occupy facebook movement. You may say: Why don t you just unsubscribe? It is not possible to unsubscribe from Facebook. You can
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 4, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think it's time to launch a "occupy facebook" movement. You may say: Why don't you just unsubscribe?
                    It is not possible to unsubscribe from Facebook. You can take down your data from the page, but they keep it on file, for your benefit of course...just in case you ever want to resubscribe. Besides, that beautiful chic who got me in continues to exert pressure. "Facebook or me"? No: "all or nothing".
                    Frank

                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hey Taz, my experience is that even though I have not connected the yahoo or any phone to the facebook account they actually have been given privledge somehow to my yahoo names which coincide with facebook friends. I see such interesting occurrances in my spam mail that shows me this.
                    >  
                    > A post of pictures just went up on Facebook of my photo album and I didn't sent it up they sent it up to keep conversation going or whatever...strange strange strange.
                    >  
                    > Good Sunda to you,
                    > d
                    >
                    >
                    > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- On Sun, 12/4/11, elfuncle <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > From: elfuncle <elfuncle@...>
                    > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Facebook sucks
                    > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    > Date: Sunday, December 4, 2011, 12:13 AM
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > The assault against online anonymity now spearheaded by Facebook is troublesome. Facebook is trying to capture the entire web through a log-on system that combines all your registered accounts through one single password. I don't go for that. I use separate accounts for separate services and domains, for as long as such an option lasts.
                    >
                    > The powers that be probably wish to get at all the pirates and the hackers and the spammers and so on by eliminating online anonymity. You can't even buy an anomymous cell phone anymore, at least not in Norway, like you could in the late nineties, when you just bought a phone, put a cash card in it, and you had a phone number belonging to nobody. Now every phone -- and especially every sim card (which carries your phone number) has to be registered in a real person's name, it's the law -- probably a Taliban sort of thing. Yep, that's it: The Taliban doctrine. We're losing our anonymity because of the Taliban, because of ABB, and we comply and don't complain because otherwise them trrrr-sssts (like GWB called them) will come and get us in the middle of the night.
                    >
                    > On the other hand, if you're in a forum like this one for a long, long time and everybody else is anonymous as though it's terribly dangerous to opine about anthroposophy and philosophy and so on, that's poor and dumb netiquette imho. It reminds me of Glenn Frey's Smugglers' Blues, 2nd verse:
                    >
                    >
                    > No matter if it's heroin, cocaine, or hash,
                    > You've got to carry weapons
                    > Cause you always carry cash.
                    > There's lots of shady characters,
                    > Lots of dirty deals.
                    > Ev'ry name's an alias
                    > In case somebody squeals.
                    > It's the lure of easy money,
                    > It's gotta very strong appeal.
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    > Glenn Frey: "Smugglers blues" 
                    > Tarjei
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <manselton@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Tarjei
                    > >
                    > > I do appreciate what you are saying. That the internet was intended as
                    > > a means of communication and the cultural gift of the world wide web
                    > > made that even easier so that privacy was never intended, quite the
                    > > contrary. But things change. It has developed into a global, social
                    > > world of it own. Consequently, in my judgment there ought to room for
                    > > a person to have both a private and a public life within it. As an
                    > > individual I find times of privacy important. Maybe I should just
                    > > switch off the computer - I'm sure it would be the best way. But is
                    > > anonymity a crime on the web? Why should I accept google and others
                    > > tracking my every move like Big Brother and the thought police? It is
                    > > the grey area between truth and error where Ahriman thrives.
                    > >
                    > > I was pleased when I was _not able to open my own bank account from
                    > > behind the jondo proxy and nor from running the triple encrypted i2p
                    > > protocol. (An attempt to have a safe protocol where no host is trusted
                    > > by utilising the unused upload bandwith on home computers to create a
                    > > secret net within the www. At present it is very slow because only so
                    > > many thousand use it. One way to speed it up a little is to take down
                    > > your firewall !!! But if you cannot read the open code then you need
                    > > to be able to trust whoever wrote it. ) http://www.i2p2.de/
                    > >
                    > > Kindest Regards
                    > > Maurice
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On 03/12/2011, elfuncle elfuncle@ wrote:
                    > > > The internet is not a private thing, and it never has been. Those who
                    > > > treat social media like FB like their own bedrooms or something get what
                    > > > they've been asking for imho when their perceived and delusional online
                    > > > privacy is violated by the owners of the domains they're using, whether
                    > > > it's Yahoo or Google or Facebook or whatever. I've been saying this for
                    > > > years, but nobody listens to to the deep wisdom of Uncle Taz.
                    > > >
                    > > > They can "improve privacy" until they're blue in their faces, I still
                    > > > wouldn't trust them. The only thing one should demand is the security of
                    > > > online banking and transactions and protection against the kind of ID
                    > > > theft that Frank's better half has been victimized by. If, on the other
                    > > > hand, people wish to upload their drunken underwear pictures and then
                    > > > feel embarrassed about them afterwards and scream bloody murder when
                    > > > "Zuckerboy" sells them to the ad industry, -- well, no comment.
                    > > >
                    > > > Don't trust the privacy of emails and text messages either. Remember,
                    > > > being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya -- right Frank? ;)
                    > > >
                    > > > Tarjei
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
                    > > > manselton@ wrote:
                    > > >>
                    > > >> Have a look at the section on Facebook here
                    > > >> http://anonymous-proxy-servers.net/en/help/wwwprivacy.html
                    > > >> It comes from developers at the Technical University of Dresden. It is
                    > > >> the commercial arm of their effort to improve privacy on the internet.
                    > > >>
                    > > >> M
                    > > >>
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Frank Thomas Smith
                    To all those suckers who contribute to making Facebook stockholders rich:
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 2, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To all those suckers who contribute to making Facebook stockholders rich:


                      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/technology/for-founders-to-decorators-facebook-riches.html?hp

                      Frank
                    • ted.wrinch
                      Serendipity! I came across this video of a talk given by our Eugene Schwarz in 2010 at the Glasshouse, Stourbridge, UK. I think I retrospectively posted the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 2, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Serendipity! I came across this video of a talk given by our Eugene Schwarz in 2010 at the Glasshouse, Stourbridge, UK. I think I retrospectively posted the schedule of the conference he's attending before Christmas. Anyway, if you take a look at the video at around 42 minutes he's describing the life of Zuckerboy and the film they made of it called 'The Social Network'. He thinks Mr Facebook is classic Aspergers but also a kind of angel. It's the first I've seen of Mr Schwarz and I think that he's an ace speaker!

                        http://vimeo.com/20002576

                        T.

                        Ted Wrinch

                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > To all those suckers who contribute to making Facebook stockholders rich:
                        >
                        >
                        > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/technology/for-founders-to-decorators-facebook-riches.html?hp
                        >
                        > Frank
                        >
                      • Frank Thomas Smith
                        Great lecture - thanks. Frank
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 2, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Great lecture - thanks.
                          Frank


                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Serendipity! I came across this video of a talk given by our Eugene Schwarz in 2010 at the Glasshouse, Stourbridge, UK. I think I retrospectively posted the schedule of the conference he's attending before Christmas. Anyway, if you take a look at the video at around 42 minutes he's describing the life of Zuckerboy and the film they made of it called 'The Social Network'. He thinks Mr Facebook is classic Aspergers but also a kind of angel. It's the first I've seen of Mr Schwarz and I think that he's an ace speaker!
                          >
                          > http://vimeo.com/20002576
                          >
                          > T.
                          >
                          > Ted Wrinch
                          >
                          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > To all those suckers who contribute to making Facebook stockholders rich:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/technology/for-founders-to-decorators-facebook-riches.html?hp
                          > >
                          > > Frank
                          > >
                          >
                        • ted.wrinch
                          You re welcome, Frank. He s done a few more on education you might not have seen; all are v. good. He seems such a nice guy - must have been great to have him
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 3, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            You're welcome, Frank. He's done a few more on education you might not have seen; all are v. good. He seems such a nice guy - must have been great to have him as a teacher!

                            Today's Children Need Tomorrow's Schools - Elmfield School Lecture

                            http://vimeo.com/19764517

                            I'm so impressed; this guy is dynamite! I love the introduction he gives where he describes the first school intake in Stuttgart for the Waldorf cigarette factory kids. Steiner wanted to take these 'apprentice fodder' kids and give them the same quality of education as the rich middle class kids, but in 'half the time', as they had to go to work by 8th grade. I can see why Mr Schwarz has his own web-site, is in demand around the world, and was awarded a Teaching Fellowship at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Princeton. Must be amazing to have this kind of talent.


                            What is Waldorf Education? Part 1 Interview with Eugene Schwartz

                            http://vimeo.com/22396764

                            What is Waldorf Education? Part 2 Interview with Eugene Schwartz

                            http://vimeo.com/22397678

                            T.

                            Ted Wrinch

                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Great lecture - thanks.
                            > Frank
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Serendipity! I came across this video of a talk given by our Eugene Schwarz in 2010 at the Glasshouse, Stourbridge, UK. I think I retrospectively posted the schedule of the conference he's attending before Christmas. Anyway, if you take a look at the video at around 42 minutes he's describing the life of Zuckerboy and the film they made of it called 'The Social Network'. He thinks Mr Facebook is classic Aspergers but also a kind of angel. It's the first I've seen of Mr Schwarz and I think that he's an ace speaker!
                            > >
                            > > http://vimeo.com/20002576
                            > >
                            > > T.
                            > >
                            > > Ted Wrinch
                            > >
                            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > To all those suckers who contribute to making Facebook stockholders rich:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/technology/for-founders-to-decorators-facebook-riches.html?hp
                            > > >
                            > > > Frank
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.