Comments on: Comments on 7991

Post number 7991

rschram — Thu, 31 May 2001 11:52:33 -0800

Have you ever noticed that the line between the NYT and MF is blurring?
Today I found a whole article about the strange and amazing fact that <a href="http://charlesatlas.com">The ninety-pound weakling company</a> is still in business, and on the Web! I can easily imagine a day when storeis are one paragraph long, and "Abuzz" comments let you know the rest of the details, y'know, like a Hamlet written by 1000 locusts on typewriters, or something...

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Thu, 31 May 2001 13:21:17 -0800

like a Hamlet written by 1000 locusts on typewriters
To swarm, or not to swarm - that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrag-ed farmers Or to take arms against a sea of wheat fields, And by opposing end them. To eat and eat - Still more; and by this means to say we end The greenness, and the thousand newly form'd stalks That farms are heir to. 'Tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To eat and eat. To eat - perchance to swarm: ay, there's the rub! For in that swarm of death what fields may die As we do migrate 'cross this mortal soil, Must give us pause. There's the insect That makes calamity of well sown seed. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of th' unworthy takes, When he himself might watch fields devour'd By a swarming cloud? Who would these fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of insects in the sands - The semi-arid desert, from whose bourn The locust swarms return - puzzles the will, And makes us rather fear those swarms we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus locusts do make cowards of you all, And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Thu, 31 May 2001 13:53:04 -0800

the NYTimes article mentioned above . . . how is this indicative of the line between MeFi and NYTimes blurring?

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Thu, 31 May 2001 15:52:32 -0800

Yes, and the NYT now has a 2 page story about Kaycee (which informed me a whole lot quicker than an MF thread). I agree with you though.. but each still has its place.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Thu, 31 May 2001 18:25:12 -0800

The Times piece on Kaycee was in the Circuits section, a section about computers and technology, and they were suggesting how a hoax can reach so many people and take them in through the use of the Net. Appropriate enough and much to the point. Well written. For all its alleged shortcomings, the Times remains top of the paper heap in this country.

By: NsJen

NsJen — Thu, 31 May 2001 20:19:07 -0800

*standing applause for iceberg*

By: poseur

poseur — Thu, 31 May 2001 21:15:54 -0800

*joins in applause for iceberg* As for the NYT piece on Kaycee... links, guys, links.

By: NsJen

NsJen — Thu, 31 May 2001 21:39:11 -0800

NYT on Kaycee There you are. Jen