It's time to light a fire under Google's ASS

[BlackHawk]

It's time to light a fire under Google's ASS


"United States is based on freedom of expression and other
personal freedoms," Xia said. "However, many of those
companies actually help with censorship in countries like
China. So I think this is outrageous."

Nothing better illustrates this than doing a Google Images
search for "Tiananmen Square."

Do it in the U.S. and you get images of the 1989
pro-democracy rally in Beijing and the government's violent
military response.

Do the same search in China, however, and it produces
tourist photographs of the public square without scenes of
civil unrest.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368985,00.html

[[email protected]]

On Jul 26, 8:34*pm, BlackHawk > wrote:
> It's time to light a fire under Google's ASS
>
> "United States is based on freedom of expression and other
> personal freedoms," Xia said. "However, many of those
> companies actually help with censorship in countries like
> China. So I think this is outrageous."
>
> Nothing better illustrates this than doing a Google Images
> search for "Tiananmen Square."
>
> Do it in the U.S. and you get images of the 1989
> pro-democracy rally in Beijing and the government's violent
> military response.
>
> Do the same search in China, however, and it produces
> tourist photographs of the public square without scenes of
> civil unrest.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368985,00.html

You have freedom of expression, no one is restraining that. Google is
a private business, they have no obligation to allow complete and
unrestricted searches. If you think there's a market for a less
restricted search engine, start a business.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 26, 5:34*pm, BlackHawk > wrote:
> It's time to light a fire under Google's ASS
>
> "United States is based on freedom of expression and other
> personal freedoms," Xia said. "However, many of those
> companies actually help with censorship in countries like
> China. So I think this is outrageous."

That is a myth. The constitution does not require any private company
(like Google) to enable your "freedom of expression".

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 26, 5:34*pm, BlackHawk > wrote:

BTW: It seems illogical to attempt to ignite a physiological body
member that a company, not being a biological entity, would not
posses. It makes the poster appear ignorant.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> BTW: It seems illogical to attempt to ignite a physiological body
> member that a company, not being a biological entity, would not
> posses. It makes the poster appear ignorant.

No more so than grammar and spelling errors in a post.

[BlackHawk]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:34 pm, BlackHawk > wrote:
>
> BTW: It seems illogical to attempt to ignite a physiological body
> member that a company, not being a biological entity, would not
> posses. It makes the poster appear ignorant.
>
> -Robert


And it appears you are on acid

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BlackHawk > wrote in :

> It's time to light a fire under Google's ASS
>

God thinking. next, you can start a campaign against those *******s that
decide what kind of weather we get.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> BTW: It seems illogical to attempt to ignite a physiological body
>> member that a company, not being a biological entity, would not
>> posses. It makes the poster appear ignorant.
>
> No more so than grammar and spelling errors in a post.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[More_Flaps]

> Nothing better illustrates this than doing a Google Images
> search for "Tiananmen Square."
>
> Do it in the U.S. and you get images of the 1989
> pro-democracy rally in Beijing and the government's violent
> military response.
>
> Do the same search in China, however, and it produces
> tourist photographs of the public square without scenes of
> civil unrest.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368985,00.html

It might be even more enlightening for you to expose the censorship
you suffer as well.

Cheeers

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 27, 10:41*am, BlackHawk > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 5:34 pm, BlackHawk > wrote:
>
> > BTW: It seems illogical to attempt to ignite a physiological body
> > member that a company, not being a biological entity, would not
> > posses. It makes the poster appear ignorant.
>
> > -Robert
>
> And it appears you are on acid

Wow, that's your best? Did you have help?

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 12:41 pm, BlackHawk > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 5:34 pm, BlackHawk > wrote:
>
> > BTW: It seems illogical to attempt to ignite a physiological body
> > member that a company, not being a biological entity, would not
> > posses. It makes the poster appear ignorant.
>
> > -Robert
>
> And it appears you are on acid

Well it appears you're an ass. So what?