To the Old Gray Whore: Anti-MSM Open Thread

There are few things I loathe more than people who seem to be altruistic but end up demonstrating that they were merely pretending in order to screw someone over down the road. I've been around...I know how the world works, but even crooks have integrity, so long as they admit they're crooks.

Here's a letter I've recently sent to the editors of The New York Times. I can't fathom they'll publish it, so I'll do so...

With all due respect to the fact that yours is a business and like all businesses must make money, the "Times Select" program strikes me as about as classy a move on your part as the two-bit local thug who offers crack for free to build up his client base and then starts gauging his dupes once they're hooked.

I mention this in particular because it's clear, even without having access to your page view statistics (needing only your "Most E-mailed" list), that you're "Selecting" to charge for the items your online readers most value. You already charge for archived articles, as well, so pretending that you're offering added value with this program is embarrassingly disingenuous of you. Yes, you're going back further...wahoo...but you could still earn money off that without charging for the columns.

It's quite a gamble you're taking here actually. Surely you realize the rise in popularity of your columnists over the past 4 years is due in large part to how easily bloggers can cite them while they're free. Take away that option, and the number of times they're referenced in the blogosphere is most certainly going to plummet.

I, for example, will not direct readers from any of my blogs to a site they'll have to pay to read.

The irony here is that I buy your paper, at full price, from my local vendor every day. I often turn to the editorial pages first, read all the columns, and often they become a source for my blog posts.

Because, again, I won't direct readers to a site they'll be charged to read, though, you've just convinced me to start picking up the Washington Post each morning instead.

Good luck with your new program. Do let me know when it's been scrapped.

Sincerely,
Edward Winkleman
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com
http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com
http://liberalstreetfighter.com/ee/index.php

Consider this an open thread.

Comments

[Katherine]

wow, you're in a good mood lately.

;) I should talk of course....

The problem with crack dealers doing that is not that it turns out they were doing it for the money instead of altruism. The problem is they're getting people addicted to a life-destroying drug. The Times move is more analogous to the free hbo I'm getting for six months, or free samples at Whole Foods.

I don't think it will be successful though. I honestly haven't been reading the Times Op-Ed page so much. The columnists tend to fall into ruts, and you just feel like you've read this exact same column before. I think publishing every three days at the exact same length is not conducive to great writing. And now there's an unending supply of opinion writing from weblogs.

It's perfectly legit for them to charge for some content. I don't think it's a good business move, and I obviously like free stuff, but...

I'd be much more upset if they started charging for their news reporting. I am also more annoyed by them charging for their archives, as that's what's most valuable for research purposes. (I can get access to the archives other ways, but I can't link.)

[Anderson]

I can't feel so antipathetic towards the NYT, mainly because I've felt guiltily lucky to be able to read it for free online.

I don't expect altruism from news organizations. If the web presence is losing them money, then they need to charge for it or cut it.

What I do wonder about is the profitability +/- (vel non, as we lawyers say to sound like we learned something in law school) of websites that run 100% off ad revenue. Can the Times not make it off ads? What does that forebode for the WaPo and other such sites?

I often suspect that we've been living through the golden age of free web content, because no one was quite sure what to do with the Internets.

[Hal]

Just use the NY Times link generator. It creates links to the OGW that don't evaporate and don't require a subscription. Not sure if the OpEds will be amenable to the same tactic, but the rest of the NY times is.

No need to get upset as long as there's nytimes.blogspace.com...

[Anderson]

Hal, how does that work? Won't the Times take an interest in shutting that generator down?

[Jackmormon]

The thing is, blogs have generally been pretty decent lately about fair use. (Or at least the ones I've read have been.) That is about to change.

[Edward]

Just use the NY Times link generator.

I can't get that to work any more.

Of course, the NYT can charge what it likes for its services, but I refuse to play along like I'm so lucky I got any of it all for free all this time. They advertise online, with obnoxious pop-ups and the like. As a loyal reader, I feel entitled to let them know how disappointed I am in this latest, misguided attempt.

[Edward]

The Times move is more analogous to the free hbo I'm getting for six months

I disagree. I understand when I get addicted to HBO that it won't be free forever. The Times is pulling this without the 6-months warning.

[Edward]

let me try this one more time:

What I resent is that they chose the one feature they knew was the most popular to start charging for. They could have charged for anything, but they used their statistics to calculate what folks would be most willing to pay for, based on usage, and are going to charge for that. It's obnoxious. Makes me want to click on the obituary page 3000 times a day and email it to my friends to pump it's stats up and see if that would cause them to start charging for that too.

[Josh]

What I resent is that they chose the one feature they knew was the most popular to start charging for.

Well, yeah. Isn't that what you'd do in their situation?

I'm also not getting the complaint that since they advertise online, they shouldn't charge. That's not how the print version works (hell, most weeks the Sunday Arts & Leisure section is probably half ads). Why would you expect the online version to be any different?

(I should probably note that I don't pay for any online services. If there's a service I like that goes pay-only -- and it's happened in at least a couple of situations -- I won't pay for it. But I don't hold any ill will toward the companies that start charging; they just need to take people like me into account when they make the decision.)

[Edward]

But I don't hold any ill will toward the companies that start charging

I'd say you do, actually, in the only way they're actually ever to care about.

[Edward]

er, make that "ever likely to care about"

[hrc]

Edward, I think the term is "gouging" not "gauging" but I could be wrong.

[Edward]

gouging?

no, you're probably right...I can't spell to save my life

[Josh]

I'd say you do, actually, in the only way they're actually ever to care about.

*shrug* Difference of opinion. It's not like I'm making blog posts encouraging other people to complain. ;)

But I'm honestly curious as to why you think the Times *owes* us free access. It's one thing to argue that they're shooting themselves in the foot, but another thing entirely to say that they're screwing the online public. When did free ice cream become a right?

[liberal japonicus]

One way to look at this is that the Times has two 'commodities', one is fame/the ability to influence national opinion, and the second is the ability to bring in money. It is gambling, hoping that steps that may curtail the first will increase the second. I would personally like to see them fail as I don't particularly like the notion that people can trade on their fame to be rich, but given the evolution of celebrity in the modern world, I'm probably pissing in the wind. It will be interesting to see if this gamble works, especially in light of the forced dislocation of the Times-Picayune in light of Katrina, ironically discussed by this NYTimes article which has been pirated/subject to free use. (note the disclaimer at the bottom) It seems to me that the Times has two basic options, one of which is to go the RIAA route of increasing control of unauthorized use or the Hollywood studio route of increased distribution and I think they have chosen the former.

[Gary Farber]

"Surely you realize the rise in popularity of your columnists over the past 4 years...."

Do you have figures on that? What's the metric? Cite?

Myself, I'm not quite sure why you seem to feel you're entitled to read the columnists for free, in digital form (since you live in the city, when you're there, if you can't afford to buy the paper, finding a free one in the trash or on a bench or coffee shop is easy, I assure you ;-)), but if yelling at the Times makes you happy, enjoy.

[Gary Farber]

"What I resent is that they chose the one feature they knew was the most popular to start charging for."

My impression is that you run a gallery; I may have that all wrong, in which case, please forgive me. But if that's so, do you charge less for the most desired work you have for sale? Why not? Aren't you taking advantage of people's desires?

[Edward]

Why not? Aren't you taking advantage of people's desires?

I've never offered that most desired work for free.

I see I'm outnumbered on this issue. So be it.

I just resent their choice. That's all.

[Josh]

It seems to me that the Times has two basic options, one of which is to go the RIAA route of increasing control of unauthorized use or the Hollywood studio route of increased distribution and I think they have chosen the former.

Two things: 1) I don't get the RIAA analogy at all, since at least based on a quick read of the article Edward_ linked all they're doing is putting the op-ed stuff behind a pay wall; I didn't see anything about chasing down people who're reprinting the op-eds. Maybe I missed it though. 2) I don't get why you're contrasting the MPAA's approach against the RIAA's. The motion picture industry is, after all, the industry that wants to kill the general-purpose computer in the name of preserving their profits.

[CMatt]

I offer this coverage by http://www.mollyivins.com/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=2016>Lou Dubose of the Abramoff-related scandals.

Those interested in the MSM angle can run the various linkages through google with site:www.nytimes.com to examine the paucity of the Times' coverage. I'm sure the Times will cover the eventual indictment of Abramoff. I'm also fairly sure that story won't be given the column inches to address McCain's flaccid response.

[liberal japonicus]

Hey Josh,
Sorry for being so sloppy, but I tried to get across the broadbrush nature of this suggestion by saying 'basic options'. What I wanted to contrast was just the 'overall' approaches and used RIAA and MPAA as shorthand. Obviously, a lot of it is tied up in the ease one can swap cd tracks where as swapping full DVDs requires a lot more time and effort, but one could contrast the fact that soon (if not already) the showing at the theatre is a lesser generator of profit. On the other hand, the recording industry has not really taken advantage of the new environment. There are a lot of other things involved, but the point I want to make is that the Times is looking at how much money they can wring out of their various sections rather than thinking that being the paper of record is something that is not a given.

[Phil]

They could have charged for anything, but they used their statistics to calculate what folks would be most willing to pay for, based on usage, and are going to charge for that.

[Devil'sAdvocate]This is actually the textbook definition of how one creates a profitable business model. [/Devil'sAdvocate]

[Edward]

I get that totally, Phil.

But other businesses don't trade primarily in credibility, the way the Times does.

[Gary Farber]

"I've never offered that most desired work for free."

I can't for the life of me see why, if you did, anyone would owe you other than thanks.

But, apparently, if you had been so nice, you'd be deserved to be called a whore, a crack dealer, a crook, out to screw people, a two-bit local thug, embarrassingly disingenuous, and worst of all, that you're "gauging" people. (I imagine they'll run on different tracks now; sounds painful.)

Since offering something for one price, and then raising it, is what you are railing against so insanely, I trust you have never, ever, done such a horrific, despicable, thing to anyone, and that if you ever, ever, do, you will welcome and thank everyone who shows up to picket you with the above labels you find appropriate for such a vile and dishonest act, as well as similar words, and then you will do as you think appropriate, which is immediately go back to your prior lower price, and never, ever, ever, raise a price ever again in your life, you two-bit whorish screwing thuggish crook (if you've ever raised a price; if you haven't, the words don't apply, of course).

"Surely you realize the rise in popularity of your columnists over the past 4 years...."

Do you have figures on that? What's the metric? Cite?

I take it the answer is "no"? What were you referring to?

[Edward]

Since offering something for one price, and then raising it, is what you are railing against so insanely,

That's not it. It's the fact that they're selling the the change as somehow offering added value. Had they indicated that their costs required this change, I would have respected it. I feel they're being disingenuous, though.

Do you have figures on that? What's the metric? Cite?

Anecdotal evidence only. The number of times my circle of friends cites a NYT columinist in a debate has risen dramatically. I credit the blogs. YMMV.

I trust you have never, ever, done such a horrific, despicable, thing to anyone, and that if you ever, ever, do, you will welcome and thank everyone who shows up to picket you with the above labels you find appropriate for such a vile and dishonest act, as well as similar words, and then you will do as you think appropriate, which is immediately go back to your prior lower price, and never, ever, ever, raise a price ever again in your life, you two-bit whorish screwing thuggish crook (if you've ever raised a price; if you haven't, the words don't apply, of course).

Feel better?

[Gary Farber]

"Feel better?"

I'm fine. Do you feel better?

[Gary Farber]

I'm glad, though, to see that you have a normal reaction to reading those words (" two-bit whorish screwing thuggish crook"). It was quite a response and bit of invective in reaction to a completely unremarkably trivial act by the Times.

[Jackmormon]

It's the fact that they're selling the the change as somehow offering added value.

I'm much more sympathetic to Edward's resentment than other commentors here, but I just wanted to point out that the NYT has expanded its op-ed section.

This Sunday edition has two lengthy essays, one by Frank Rich (as usual, stealing all the blogosphere's best lines) and an excellent one by Lisa Randall, physicist at Harvard about communicating science to the public. Randall's piece was much richer for the expanded format because she could explain some tricky ideas like how scientists "observe" evidence with lots and lots of examples for non-scientist readers.

Too bad fewer people will be able to read such pieces, thanks to the new NYT policy.

[Gary Farber]

Since this is an open thread, I'll note that I wanted to ask CharleyCarp if he had any comment on this, but his blog has comments disabled, and no e-mail address, nor hint of a link to one, so I guess he doesn't want to hear from anyone, or answer any questions, and short of shooting up a flare everywhere I go, which probably won't find him, I can't ask, but in case he sees this and doesn't have his fingers stuck in his ears....

[liberal japonicus]

Gary
my impression from this comment is that CC is either there or en route and while there, has little access to the internet. You may wish to repost your query in a later thread so it doesn't get ignored or lost in the shuffle.

[Edward]

It was quite a response and bit of invective in reaction to a completely unremarkably trivial act by the Times.

It was a bit of hyperbole employed to display my displeasure in the context of an open thread, a forum which tends traditionally to be somewhat light-hearted or clearly over-the-top in nature on ObWi, Gary.

Having said that, as a New Yorker, I reserve the right to tell the NYT when they've p*ssed me off in the language I know New Yorkers understand.

Is ranting a totally lost art?

[wilfred]

i agree, i buy it at the newsstand every day (i travel too much to subscribe) and feel the charge is unfair.

[liberal japonicus]

Having said that, as a New Yorker, I reserve the right to tell the NYT when they've p*ssed me off in the language I know New Yorkers understand.

Edward,
If you haven't read it, immediately go out and get Ian Frazier's _Coyote vs. Acme_ and read "Your Face or Mine", an essay occasioned by the new slogan for NYC "We can kick your city's ass".

[Gary Farber]

"Is ranting a totally lost art?"

I don't know: is that what I should have asked after being asked "feel better?" when I repeated your own words at you?

Wilfred writes: "i agree, i buy it at the newsstand every day (i travel too much to subscribe) and feel the charge is unfair."

This fascinates me: what's unfair, precisely? What other things that businesses produce is it unfair for you not to receive for free? (Although my thought for today is that, for now, possibly anyone too dumb to be able to read TimesSelect for free perhaps doesn't deserve to; perhaps.)

[Edward_]

Although my thought for today is that, for now, possibly anyone too dumb to be able to read TimesSelect for free perhaps doesn't deserve to; perhaps.

fuggedaboutit...wouldn't give 'em the satisifaction of collecting more data, just to have them shut it off down the road.

Judging by the tone (and volume) of blog posts on Times Select listed on Technorati, I'd say those offended by this move outnumber those who like it quite significantly. Giving it out for free for a fortnight might change that sentiment a bit, but as launches go, this one is a bit inauspicious.

I don't know: is that what I should have asked after being asked "feel better?" when I repeated your own words at you?

You don't need me to ghost write for you Gary. You'll figure it out. :-ppp

[Gary Farber]

"I'd say those offended by this move outnumber those who like it quite significantly."

Alternatively, perhaps many are like me, who fall in neither category. Of course I don't like the fact that, theoretically, I can't read those articles immediately (although it turns out I can, for now, at least).

But neither do I understand where any sense of entitlement to free NY Times comes from, other than the inner three-year-old inside all of us. What justification is there for resentment, beyond "I wants it, I wants it, mine, mine!" when it is, in fact, not yours or mine unless we pay for it?

"Giving it out for free for a fortnight might change that sentiment a bit...."

I don't understand what this means; what is it referring to?

"You don't need me to ghost write for you Gary. You'll figure it out."

Well, tentative hypothesis is that when other people say the same thing you said, you think they're over the top and you ask them if they "feel better?" Now, I'd have to guess what that indicates or suggests you felt, but another tentative hypothesis might be that you felt that your own words were over the top, but only when someone else says them.

I'm entirely open to alternative theses, to be sure. :-)

[Gary Farber]

:-ppp

Sorry about the triple chin, though, and even more about that weird three-way horizontal thing sticking out of your face.

[Gary Farber]

Thanks for the Technorati link; I had been thinking of looking, but not gotten to it yet. That people dislike no longer having free anything they like is hardly news, nor worth checking. What absolutely amazes me to read, though, is all the people who claim that they can no longer read the articles for free. I mean, how dumb is this? It's perfectly obvious how to access them for free.

[Edward_]

But neither do I understand where any sense of entitlement to free NY Times comes from

It's more a sense of resentment than entitlement. Having patronized their site for years, enduring the obnoxious advertising everywhere (can news sources get together and decide it's very unbecoming for them to use pop-ups please...show a little class), and directing folks to it endlessly, I do feel I have a right to voice my displeasure at this decision. I'm not calling for legislation to stop it. I'm simply noting that as a loyal customer (one who pays full price for the print version [so your characterization of me as one who feels he's entitled to the content for free is not totally accurate]), I'm not pleased by this change in policy.

I can, of course, type in the excerpts from the print version, but that's going to be much less attractive (given how poorly I type) than simply switching over and seeing what the WaPo pundits' take is.

[Edward_]

"Giving it out for free for a fortnight might change that sentiment a bit...."

I don't understand what this means; what is it referring to?

You can sign up for Times Select for free for 14 days (it's what you've been hollering about here all day). I suspect this is intended to convince folks who would not have even tried it otherwise that the service is indeed worth paying for. I, for one, will never know.

[Gary Farber]

"(it's what you've been hollering about here all day)."

What on earth are you talking about?

[Gary Farber]

"I suspect this is intended to convince folks who would not have even tried it otherwise that the service is indeed worth paying for. I, for one, will never know."

I also don't quite follow this. You know what it's worth: the same as it was or wasn't yesterday, and the day before.

I haven't paid attention to the "sign up for free 14 days." I'd rather, you know, just read the Time Select articles. Duh. Do I really have to explain step by step how to tweak the URL? Was "tweak the URL" unclear?

NY TIMES SELECT turns out to make everything freely available with the most incredibly stupidly trivial adjustment imaginable. Really. I wonder how many hours this will last. Could it last a whole day? Could they be this stupid? Obviously they think we're this stupid.

I'll leave it to you to fiddle with the provided URL to make it work (hint: it involves the LinkGenerator, and then tweaking what's provided; if you really find it mystifying, ask me).

Was something there unclear? Did I mention the 14-day-trial anywhere in this universe before you mentioned it? Is this thing on?

[Gary Farber]

"I do feel I have a right to voice my displeasure at this decision."

Of course you do; you are free to say endlessly sillier things. Of course, someone might say they think what you said was silly. Myself, I want a pony, and I'm furious that the Times isn't giving me one, and isn't also dropping all, or any, advertising. And I could say that because they're not giving me a pony that they're a whore, a crack dealer, a crook, out to screw people, a two-bit local thug, embarrassingly disingenuous, and worst of all, "gauging" people. And then people might look at me funny. But I'd still have my right, absolutely. Of course, this is also a complete non-sequitur, unless I've missed the comments claiming you have no right to rant about the NY Times.

But a wiser person would let it drop, and so I shall.

[Edward]

The NYT Link generator hasn't worked for me for quite some time.

I appreciate what I now realize you're saying Gary, but I suspect any loophole will be quickly fixed.

In fact, someone from the Times has hit my posts about this at least once in the last 24 hours, so if they didn't know about it before, they will now.

[Gary Farber]

"The NYT Link generator hasn't worked for me for quite some time."

This is that odd way you turn all discussion into about how you feel. The Link Generator works the same for everyone. Honest.

After the database crashed a couple of months ago, it didn't work at all for past articles, and it only worked for current articles sporadically. It's never worked for fresh articles, anyway, but always required one to wait for some hours for the URL to arrive.

It continues to work exactly as it has for months now: available for few older, pre-crash, articles, and not for articles from the last couple of hours, but sporadically for articles between those two bookends, largely dependent upon which section they're in, but less consistently.

It, I'm really pretty sure, has nothing to do with you. Or me. Or the user in general.

"....I suspect any loophole will be quickly fixed."

Since I said that in the first place, odds are that I don't disagree, don't you think?

Please forgive me being sharp. I seem to be extremely impatient today, for no visibly apparent reason, and I have no idea why. I think I may try to cut back on commenting for a day or so, though we'll see. I'm not trying to be impatient and snappish, honest.

I've revised my post with an addendum carefully spelling out the steps to read the articles for free, despite being baffled that this seems necessary. I think part, if not all, of my impatience today stems from my experiencing this as one of those not-uncommon I-don't-understand-how-the-universe-and-other-people-work panics I get with some frequency when I just find other people incomprehensible, and it's the mass common behavior.

I mean, who wouldn't, first thing when presented with a "paid"-access-only URL, try seeing if it works with the obvious change removed? Am I an alien for thinking "pretty much everyone" would, you'd think, do that? Or what?

(I had a not dissimilar, but lesser, experience the other day when a smart blogger wrote a lengthy shocked post about the President's note about a bathroom break. I mean, I mention the word "bathroom" without expecting anyone to be shocked, or say "Dear gggdd!," and it's never occured to me that I've been grossly offensive or inappropriate if I say "please excuse, I need to use the bathroom," but apparently I've been getting this wrong all my life, to judge from that post and the general lefty response to the notion that Bush uses bathrooms.

It's very disorienting to me to feel like I'm completely seeing things differently from almost everyone else. So I probably get a bit frantic trying to insist that this can't be so, and trying to make sense of it. If that makes any sense.

[Edward]

are you expecting a response?

[Gary Farber]

"are you expecting a response?"

"Expect" isn't the same as "desire" and what I'd desire would be some responses, but not others. What I expect doesn't matter so much.

I did write "If that makes any sense," which is an implicit question, but I don't think I'll speak further to this for now.

[rilkefan]

"The NYT Link generator hasn't worked for me for quite some time."

This is perfectly understandable and, from my point of view, entirely accurate; and the statement (as I speak English) hardly refers to Edward_ at all. Of course I'm breaking my "don't read Edward_-Gary exchanges" rule" and am on that basis not a good source of reasoned opinion.

[kenB]

the statement ... hardly refers to Edward_ at all

Well of course it doesn't, considering that the comment was signed "Edward" and not "Edward_".

On another note, someone has gone and signed himself "Ken B" over at Volokh -- I'm rarely moved to comment there, but if I do in future, I guess I'll have to call myself Bruce to keep it clear.

[Gary Farber]

"The NYT Link generator hasn't worked for me for quite some time."

This is perfectly understandable and, from my point of view, entirely accurate.

Rather than considering points of view, could we try objective measures? Say, here (a story I currently have open), here, here, or here, for the top three International stories at this moment. Or here, here, and here, for the top three National stories.

Now, I can keep going. You're not going to find links for stories that originated in the past couple of hours. But either I have just infiltrated the relevant computer, and inserted these non-existent links, or, in fact, you are objectively wrong in claiming the LinkGenerator doesn't work.

Of course, I could be misinterpreting this: "This is perfectly understandable and, from my point of view, entirely accurate...." This could mean that Rilkefan has a point of view that indicates that Edward can't make the LinkGenerator work. I don't know how that could be, but I can't exclude the possibility.

I assume, rilkefan, that you tested a few sample links before concluding that, today, the LG doesn't work?

I'm probably missing something, as usual. The links are just there for me? I should go check some more random ones? Here, here, here?

Yes, some don't work. But how does putting subjectivity into the equation help? Are Edward and rilkefan saying the Link Generator gives different results for different people? What? I mean, these were the first links I checked. I'm sure others won't work, but many do. This is subjective, and not objectively checkable? What?

[Josh]

Wow. This is just like watching you give Dorothy Heydt tech support all over again, Gary. (I suspect it's going to work out just as satisfactorily for all parties concerned, too.)

[liberal japonicus]

Gary
Since this is an open thread, I'll note that I wanted to ask CharleyCarp...

Gary, CC just popped up in the top thread, but it sounds like he is going off line again for a few more days, so you missed your chance. I am assuming he didn't see your request, perhaps because he followed the Rilkefan rule that Rilkefan didn't...

[liberal japonicus]

and, after closing my tags, will say goodbye.

[rilkefan]

Gary, I've attempted to make perhaps a dozen links with that script, at various delta t's for many, and not succeeded at all. In my world that's called not working. Maybe you like to link to the sort of stuff that tends to be linkable, so it works for you; but it doesn't work for me. If one of my coworkers gave me a script that purports to make a satellite do something and it failed in that way, I'd knock on his or her door and say, "Hey, that script isn't working for me". Maybe in my copious spare time I could learn the knack of getting the script to work, or learn its limitations, but my first impulse would be to go to the author and get something better.

[CharleyCarp]

Got way lucky. The pilot got permission to fly over Cuba to outrun the hurricane (TS?), so we got a pretty good look at a wide swath of the middle. Topologically just like East Texas, but as sparsely populated as South Dakota. Dirt roads, with very few cars.

To respond to Gary, we're all very worried about the hunger strike. I'll meet with our clients tomorrow and the next day to see if they are in on it. (The Navy won't tell -- I'm guessing they'll make us wait a while even while we're sitting there in Camp Echo before telling us our guys are unavailable.)

I'll try to tell what I learn, but it'll be mid-October before I can get anything declassified. Unless they look gaunt or something . . .

I'm surprised that comments are disabled at my falsefront of a blog -- I can be emailed at my handle at earthlink dot net.

Now I gotta get off the line so someone else can use it.

[Gary Farber]

"Maybe you like to link to the sort of stuff that tends to be linkable, so it works for you; but it doesn't work for me."

Well, no, really, I've described some parameters of what links it does and doesn't work for, and I'm hard put to find reasons to think they have anything to do with you or me. Evidence?

"Gary, I've attempted to make perhaps a dozen links with that script, at various delta t's for many, and not succeeded at all."

I don't know what this means. "Script"? What are you referring to? Acting? Computer programming? What? I gave links. Either they work, or they don't, over a given period of hours. Do the links I cited work?

If the question is which sections of the Times the LinkGenerator works for by which percentage of articles, that's objectively answerable, too. This isn't a matter of point of view. Is it?

I'm really confused. You're suggesting that you think the LinkGenerator reacts according to my likes? That the LG is emotionally based? That I'm asking such a loony question suggests how at sea I am in not following how this is a matter for subjectivity, not objective fact that the LG gives links under the conditions I've described. Was I correct about an objective fact, or not?

[Gary Farber]

"The pilot got permission to fly over Cuba to outrun the hurricane (TS?), so we got a pretty good look at a wide swath of the middle. Topologically just like East Texas, but as sparsely populated as South Dakota. Dirt roads, with very few cars."

Clearly the CIA caused the hurricane so as to gain access to take secret pictures from your plane.

;-)

Thanks muchly for your response, CC.

[rilkefan]

"Script" is a kind of program - usually one written in a "scripting" language, which I assumed this one is, since that's what one would usually use for such a task. I haven't inspected it, and I can't see the code serving the requested info, but I can well imagine that the NYT IT dept hasn't gotten around to fixing a bug in the sections of the paper that I tend to link to, or that you're more persistent than I am in running the code, or that I tend to try at bad times. I can even imagine the program recognizes your IP and returns a link to you because it just doesn't want to deal with an annoyed Gary. In any case, it's irrelevant if you're able to make links if other people try and regularly fail.

[Gary Farber]

"In any case, it's irrelevant if you're able to make links if other people try and regularly fail."

Sure, of course it would be. Obviously. Emphatically. Of course. For sure. Have I said I agree?

Still unclear what "this" refers to, but that's likely me, really:

"Script" is a kind of program - usually one written in a "scripting" language, which I assumed this one is, since that's what one would usually use for such a task.

Is "this" referring to the LG script?

"I can even imagine the program recognizes your IP and returns a link to you because it just doesn't want to deal with an annoyed Gary."

Um, so you're saying that all my links to working LG only work for me, and that the folks who created it wrote a program to deal just with me?

Um, okay.

[backs slowly away]

I've always thought Rilkefan was a highly intelligent, perceptive, articulate, participant here, whose comments I should pay attention to and respect. I've noticed that, of late, he seems to be increasingly irritable towards me, and I've tried to take that as feedback that I've been irritating, as ever. (That is, I'm frequently irritating, and I try to take note of feedback as to how and when I'm doing that, so if it's unjustified, I can try to lessen that, despite my flawed abilities in so doing.)

But, well, if your conclusion is that I'm presenting links that the NY Times has had altered in an attempt to present articles I prefer, well, er, um, er, er, er, um, okay. That's, um, creative.

Alternatively: are you friggin insane?

Good thing I wasn't doubting my perceptions earlier today.

[rilkefan]

I was not-very-seriously suggesting that when one goes to the NYT LG site and tries to get a link, the program looks at the user's IP address and decides whether the hassle of serving the user is less than the hassle of not serving the user.

The obvious solution to the problem here is for Gary to run a little server as a front-end proxy interface to the NYTLG. Or just agree to field linking requests.

[liberal japonicus]

The James Booker open thread post-dates this one, but I didn't want to mess up the good vibes in that one, whereas in this one, not a problem.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A British armored vehicle escorted by a tank crashed into a detention center Monday in Basra and rescued two undercover troops held by police, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official told CNN.

British Defense Ministry Secretary John Reid confirmed two British military personnel were "released," but he gave no details on how they were freed.

In a statement released in London, Reid did not say why the two had been taken into custody. But the Iraqi official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, said their arrests stemmed from an incident earlier in the day.

The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said.

The two gunmen fled the scene but were captured and taken in for questioning, admitting they were British marines carrying out a "special security task," the official said.link

via Atrios

[Katherine]

Never pay retail.