Reply
Sat 5 Jul, 2003 12:41 pm
If you go to google and type in "weapons of mass destruction" this is what you'll find.......
These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed
The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
Click the Regime change button, or try again later.
If you are George Bush and typed the country's name in the address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. (IRAQ).
To check your weapons inspector settings, click the UN menu, and then click Weapons Inspector Options. On the Security Council tab, click Consensus. The settings should match those provided by your government or NATO.
If the Security Council has enabled it, The United States of America can examine your country and automatically discover Weapons of Mass Destruction.
If you would like to use the CIA to try and discover them,
click Detect weapons
Some countries require 128 thousand troops to liberate them. Click the Panic menu and then click About US foreign policy to determine what regime they will install.
If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible. Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq.
Click the Bomb button if you are Donald Rumsfeld.
Cannot find weapons or CIA Error
Iraqi Explorer
A.R.Cox 2003
A friend showed me that the other day. What a riot!
This is a link to the actual page
Somebody put some work into that ... it deserves to be seen. The "Additional Help" links on the made-up "Cannot be displayed" page work too ... check 'em out, it is a hoot.
I got this link from a friend, also - just yesterday. Yes, somebody really put some work into it. Very impressive!
I sent this to hamburger earlier this week. It was circulating at the cooking forum I go to. It's great. Definitely worth following the links. I just about p'd, I was laughing so hard at one point.
I hope everyone followed all the links -- to the "New York Times Error page" etc. !
FOR ADDED FUN . . .
For added fun, go to the site and click "Detect weapons" then click the "Bomb button." Very interesting . . . :-)[/color]
I guess I'm behind the times. I also received it, and posted it on another forum.
c.i.
I saw, CI. This is one of those things that's just too good to miss.
Mama:
I'm still laughing so hard I can hardley breath ... the is the first time I've seen this.
Thank You for an early morning wake up hoot!!
Anon
At least 50% of the joy of the Google thing is that it's THERE, in mainstream american culture. The greatest weapon we have for getting rid of The Runner 'n' The Pudgy Boy, as many of us keep saying, is ridicule and humor.
Tartarin, I know I'm kinda being a party pooper here, but I'm not really sure that google has much to do with that page coming up for those keywords. That page is on a website that is among the 300 most trafficed in the world (and rising fast, possibly due to the popularity of that page), and it's code has obviously been optimized to score high with search engines for those keywords. By pressing Google's I'm Feeling Lucky button, it simply brings you to the first result for your keywords, which is currently that politically (in-)correct error message.
monger, i think we know (or at least, i know that i know) that google itself has nothing directly to do with this. the glory, to me, is that someone is savvy enough to use google in a way that will get that site, and that message, to many many people.
Goddam voice of reason!
'Tis wunnerfully funny, even if it is not a google plot!
Monger - you are looking awfully like a yellow booger on my (weird) monitor!
Of course, but it's been there for a while and Google (which otherwise seems to make editorial decisions about "top news") hasn't fiddled with it. I think the NYTimes link was added later -- anyone remember?
Tartarin, google extreemly rarely makes editorial decisions about news or sites that are not clearly violating their rules. People have taken google to court because they believed google was doing the kind of thing you mention.
Not websites, Monger. Their decisions about which news to put on the front page and which not. I get my NYTimes in the mail, and therefore don't read it until the afternoon of the day and, on weekends, not until Monday (when Sunday's paper comes in). I've been tracking, among other things, New York Times and other mainstream media coverage of Howard Dean. And then checking it against not only Google's front page but its news links. Bingo. Google is way behind. Even though I'm already "late" with my NYTimes reading, Dean info already in the "late" Times doesn't have links yet in Google. Ditto other AP, BBC, Guardian, and Reuters news about the invasion and its aftermath -- it shows up in Google way later. For example, unfavorable (to the US) news from Baghdad will at best have links to Asia Times and other non-US mainstream sources for the first day or so -- while the item already has headlines in the BBC and Reuters. When Google first started with their news section, I actually emailed them congratulations at its thoroughness (and got a nice, funny response!) About six weeks later I regretted my enthusiasm as they became less comprehensive and responsible.
Quote:....-- while the item already has headlines in the BBC and Reuters
That's what I noticed as well, Tartarin!
Don't know how journalism "feels" in Germany now, Walter, but here it walks like a whore, it talks like a whore, and it's all about money.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace