See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: LP owner allows poster to plant 1-pixel gifs in order to track LP users
Source:
Libertypost
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=179683&Disp=16#C16
Published: Mar 9, 2007
Author: add925
Post Date: 2007-03-09 14:17:36 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 9161
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 97.
#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front. and here we were just talking about weird shit, 'they talk of days for which they sit and wait, when all will be revealed' Led Zeppelin, Kashmir. again, the old control paradigms evaporate in the face of novelty.
Wow! You maybe right, gengis, about spooky spooks operating on or perhaps even running (?) LP. I wonder if lurkers in addition to LP posters are nabbed by this sly gif ploy. Holy moley. Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm... A. And more... 26. To: Scrivener (#23) The meat of it starts here: http://69.55.11.240/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=178235&Disp=192#C192 After I caught PA hiding a one pixel .gif in his post, one of his responses to me was, "The question is, what are you hiding? What do you think you are hiding or hiding from?" The old "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind me snooping around in your business." Also here: http://69.55.11.240/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=178117&Disp=115#C115 s2m seen2much posted on 2007-03-08 10:56:54 ET Reply Trace B. AND more.... 19. To: add925, PatrioticAmerican, seen2much, liberator, goldi-lox, Johnny99 (#17) What gives? Why the use of these imbedded images? Whats their purpose? Mighty suspicious, indeed. How companies track surfers The most common way to track surfers is a combination of images (sometimes called beacons, 1-pixel GIFs, tracking GIFs and so forth) and cookies. Company X’s website will have an image embedded in it. The image is hosted by Tracker Inc, so every time you view a page on Company X’s site, Tracker Inc gets a request for an image. The request typically contains encoded information. As a simple example, when you request http://www.companyx.com/shoppi ngcart.html, your browser might also request an image from http://www.trackerinc.com/tracker.gif? cartitem=ipod40gb. At the same time, your browser gets a cookie set on it, such as globalid=1234. This cookie identifies you when you go to Company Y’s website. Scrivener posted on 2007-03-09 14:05:47 ET Reply Trace
hmmm... is right
I was thrown off LP as well - hmmmm
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
In light of this information,if this was my site, I would dump BAC.
BAC's false story about being "thrown off LP" was a set-up and coordinated with "goldilicks"...whoever he or she REALLY is..to give him an excuse to come here and invade. He is a spook and agent provacteur. I would BAN him if I owned this forum as well. As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
ROTFLOL! Here's the real story, folks: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75 Isn't it amazing that so many FD4UM members are anxious to get rid of a poster who has been courteous, who hasn't labeled anyone or called anyone a name while at FD4UM, who hasn't been the least bit vulgar, who has posted hundreds of sourced facts about topics that should be of interest, and who has been willing to debate their accuracy whenever challenged? Instead of responding in kind, FD4UMers have used the bozo filter in large numbers to avoid reading any of those posts, have thrown out mountains of adhominems and directed rivers of vulgar language at that poster, have begged that poster to leave, have called for his banning, and are now suggesting without any proof whatsoever that he's part of some zionist conspiracy. ROTFLOL! Beware the dot!
THe reaction to you is not about whether you call somebody names. It's about your obnoxious, thread-spamming, and frequently irrelevant remarks which you repeat over, and over, and over, and over - combined with a shameless acceptance of any claims the Bush Administation has to make explaining its actions.
Like this one?
Your use of that chart on this thread is a perfect example of your thread- spamming. Carry on, fuckwit.
No, it's actually a perfect example of you not knowing what you are talking about and being unwilling to be corrected when you are wrong.
No, that would be these BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 07 02:13:00 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-07 19:39:19 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-09 10:28:44 ET So I accidently wrote billion instead of trillion a few times BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 20:25:08 ET” “I suspect all of us at one time or another in the heat of a debate [!!] have switched billions and millions and even trillions. BeALooser posted on 2006-12-01 19:19:29 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 22:48:21 ET” BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET Yet, intelligent people [!!] still knew what I meant. Still could see my point. They could tell I just transposed two similar words in the rush to respond to you BeALooser posted on 2006-11-30 14:39:06 ET "You tell us when that civil war happens because so far there is no sign of it." BeALooser posted on 2006-06-30 01:48:13 ET "Iraqi units made up of Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis are routinely operating together quite well" BeALooser posted on 2006-06-30 01:48:13 ET "American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.." BeALooser posted on 2006-12-28 13:30:47 ET “I think you are a K**K if you think a country this size can't sustain 9 KIA a day in a global war."
No, unlike you I immediately acknowledged that I incorrectly wrote billion instead of trillion the moment it was pointed out. And of course, everyone on those threads knew what I had meant to say anyway. You, however, INSISTED that chart showed a 16 percent drop in housing prices despite multiple attempts to point out "the obvious". True. You really think this true? Well how in the world did we manage to stay in a war that cost America 300,000 dead and missing over a 3 year period?
b. Well how in the world did we manage to stay in a war that cost America 300,000 dead and missing over a 3 year period? a. Uh...why would our soldiers die whether we were in Iraq or not? You mean our soldiers would die eventually at old age around 75-80 like every one else? Or do you mean if our soldiers were not in Iraq your heroes, the war monger DC elites, would just have them fighting another useless war for lies elsewhere? b. Uh...hello, BAC, anyone home? We fought in World War II along with 2 other allies, who suffered incredible losses, against nations with standing armies in uniforms that had declared war on us. Iraq did not declare war on us. Why should we be wanting to sustain a loss of 9 KIA a day for a nebulus war with no end in sight that we started for lies? Not to mention the fact that we are the laughing stock of the universe for having caused this war and our so called "coalition of the willing" ( say what?) pals are dropping off like flies because their own public are so pissed off at being a part of this Iraq invasion for Israel/Halliburton/Exxon charade.
Thousands and thousands of islamo-fanatics have gone to Iraq ... and died there. If they weren't attacking us there, they'd likely be causing trouble elsewhere. BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him? The why is not the issue here. AGAviator (and you?) object to the notion that this country could sustain 9 KIA a day for years and years? Why in my opinion, that is just as silly as AGAviator claiming housing prices went down 16% in that graph I posted.
We could sustain a lot more than that, but we can't sustain the monetary costs per day for this war. The Federal Reserve can print all the money it wants too, but there are consequences for doing so.
We sustained far more than those monetary costs in WW2. WW2 cost 130 percent of GDP. Even at AGAviator's two trillion, the Iraq war would only be a 5 to 10 percent of current GDP.
False.
Well let's see, 2 trillion divided by 10 trillion per year for 3 years. Yep ... 5 to 10 percent of GDP.
You're so full of yourself. Only this year's GDP is "current."
Parse all you want (it's so Clintonesque). 2 trillion dollars over the period of the war so far is less than 10 percent of total GDP during that time. Here's an interesting webpage: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php That has a chart showing military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 2003. It shows that during the course of WW2, the US spend over 45% of total GDP on the war during that time. So to suggest this war is not affordable but WW2 was doesn't seem logical.
You're the one whose parsing. You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba. What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets. Last but not least, after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs. No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs have been exported to foreign countries due to the greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and included all 2 trillion of your claimed costs. Shall we use the expenses as of this point? The same is true of the listed WW2 costs. Gosh ... we've been in a tremendous growth spurt while the Iraq has been going on. Gee ... are you callously suggesting that was worth 300,000 American lives? Then why has the GDP been growing by leaps and bounds of late. And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's-tax-em philosophy will help economic growth.
#115. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
Irrelevant. You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba. Then you accused me of your own "parsing." The government was simpler back then, and the costs had fewer places to get spread around. No we haven't. GM is just about finished making cars in the US, just as one example. Most of the technology jobs are being exported to Asia or India. The war wasn't worth 300,000 American lives. But that's another off-topic remark. The Jews in Roosevelt's administration were pushing for America to get involved in that war, even though Stalin was a far bigger mass murderer than Hitler and Tojo put together. However after the war, most of Europe and a good part of Asia was in ruins. American industry was completely untouched by the war, and had enormous productive capacity that had been used during the war to make war materials and equipment. That productive capacity was then used to promote economic growth in the parts of the world where the war had destroyed just about everything. That economic growth from the productive capacity allowed America to pay back the costs of the war in relatively short order. We're not going to pull another rabbit out of the hat like that one this time. It hasn't. And as I've already told you, GDP's main components include (1) Services, (2) Consumer spending, (3) Government spending, and (4) Are measured in inflated dollars. So take your GDP sophistry and put it where the sun doesn't shine. They should definitely tax the corporate parasites who are exporting jobs and capital overseas. You have any problem with that?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: gengis gandhi, Hayek Fan, robin, christine, Brian S, Neil McIver, aristeides, AGAviator, BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, leveller, Burkeman1 (#1)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front.
#5. To: scrapper2 (#3)
Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm...
#6. To: robin, scrapper2 (#5)
Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm...
#8. To: Destro (#6)
#9. To: robin (#8)
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
#14. To: honway, christine, skydrifter (#9)
(Edited)
#23. To: IndieTX, honway, christine, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#14)
BAC's false story about being "thrown off LP" was a set-up and coordinated with "goldilicks"...whoever he or she REALLY is..to give him an excuse to come here and invade. He is a spook and agent provacteur. I would BAN him if I owned this forum as well. As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Isn't it amazing that so many FD4UM members are anxious to get rid of a poster who has been courteous, who hasn't labeled anyone or called anyone a name while at FD4UM, who hasn't been the least bit vulgar, who has posted hundreds of sourced facts about topics that should be of interest, and who has been willing to debate their accuracy whenever challenged?
#62. To: AGAviator, ALL (#59)
It's about your obnoxious, thread-spamming, and frequently irrelevant remarks which you repeat over, and over, and over, and over - combined with a shameless acceptance of any claims the Bush Administation has to make explaining its actions.
#63. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#64. To: AGAviator, ALL (#63)
Your use of that chart on this thread is a perfect example of your thread- spamming.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#64)
Post #92
"Since 9/11, the GDP of the US has increased by something on the order of 2 TRILLION dollars a year."
"You clearly made the claim that the rise in government expenditures was responsible for the tremendous increase in GDP (to the tune of 2 billion a year) by the end of the five years since 9/11."
"You made the claim that the 2 trillion dollar increase per year in GDP is mostly government spending."
"Yet, the GDP has gone from about 10 billion to about 12 billion a year ... a 20 percent increase"
“Obviously I meant $2 trillion"
“Total government spending… was roughly 2.75 trillion dollars. A 33 percent increase would amount to 900 million
"OK. So I was wrong...Big deal. "
“But it is clearly what I meant" [!!]
“So my language was sloppy. Sue me."
“I meant billion. Sue me."
“I'm just tired"
You were off by a factor of a thousand.
BeALooser posted on 2006-06-29 19:16:07 ET
BeALooser posted on 2007-01-21 17:27:20 ET
#66. To: AGAviator, ALL (#65)
No, that would be these
"American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.."
“ a country this size can't sustain 9 KIA a day in a global war."
#67. To: BeAChooser (#66)
(Edited)
a. "American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.."
#69. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, all (#67)
Uh...why would our soldiers die whether we were in Iraq or not?
Why should we be wanting to sustain a loss of 9 KIA a day
#70. To: BeAChooser (#69)
(Edited)
The why is not the issue here. AGAviator (and you?) object to the notion that this country could sustain 9 KIA a day for years and years?
#73. To: RickyJ, AGAviator, ALL (#70)
We could sustain a lot more than that, but we can't sustain the monetary costs per day for this war.
#77. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ (#73)
WW2 cost 130 percent of GDP. Even at AGAviator's two trillion, the Iraq war would only be a 5 to 10 percent of current GDP.
#81. To: AGAviator, ALL (#77)
"WW2 cost 130 percent of GDP. Even at AGAviator's two trillion, the Iraq war would only be 5 to 10 percent of current GDP."
False.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#81)
2 trillion divided by 10 trillion per year for 3 years
#91. To: AGAviator, RickyJ, ALL (#85)
Only this year's GDP is "current."
#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)
#97. To: AGAviator, ALL (#94)
You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba.
What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets.
after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt
because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs.
No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs
due to the greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
Replies to Comment # 97. You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba.
But I gave you the benefit of the doubt
What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets.
The same is true of the listed WW2 costs.
after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt
Gosh ... we've been in a tremendous growth spurt while the Iraq has been going on.
Because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs.
Gee ... are you callously suggesting that was worth 300,000 American lives?
No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs
Then why has the GDP been growing by leaps and bounds of late.
The greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's- tax-em philosophy will help economic growth.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 97.
