That's was Forger's reply to Party's point. So again, I don't know what youre rambling and babbling on about. If you can't keep pace with the shifting contexts in our discussion, don't even bother jumping in and making false claims.

That's was Forger's reply to Party's point. So again, I don't know what youre rambling and babbling on about. If you can't keep pace with the shifting contexts in our discussion, don't even bother jumping in and making false claims.

Does it matter what he was responding to? He clearly says that we are not, in fact, talking about the dark ages. And since it was his post, he should probably know what he is talking about. Thus he was never talking about the dark ages.

Does it matter what he was responding to? He clearly says that we are not, in fact, talking about the dark ages. And since it was his post, he should probably know what he is talking about. Thus he was never talking about the dark ages.

Of course it matters. Because he was talking about a wholly different point. Also notice the pronoun "he"; Forger was talking about Party.

If you really can't comprehend that, don't even bother posting, because your posts are increasingly useless and obnoxious here.

Of course it matters. Because he was talking about a wholly different point. Also notice the pronoun "he"; Forger was talking about Party.

So? He still said it. Unless he was lying, are you calling him a Pinocchio?

If you really can't comprehend that, don't even bother posting, because your posts are increasingly useless and obnoxious here.

Sounds like you are insulting the person rather then the argument. Are you that desperate?

So? He still said it. Unless he was lying, are you calling him a Pinocchio?

Course he did say it. Unfortunately he was talking about a different, different point, so why are you lumping it with an unrelated argument and then condemning him? Seems like very poor reasoning.

No, I am not insulting you, but criticizing your posts, which derail the thread. Frankly, if you consider that ad hominem, then this is no place for you, as you seem so bent on making a mountain out of an imaginary molehill.

Back to topic. Social media isn't altogether bad. It was one of the tools the protectors in Arab Sprjng used to band together and rally.

Course he did say it. Unfortunately he was talking about a different, different point, so why are you lumping it with an unrelated argument and then condemning him? Seems like very poor reasoning.

Well I am bored with this line of thought anyway. Want to drop it?

No, I am not insulting you, but criticizing your posts, which derail the thread. Frankly, if you consider that ad hominem, then this is no place for you, as you seem so bent on making a mountain out of an imaginary molehill.

It is almost as if I am...Mocking you or something. But why would I ever do that?

Back to topic. Social media isn't altogether bad. It was one of the tools the protectors in Arab Sprjng used to band together and rally.

Really? Well, not really. Please tell me, how many people in these poor nations have computer access? How can those few people with internet access who are willing to protest actually use said social interactions without being noticed by the government? After all, it is difficult to say "Revolution @ 8! Bring yr sign! W R Going to location X!" on a social network and not get noticed in real life...So...What did social networking do again?

Really? Well, not really. Please tell me, how many people in these poor nations have computer access? How can those few people with internet access who are willing to protest actually use said social interactions without being noticed by the government? After all, it is difficult to say "Revolution @ 8! Bring yr sign! W R Going to location X!" on a social network and not get noticed in real life...So...What did social networking do again?

Eg: The first domino was Tunisia where the underlying source of the uprising lay in government corruption, inequality, censorship and joblessness (even among the well educated youth).   The protests began in December 2010 with a college-educated street vendor’s (Mohamed Bouazizi’s) self-immolation in the coastal town of Sidi Bouzid in despair at the corruption and joblessness.  He died from the burns, but his protest, despite Tunisia’s strict web censorship laws, was rapidly fanned by online Internet tools.

“Because the protests came together largely through informal online networks, their success has also raised questions about whether a new opposition movement has formed that could challenge whatever new government takes shape.

Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, a close ally from the president’s hometown, announced on state television that he was taking power as interim president. But that step violated the Tunisian Constitution, which provides for a succession by the head of Parliament, something that Mr. Ghannouchi tried to gloss over by describing Mr. Ben Ali as “temporarily” unable to serve.

Yet by late Friday night [1/7/11], Tunisian Facebook pages previously emblazoned with the revolt’s slogan, “Ben Ali, Out,” had made way for the name of the interim president. “Ghannouchi Out,” they declared…. And the protesters relied heavily on social media Web sites like Facebook and Twitter to circulate videos of each demonstration and issue calls for the next one.   

Or Egypt perhaps.

While exact numbers of protesters could not be estimated, a flood of internet photographs and videos showed a massive presence in Cairo, Alexandria, and other Egyptian cities.  These protests lasted 18 days and Internet-savvy protesters used Twitpic, Facebook and YouTube to disseminate videos and photographs and called on Egyptians to protest.  Protesters provided minute-by-minute tweets concerning where to assemble in an effort to outwit police.

“More than 90,000 people signed up on a Facebook page for the Tuesday [Jan. 25] protests, framed by the organizers as a stand against torture, poverty, corruption and unemployment. But the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s most powerful opposition movement, said it would not officially participate, though some of its members joined the protesters in Cairo.”  (NY Times, “Broad Protests Across Egypt Focus Fury on Mubarak“, 1/25/11)

Social media wasn't the cause of such movements but it did play a sweeping role in facilitating it.

If you want to let the matter drop quietly now that we have shown that your catty allegations are refuted, I'm sure the rest would oblige.

Eg: The first domino was Tunisia where the underlying source of the uprising lay in government corruption, inequality, censorship and joblessness (even among the well educated youth).   The protests began in December 2010 with a college-educated street vendor’s (Mohamed Bouazizi’s) self-immolation in the coastal town of Sidi Bouzid in despair at the corruption and joblessness.  He died from the burns, but his protest, despite Tunisia’s strict web censorship laws, was rapidly fanned by online Internet tools.

“Because the protests came together largely through informal online networks, their success has also raised questions about whether a new opposition movement has formed that could challenge whatever new government takes shape.

Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, a close ally from the president’s hometown, announced on state television that he was taking power as interim president. But that step violated the Tunisian Constitution, which provides for a succession by the head of Parliament, something that Mr. Ghannouchi tried to gloss over by describing Mr. Ben Ali as “temporarily” unable to serve.

Yet by late Friday night [1/7/11], Tunisian Facebook pages previously emblazoned with the revolt’s slogan, “Ben Ali, Out,” had made way for the name of the interim president. “Ghannouchi Out,” they declared…. And the protesters relied heavily on social media Web sites like Facebook and Twitter to circulate videos of each demonstration and issue calls for the next one.   

Where did you get that from? A link would have been easier, yes?

Admittedly, Tunisia has one of the highest computer ownerships rates in the continent, and it would be possible that social media played a small part in it's revaluation. However the amount of people who actually use computers in the way you described are still rather small, and it is still the equivalent to yelling out what you are planning to do.

Or Egypt perhaps.

While exact numbers of protesters could not be estimated, a flood of internet photographs and videos showed a massive presence in Cairo, Alexandria, and other Egyptian cities.  These protests lasted 18 days and Internet-savvy protesters used Twitpic, Facebook and YouTube to disseminate videos and photographs and called on Egyptians to protest.  Protesters provided minute-by-minute tweets concerning where to assemble in an effort to outwit police.

“More than 90,000 people signed up on a Facebook page for the Tuesday [Jan. 25] protests, framed by the organizers as a stand against torture, poverty, corruption and unemployment. But the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s most powerful opposition movement, said it would not officially participate, though some of its members joined the protesters in Cairo.”  (NY Times, “Broad Protests Across Egypt Focus Fury on Mubarak“, 1/25/11)

Social media wasn't the cause of such movements but it did play a sweeping role in facilitating it.

Egypt is a much better example, thanks for that. The internet was easily shut down by the government, to start with, and the actual internet access was really low to start out with. Now please answer the questions I asked. How many people in these poor countries have internet access? How is it effective to state on an open sever where and when you are meeting?

If you want to let the matter drop quietly now that we have shown that your catty allegations are refuted, I'm sure the rest would oblige.

Catty and refuted? You linked me to a blog post. Instead of answering my questions, you linked me to a blog. I searched for the statistics myself, but most of them are blogs and the such saying things like "OH! LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE ALL HELPED THESE POOR PEOPLE!". Ill get back to you after I can find something worthwhile to post.

Where did you get that from? A link would have been easier, yes?

Admittedly, Tunisia has one of the highest computer ownerships rates in the continent, and it would be possible that social media played a small part in it's revaluation. However the amount of people who actually use computers in the way you described are still rather small, and it is still the equivalent to yelling out what you are planning to do.

Can't link on my phone. Social media as a tool is not "rather small", 90,000 people in such a short Spanish of time is phenomenal and shows he explosion of popular sentiment against decadent regimes.

How many people in these poor countries have internet access? How is it effective to state on an open sever where and when you are meeting?

Africa alone has 140 million Internet users; with 40 million FB users. The Middle East has a penetration rate of 35% compared to leas than 5 a decade ago. This translates to more than 70 million Internet users. 10% of Africa's land mass is Internet accessible.

Catty and refuted? You linked me to a blog post. Instead of answering my questions, you linked me to a blog. I searched for the statistics myself, but most of them are blogs and the such saying things like "OH! LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE ALL HELPED THESE POOR PEOPLE!". Ill get back to you after I can find something worthwhile to post.

1) This was a response to your earlier posts unfairly attacking Forger. It was quite obvious.

2) Blog post does answer your question, which was how many people have access to Internet which affected such movements.

3) Blog information and sources came from reliable newspaper reports if you looked carefully.

4) Many of the protestors used not just computers but their phones. Egypt's Internet penetration rose from a mere 1% in 2000 to 24% in 2009.

5) The Egyptians pretty much remained connected via other ways of getting online; such as dialing up international numbers. There were many groups that sprung up just to maintain this connection, such as We Rebuild.

Ah, here is one.

This link shows some of the things I have been saying, like that using social media to spread information is basically like yelling what your doing, who you are doing it with, and on and on. Many bloggers where locked out of their accounts, as well as tracked down and arrested in real life. And it was easy to do, as well as finding who they where connected to.

It also says that any use social media could have would be as communication, basically. And an ineffective means of communication at that.

Iran would also be a perfect example of how ineffective it was, with the same situation of people who protested on blogs being attacked and targeted, with having an extremely small amount of of people actually having internet access, and all the other things I have been saying. Not to mention posting fake tweets, which is not exactly difficult to do...

Now please, explain to me, why would social media help?