Google twins NOT law-abiding but 'dictator-abiding' - abiding by China's people-hater, Hu Jintao - (Quote from Defining 'Destructive Coward' (Definition) {HRI 20050610-V3.1} )
Leonardo Been
29 January 2006
'
The Google twins are NOT law-abiding but 'dictator-abiding,'
instead of making a big row globally and publicly, and
keeping it up, and keep publishing all the censure [all
the censorhip subjects and activities] very precisely and
in detail,
and keep demanding that the source of evil, Hu Jintao,
be removed,
so that people - also in China - can enjoy the services
of a true Google.
'
Google Inc. certainly has the money and the manpower
and the communication channels to do so.
And THAT WOULD BE 'NOT EVIL' OF GOOGLE,
THAT would be expected by the thinking and
ethical community, of Google.
(...)
In our example Hu Jintao is hidden by the Google twins,
and they claim, that hiding the source of evil in China,
"aids their own (Google's) survival," and that "it aids
the Chinese people"
really...
to severely lie to the Chinese and to hide
evil from them that is done to them, and that
is planned for the future by Hu Jintao,
"because Hu Jintao is doing that anyway" and
"because they can not stop it," and
"because that is the law."
'
There is not any such law in China, at all,
but nevertheless they comply and further
confuse the Chinese AND anyone else, by
calling it "the law,"
so that they can claim to be "law-
abiding" - adding insult to lie -
actually, it is not "the law" but it is
'the dictator' and they are 'dictator-
abiding,' and NOT 'law-abiding' at all,
and they are 'dollar-abiding,' and that then
is "delivering service to the Chinese population."
'
INSTEAD OF MAKING A BIG ROW GLOBALLY AND PUBLICLY, AND
KEEPING IT UP, AND KEEP PUBLISHING ALL THE CENSURE VERY
PRECISELY AND IN DETAIL,
AND KEEP DEMANDING THAT HU JINTAO BE DEPOSED
SO THAT PEOPLE ALSO IN CHINA CAN ENJOY THE SERVICES OF
A TRUE GOOGLE.
Google Inc. certainly has the money and the manpower
and the communication channels to do so.
And THAT WOULD BE 'NOT EVIL' OF GOOGLE,
THAT would be expected by the thinking and
ethical community, of Google.
'
Of course the Criminal Minds in the Chinese government
will call it "interference in their internal affairs,"
that your disagreement with their very severe Crimes on
people, 'is "interference" which "harms" them.' Really...
Well, maybe THEY can STOP meddling into people's
internal affairs
- as the Criminal mafia which is currently the
Chinese "government" -
with the one who is Hating and harming the Chinese the
most, being Hu Jintao, their "leader,"
as equally Jiang Zemin and Mao Zedong before him:
The true yet well-known nature and evil of these
previous Chinese "leaders," is what THEY refuse to
expose and to publicly acknowledge, also in their
own Chinese history books,
and instead, they erected and keep up and
worship great monuments ...for these severe mass
murderers of their own people, and
they (of course, as Criminal Minds want to be
seen publicly as being "the normal" and as being
"the very good" persons, so they) demand, that
these other very severe Criminals, Jiang Zemin and
Mao Zedong, are continued to be worshiped
publicly!
'
(...)
'
The Destructive Coward pleases the Criminal Mind
(in our current example, the Google twins pleasing
the Criminal Mind Hu Jintao)
by hiding the state of mind of the Criminal Mind,
Hu Jintao, from the Chinese and from the global public,
in exchange for "serving" the Chinese public,
as Bill Gates and Mr Yahoo did it already,
"to comply with local oppression and crime,"
complying also by NOT calling it what it
is, but calling it "local law,"
like "you can lie to a Jew and take his
property, because that is the law" (in the
Germany that forced the previous World
War onto us, as you know).
In other words, it is not 'law' at
all, but PURE EVIL, including the
DEMAND to hide it,
which also the Google twin "who
do no evil" complied with.
I think this gives you already a taste
of the evil that is to be expected of
Hu Jintao, that he is diligently planning:
Criminal Minds WANT TO DESTROY LIFE
as much as they can - for which they
of course have to get and stay into
a position where others are stupid
and cowardly enough to comply. (*)
'
(...)
'
Instead, heads of other states must talk with those
who actually DO represent the people - in this case
with those who actually DO represent the people of
China,
the organizational, social, economic and
geographical unit of people in mainland China.
It is simple business ethics, but then on an
International level:
You do not make contracts and business
deals with a Criminal Mind, also not
with Bill Gates, who is a Criminal Mind
as well,
and the Google-twins who claim to
do business without evil,
nevertheless support the very
severely Criminal Mind Hu Jintao,
AND his actions
not only to destroy the
Chinese population by
demanding the Chinese to
be Criminal to each other,
but also to set up the force
and Energy of the Chinese,
of over one billion people,
to go towards evil and
oppression and destruction
that HU JINTAO INTENDS to
bring about to express his
very intense Hate of people,
not only his Hate of Chinese
people - but his intense
Hate of and utter contempt
for ALL people, globally.
(see References)
'
You never ever make deals or agreements
with Criminal Minds
- as they are simply the same in nature
and intention as those commonly known
as Criminal Minds.
'
When you make deals and partnerships with a Criminal
Mind, then everything suddenly changes.
Winston Churchill made deals with then USA
president Roosevelt, a Criminal Mind, and
suddenly, in the eyes and words and actions of
Britain's head of state, after 'having to be
friends with Franklin Roosevelt,'
then in Winston Churchill's eyes it
became so, that
the highly ethical, highly caring
and highly capable leader and
freedom fighter for the French
people, (it became so, that he,)
Charles de Gaulle - from being a valued
and admired and true friend and ally
against the true enemies, "changed
suddenly" - in the eyes of Churchill,
that is.
Suddenly Churchill found that this most
courageous and valuable Frenchman was
"evil, must be discredited, restrained or
even imprisoned, and be kept away from
all information pertaining to his
country." (*)
(...)
'
Koos Nolst Trenite "Cause Trinity"
'hjuman rlights' philosopher and poet
'God gave Solomon wisdom
and very great insight,
and a breadth of understanding
as measureless
as the sand on the seashore.'
1 Kings 4:29
___________
Quoted from:
(*) 'Defining 'Destructive Coward' (Definition)' {HRI 20050610-V3.1}
(10 June 2005 - Version 3.1 on 29 Jan 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology/msg/68b71d475393a0d9?fwc=1
'
___________
See further:
'
'Bach Pulling People Out Of Hell' {HRI 20051021-V3.2}
(21 October 2005 - Version 3.2 on 13 Dec 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/Fine-Particle-Physics/msg/aa3efef314af04f7?fwc=1
'
'Justice - Definition of Justice, What is Justice'
{HRI 20051219-V1.2}
(19 December 2005 - Version 1.2 on 24 Dec 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/human-rights-issues/msg/a27719f3ad567907?fwc=1
'
'Consequences Of Not Facing Hu Jintao, A Criminal Mind As Head Of
State' {HRI 20051120-V2.4.1}
(20 November 2005 - Version 2.4.1 on 7 Dec 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/human-rights-issues/msg/396339153791d3d3?fwc=1
'
' "Insane" "Defined" By Criminal Minds As 'Ability To Perceive
Them' ' {HRI 20040422-V2.4}
(22 April 2004 - Version 2.4 on 21 July 2005)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/b110d81d0be311b8?fwc=1
'
'Detecting Criminal Minds By Their Intentional Omission Of Vital
Truth' {HRI 20020819-V2.2.3}
(19 August 2002 - Version 2.2.3 on 12 May 2005)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/53a97b173ef36240?fwc=1
'
'It Is An Act Of Friendship And Support, And
It Returns Sanity And Peace,
To Expose A Criminal Mind
Who Is Or Was A Head Of State' {HRI 20041111-V1.3}
(11 Nov 2004 - Version 1.3 on 12 Nov 2004)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/soc.culture.russian/msg/5fdb47f3cc772c4d?fwc=1
'
____________
Verification:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld
Copyright 2005-2006 by Koos Nolst Trenite - 'hjuman rlights'
philosopher and poet
This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
anyone who learns from it, and (even if he can not learn from it)
who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included,
to others who might be able to learn from it.
None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
or religious or scientific agenda, but only to educate, and to
encourage people to judge un-dominated and for themselves,
about any organizations or individuals.
Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
PlatoWorld at Lycos.com
(address unreadable for Internet robots
- replace ' at ' with the '@' symbol)
John D. Goulden
betting that you do a fair amount of business with China yourself. Take a
look around and see how much you own that came from China, then get back to
us. You can start with many of the components in the PC from which you are
posting.
--
John D. Goulden
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>So Google is evil for doing business with China, on China's terms?...
Is Google Evil for violating copyright and intellectual property rights
by re-cycling news, data, and information that legitimate
businesses hire journalists for?
Is Google Evil for ignoring the proper function of a free press
while catering to the whims of dictatorship for
temporary marketshare?
Is there really no difference between food and poison?
Is there any compromise between the two that
can result in anything but Death.
Is it TRUE
that the ONLY thing necessary for
Evil to prosper be for Good Men to do Absolutely Nothing?
Is it TRUE
that the Deliberately Evil
are aided by the Venal and the Weak?
Q: Act of Evil?
A: Google.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001918977
The Real Cost of Google's Sellout to China
Google is perfectly willing to posture as a brave defender of
the privacy of its users in the U.S. marketplace it already dominates
while caving to the immense commercial opportunity awaiting it in China.
This is a harsh reminder that the concentration of media in the past decade
has made the few giant companies that now control them more vulnerable
to demands from foreign -- and domestic -- governments with their own agenda.
Last week Google announced its intention to resist a Department of Justice
court action underway. DOJ wanted Google to allow a surveillance test of
millions of its users' search queries as part of its effort to enforce online pornography
legislation passed by Congress to protect children. Yahoo, AOL, and MSN had
already agreed to cooperate. But now, in an extraordinary development,
Google has announced its decision to join the largest internet censorship effort
in the world, being run by Communist China.
Google will actively assist the Chinese government in barring access to
thousands of Web sites and search terms, in fact anything on the World Wide Web
the Chinese feel might destablize its authoritarian government. It will also eliminate
the blogging and e-mail services it offers elsewhere in the world. According to the
Associated Press: "Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China
as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted 'don't be evil' as a motto."
Does Google's concept of "evil" exclude surpressing the free access it currently offers
the 100 million Chinese estimated to be on the internet? What's going on here?
John D. Goulden
> by re-cycling news, data, and information that legitimate
> businesses hire journalists for?
An issue that has nothing to do with China. If you believe that Google has
violated your copyright or IP rights, sue them and let the law decide.
> Is Google Evil for ignoring the proper function of a free press
> while catering to the whims of dictatorship for
> temporary marketshare?
The US notion of a "free press" is that the government cannot censor the
press, particularly in policital matters. Since China doesn't share this
notion, google.cn's reluctance to function like one in China is quite
understandable.
One could also say that anyone who does business with China (and I include
anyone who purchases products that are "made in China" in that category)
also caters to the whims of dictatorship.
--
John D. Goulden
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>> by re-cycling news, data, and information that legitimate
>> businesses hire journalists for?
>
>An issue that has nothing to do with China. If you believe that Google has
>violated your copyright or IP rights, sue them and let the law decide.
In progress.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d0e8cf3e-928d-11da-977b-0000779e2340.html
Search engines challenged on ‘theft’
..
Mr O’Reilly singled out Google for criticism, saying: “As a general rule,
Yahoo, MSN and Ask Jeeves seem more open to constructive dialogue.
It’s only Google which seems to have this absolute view [that all information
should be available for free].” Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
..
Even Drudge pays for the right to aggregate news on his site;
what ever happened to the GOOGLE initiative to digitize all
the copyrighted material in the Library of Congress
just so that they can make it searchable?
Does property exist but by the courtesy of others not to seize it?
>> Is Google Evil for ignoring the proper function of a free press
>> while catering to the whims of dictatorship for
>> temporary marketshare?
>
>The US notion of a "free press" is that the government cannot censor the
>press, particularly in policital matters. Since China doesn't share this
>notion, google.cn's reluctance to function like one in China is quite
>understandable.
Is there nothing to comment about those who call
themselves American while betraying everything it ever stood for?
The Deliberately Evil know, America will NOT be defeated by its Adversaries,
but, rather, by those whose job it was to protect it, aided and abetted by the Venal and the Weak.
Act of Evil?
GOOGLE.
John D. Goulden
> what ever happened to the GOOGLE initiative to digitize all
> the copyrighted material in the Library of Congress
> just so that they can make it searchable?
If Drudge pays for the right to aggregate news on his site, that's news to
me. How about a cite for that claim?
Google recently a $3,000,000 unrestricted gift to the Library of Congress to
kick off the LoC's "World Digital Library" project.. How very evil of them.
> Mr O’Reilly singled out Google for criticism, saying: “As a general
> rule,
> Yahoo, MSN and Ask Jeeves seem more open to constructive dialogue.
> It’s only Google which seems to have this absolute view [that all
> information
> should be available for free].” Google could not immediately be reached
> for comment.
Mr. O'Reilly is, of course, entitled to his opinion.
> Does property exist but by the courtesy of others not to seize it?
News aggregators (and search engines and blogs...) don't sieze property;
they summarize and link to it. Most news sites are delighted by the
increased traffic they get as a result.
--
John D. Goulden
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>kick off the LoC's "World Digital Library" project.. How very evil of them.
Yet NOT ONE PENNY in royalty towards the authors...
Does the propriety of authorship exist only with
the courtesy of GOOGLE not to seize it?
Could GOOGLE censor those
works as well?
Act of Evil?
GOOGLE.
John D. Goulden
> Does the propriety of authorship exist only with
> the courtesy of GOOGLE not to seize it?
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101428.html:
"The Library of Congress is launching a campaign today to create the World
Digital Library, an online collection of rare books, manuscripts, maps,
posters, stamps and other materials from its holdings and those of other
national libraries that would be freely accessible for viewing by anyone,
anywhere with Internet access."
The key word here is "rare." These are documents that are, for the most
part, many centuries old. The authors are long dead. To whom would royalties
be paid?
You seem to not have much understanding of what Google is doing with their
various Internet library projects. They are digitizing and making available
on the Internet works that are in the public domain. You don't pay royalties
on works that are in the public domain. They are also arguing that it is in
the public interest that they be allowed to copy all library books, even
those protected by copyright - but will do so only if they win the related
court cases. In other words, they won't copy such books until it can be
established that it is legal for them to do so. This may or may not happen;
my bet is that the courts will decide in favor of the copyright holders. But
the courts - not Google - will make that decision.
> Could GOOGLE censor those works as well?
This is a service provided by the Library of Congress, not Google. Google
will follow the law of the countries in which they operate. If China wants
to restrict access to the Library of Congress web site, and Google wants to
do business in China - well, even you should be able to figure that out.
I'm still not quite sure if you think Google is evil because you want them
to operate in China while refusing to accept the restrictions placed on them
by the Chinese government (and they won't), or because you don't want them
to operate in China at all (and they are). The first is silly (no sensible
company will deliberately break the law where they do business) and the
second is hypocrytical (I'm willing to bet that you own many things that
were made in China, that your mechanized transportation burns fuel that
funds despotic dictatorships in the Middle East, that a good portion of your
clothes and shoes are manufactured by child labor in Asia, that much of the
food on your table is grown and harvested by underpaid migrant workers, and
so on).
--
John D. Goulden
And I must be just as evil as Google, 'cause I just stole from the
Washington Post for this message. But somehow I don't think they'll be too
upset, seeing that they feature links to the WaPo RSS feeds right there on
the front page. Not to mention that giving one paragraph of a
multi-paragraph story and linking to the rest is generally regarded as "fair
use."
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>various Internet library projects. They are digitizing and making available
You seem to put yourself in position of Judge,
when it comes to the question of Google's definition
of what information should be free.
The courts will decide that...
Just as history will record their double dealing with China...
In the catagory of those who call themselves American
while betraying everything it ever stood for.
Act of Evil?
GOOGLE.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d0e8cf3e-928d-11da-977b-0000779e2340.html
Search engines challenged on ‘theft’
..
Mr O’Reilly singled out Google for criticism, saying: “As a general rule,
Yahoo, MSN and Ask Jeeves seem more open to constructive dialogue.
It’s only Google which seems to have this absolute view [that all information
should be available for free].” Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
..