Home > Uncategorized > A Review of a Confused Yahoo

A Review of a Confused Yahoo

This is my review of Olly’s review ofThe Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture whose review was called, “Confused, Prurient and Amateur: A debate is needed, but this isn’t the book to lead it, By O. Buxton ‘Olly Buxton'”.

“Confused, Prurient[pretentious word] and Amateur:”

“A debate is needed, but this isn’t the book to lead it[citation needed][dubious][POV pushing]

Because you said so.

By O. Buxton ‘Olly Buxton’[pretentious][redundant]

“Since Andrew Keen is so instinctively dismissive about amateur contributors to the internet”[citation needed][dubious][ranting] – people like me – it’s hardly surprising that I should instinctively dismiss his book,”

Do as you say not as you do huh? Yep, you’re a true Yahoo Wikipedian.

“so let me declare an interest right away: I like Web 2.0.[ranting]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how?

“I’ve been a contributor to it – through Amazon customer reviews, Wikipedia[citation needed], discussion forums[citation needed], MySpace[citation needed], Napster[citation needed] and so on – for nearly a decade now,[citation needed]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how? Oh, and so you’re right because you’ve contributed.; excellent Yahoo Wikipedian logic: It’s you’re feelings that matter, not the truth, and not doing as you say Mr. “No Citation Is Needed As Long As You Appease the Yahoo and Wikipedia Moderators”.

“and I’ve followed the emergence of the political movement supporting it, exemplified by writers such as Larry Lessig and Yochai Benkler, with some fascination.[citation needed]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how?
“and no, I’ve never made a dime out of it (though I have been sent a few books to review, not including this one).[citation needed]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how? Mr. “Didn’t Get a Dime (But Wait: I Did Get Free Books)” you get man-praise from like-minded liars which you clearly love more than God-praise for telling the truth.

“Andrew Keen is that classic sort of British reactionary: the sort that would bemoan the loss of the word ‘gay’ to the English language, and regret the damage caused by industrial vacuum cleaners on the chimney sweeping industry.”[citation needed][“personal attack”][ranting]

True Yahoo Wikipedian babble. And aren’t personal attacks against the rules of both Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia and isn’t POV pushing against the rules of Wikipedia? Blind much? Hypocritical much? Repeatedly forget what truth, evidence, reality, hypocrisy and contradiction mean much?

“His book is an empassioned[spelling], but simple-minded, harkening[spelling]

Did you mean “impassioned” and “hearkening”? Hey, if atheists can dote on spelling errors of Christians, can’t I at least point their’s out? Atheists love to make fun of Christians for not using a spell checker; will they do the same to you?

“to those simpler times which concludes that our networked economy has pointlessly exalted the amateur, ruined the livelihood of experts, destroyed incentives for creating intellectual property, delivered to every man-jack amongst us the ability – never before possessed – to create and distribute our own intellectual property and monkeyed around mischievously with the title to property wrought from the very sweat of its author’s brow.[citation needed]

And besides missing yet another citation and getting that 132nd thumbs up for it, can you speak in a way that makes sense to everyone rather than pretending to be an expert on the truth by using awkward grammar and phrases posing as eloquent Shakespearean speech?

“Keen thinks this is a bad thing;[citation needed] but that is to assume that the prior state of affairs was unimpeachably good.[dubious]

Who made this assumption? You, or him Mr. Weasel in the “But”? Isn’t weasel-wording against Wikipedia’s rules too? You don’t even seem to be an amateur with your repeated violations of Wikipedia’s Universal Religious Code. James the Wikipope and Essjay the Wikibishop shall hear of this.

“You don’t have to be a paranoid Chomskyite[weasel-wording] to see the pitfalls of concentrated mass media ownership (Keen glosses over them), or note that the current intellectual property regime – which richly rewards a few lucky souls and their publishers at the expense of millions of less fortunate (but not, necessarily, less talented) ones, isn’t the only way one could fairly allocate the risks and rewards of intellectual endeavour.[POV pushing]

Is this about the book’s content or your views of the value of Wikipedia and Yahoo! Answers as a source of useful references let alone truthful references? You know personal commentaries not on the book but what the book talk about in the review space is against Amazon’s rules right?

“Keen’s world is one where there is a transcendental reality; a truth, purveyed by experts, trained journalists, and in great danger of dissolution by the radically relativised truths of Wikipedia where the community sets the agenda, and if two plus two equals five, then it is five.[citation needed][pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

“So much Big Brother: Orwell’s novel gets repeated mention,[citation needed][pretentious ranting] it apparently having escaped Keen that a media owned by a concentrated, cross-held clique of corporate interests – which is what the old economy perpetuated[pretentious ranting] – looks quite a lot more totalitarian than publishing capacity distributed to virtually every person on the planet.[citation needed][pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

“Keen laments[pretentious wording: Keep it simple genius; I know you hate kids and teens but wish to impress them at the same time, but not all of are mindless followers who enjoy hearing you pretending to be Andy Rooney] the loss of a ‘sanctity of authorship’[citation needed][pretentious ranting] of the sort which vouchsafed[pretentious ranting] to Messrs Jagger and Richards (and their recording company)[citation needed] a healthy lifetime’s riches for the fifteen minutes it took to compose and record Satisfaction[citation needed] (notwithstanding their debt – doubtless unpaid – to divers blues legends from Robert Johnson to Chuck Berry) and seems to believe individual creativity will be suddenly stifled by undermining it[weasel-wording][POV pushing][entire quoted section is here is word salad]

“There’s no evidence for this (certainly not judging by MySpace, the proliferation of blogs, Wikipedia, and so forth, as Keen patiently recounts), and no reason I can see for supposing it to be true on any other grounds.[citation needed][POV pushing]

And show us your citation for “no evidence” for whatever the Hell you meant by your word salad up there. Dosado, mix those words 1 2 3, swing your partners, now clap your hands, rant and rant to all your fans, harass to death every man! Yaaaaaahoooooo!

“On the contrary, Yale law professor Yochai Benkler in his excellent (and freely available!)”

Yaaaaaahoooooo! This is also freely available: mininova.org/tor/1273681 and so is cheap candy and bug-ridden freeware.

“The Wealth Of Networks has a much more sophisticated analysis:”[citation needed]

And “more sophisticated” is what matters most don’t ya know, not the truth! True Yahoo-Wikipedian logic: “using uncommon words and complex wording to make yourself look as wise as genuine wisemen matters more than being a wise man.”

“there is a non-market wealth of information and expertise – residing in heads like yours and mine – which the networked economy has finally unlocked, for the benefit of all, and at the cost of the poor substitute that preceded it.[word salad][Pov pushing]

“That this might have compromised the gargantuan earnings capacity of one latter day Rolling Stones (to the incremental benefit of a few thousand others) is far less of a travesty – andmore of a boon – than Keen thinks it is.[citation needed][word salad][POV pushing] Now rock bands have to sing for their supper.[citation needed][pretentious wording]

And what does copyright law being broken (which is against Wikipedia’s rules) have to do with whether or not Wealth Of Networks or Cult of the Amateur say anything worth listening to?

“Keen may regret that but, as a concert goer, I sure don’t.[weasel words][POV pushing]

“Keen also, irritatingly, keeps returning to the Monkeys and Typewriters analogy (writes your dear correspondent, a monkey).[citation needed][pretentious rant][POV pushing]

“It is true there may not be much talent behind the infinite typewriters,[rant] but the evolutionary lesson is that there doesn’t need to be,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Since when are evolutionary lessons automatically are true and useful or any lessons? Thanks for those revealing weasel words DARWINIST. Yet another Darwinist defending Yahoo! Answers, the Myspace forums (where a Satanist and some anti-Christian were harassing me and who myspace banned for it. Would you like to see the confirmation emails I received? Or should I not allow the chance of another Darwinist to harass me with emails?) Using your logic creation science theories are also true and valid merely because they’ve been used as lessons.

And it’s “true that it’s maybe true” lol? Actual quote from you: rearranged so that everyone can more clearly see nonsense you said: “It is true there may… be not much [truth]”. And did you mean “It’s true THAT there” Mr. Communication Expert?

“as long as we have tools,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Oh, so as long as “we” have tools (including us creationists, Calvinists right, and anti-“the truth isn’t important; all you need is references which appease the Yahoo and Wikipedia moderators”ists, right?) then the tools will magically make us do what’s useful. I think I’ll add that line to my book of arguments against God: “but we have tools and as long as we have them [we can defeat God and don’t need the truth.]”

Wow you’re still ranting and the amazon moderators have allowed your dissertation to remain long enough to get 131 votes up since July 24, 2007. Hypocritical that they kept removing a “dissertation” as one amazon moderator called one of my reviews, despite it being shorter than your rant here.

“be they Google algorithms or manual reputation management devices (things like Amazon’s ‘helpful review’ voting buttons):[citation needed][POV pushing]

Oh yeah, don’t you know anti-Christian trolls voting down my review on Bean-zyme as soon as I made it, and creating new accounts to vote any reviews I’ve made down when they see someone has voted it up is just so useful? Funny how Calvinists don’t use the same deceptive tactics. Is that because we’re less evolved? Would you like us to evolve and create dummy accounts to vote you down?

“to sort the wheat from the chaff.[pretentious ranting]

Would you like to give credit to the Bible for that unnecessary sentence? Or wouldyou like everyone to believe that you’re just really original? Give honor to whom honor is due credit-thieving Darwinist. Truly you are like your father Darwin who stole credit for the theory of natural selection from Edward Blyth (a creation scientist) and whose lovers continue to do so today on the Charles Darwin and Origin of the Species pages on Wikipedia.

“And like it or not, we *do* have these tools:[pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

See the last three replies. And what does this part of your rant have to do with whether or not this book says anything useful? Time-wasting, opinion-parroting, feelings-basher?

“they’re the sine non qua of Web 2.0,[pretentious ranting] the thing without which it would never have got off the ground.[citation needed][POV pushing]

“And Wikipedia (or Linux, or eBay, or Amazon’s customer review system) is potent evidence of that.[POV pushing][ranting]

YOU JUST MENTIONED THOSE THINGS REDUNDANT TIME-WASTER, example: “be they Google algorithms or manual reputation management devices (things like Amazon’s ‘helpful review’ voting buttons)”. Evil opinion-basher: Stop ranting and repeating yourself; you are personally attacking in hypocrisy.

Sickening, you’re still babbling:

“That there are notorious cases,[pretentious wording]

“a few of which Keen recounts,[citation needed]

What’s wrong, don’t want us to learn about Essjay the lying Wikipedia moderator and the incredible stubbornness of James, owner of Wikipedia, to admit it and get rid of him? Is that why you don’t cite what you’re talking about?

“doesn’t detract from the fact that Wikipedia is largely comprised of brilliant articles,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Because ye said so. Since when is everyone a gullible, simpleton like you? Since when is everyone an “ignore the examples showing that mobs cannot trusted” type like you are? And how arrogant that you pretend to be the representative and think you are, of 30+ million Calvinists and other countless numbers of Christians who don’t worship Darwin or your mob moderators. Delusions of Grandeur much? Do you have any references that show you speak for the 30+ million Calvinists and anti-Darwinists?

Wow, please, shut up already:

“with helpful links and useful surrounding discussion, a complete history, and those articles that aren’t so good are obviously not: all you need to pack for a visit is your critical faculties. Again, if the choice were blind faith in Encyclopaedia[weasel word] Britannica”

Did you mean Encyclopedia, or pedophile? Got something on your mind that you’d like to share with us Mr. Paedia?

“or a sceptical[Britishism]

Did you mean skeptical? Are you British?

“read of Wikipedia, I know which I’d have, and which I’d counsel for my children – especially since Wikipedia is automatically up-to-date,[citation needed][POV pushing]

If your idea of skeptical reading is to claim without evidence that Wikipedia magically updated whenever new information about THE TRUTH (oopsie, Wikipedia ain’t about the truth it says as well as one of their harassing moderator repeated to me) is p made then you are a extremely deluded moron. Hopefully your kids are already sick of your over-weening pride and have seen through your gross, immoral, stupidity.

“preternaturally[pretentious wording (kids, look in the dictionary, your dad is playing scholar again)]

“following the zeitgeist,[pretentious word] and replete[pretentious word] with good know-how on things that Britannica would never have in a million years.[citation needed][dubious][POV pushing][“personal attack”]

Are ya done playing scholar yet? Oh no:

“Most of the time, we don’t need a nobel-prize[capitalization] certified article,[citation needed][pretentious ranting]

“and in Britannica wouldn’t get one anyway,[dubious][POV pushing]

“if what we wanted to know about was *The Knights who say ‘Ni’.[pretentious rant]

Stop ranting please. No, he won’t:

“Elsewhere Keen misunderstands Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the Correspondence Theory of Truth,[dubious][citation needed]

“implies that traditional media isn’t systemically biased, assumes his fellow men have no sense of scepticism whatever (because something is watched on YouTube,[citation needed]

“Keen assumes it is necessarily believed true),[citation needed]

“and constantly fails to see the double standards in his own arguments:[citation needed]

“Complaining that traditional media is losing out to a swarm of unpaid, underresourced amateurs,[citation needed][punctuation: should end in a period (which would help make it look less like you’re ranting. Oh wait, you are.)]

Did you mean undererererersourced? Were you tired of ranting? I wonder if it’s considered “poor etiquette” in Wikipedia’s holy guidelines as well to not make sure you haven’t posted any typos rather than simply because you didn’t sign your post which automatically gets signed anyways. Hmmm, since Wikipedia’s morality is backwards and petty… probably not.

Please stop. If you continue to post nonsense and mere insults in Amazon.com you will increase God’s hatred of you.

“Keen suddenly remarks ‘but in reality it’s often those with the loudest, most convincing message, and the most money to spread it, who are being heard’. Plus ca change, eh?[nonsense]

Plus what? Are done gushing stupid garbage yet? Yet? Nope, Darwin still gotsum opinions to show off:


Really? We’re almost there yet? Please? How about you stop the car now so us kids can get out and find some foster parents who aren’t full of themselves? I’ll trade you some printed pages of Wikipedia.

“Keen laments[pretentious wording] the passing of specialist record and book shops like Tower, whose ‘unparalleled’ and ‘remarkably diverse selection’ will be lost to us for ever.[citation needed][word salad]

“Clearly he’s no online shopper then,[dubious][citation needed][POV pushing]

Dang, he doesn’t shop online, he’s bad, very bad. Is “Thou shalt shop online.” part of the Web 2.0 religious code?

“since dear old Amazon[pretentious rant]

“Dear” to you. You’re not the spokesperson for Calvinists and creationists.

“would lick all of them put together[pretentious rant]

What? Essjay? Essjay is that you? Come on, I know it’s you Essjay.

“- but Amazon, he says, lacks the dedicted[typo] expertise of sales assistants”

STOP: It is considered poor etiquette (by uh) to post a long rant without at least checking for spelling errors, so that only your Darwinist friends can mock pagans and Christians for making them.

I thought this was the “last”? God bless you but can you leave now? I have a life you know, it’s not about listening to people like you rant nonstop about how wonderful you and your “contributions” are oh Benefactor.

“that could have stepped out of Nick Hornby’s Hi Fidelity.[pretentious ranting]


“Except that it doesn’t, since it has literally millions of them –[ranting]”

“people like you and me –[ranting][pouting]

“who can offer our tuppence[pretentious wording]

Where did you get these words? Wikipedia’s page on How to Sound Like You’re Smart and Even If You’re An Ill-tempered Knows-nothing? Or was it that book, The Art of Verbal Self-Defense: For Dummies.

“worth gladly and without thought of recompense.[pretentious word][word salad]

“The thing is, there *is*[pom poms]

Still talking Mr. Lastly or should we called you Pom Poms?

“debate to be had here, though not quite the apocalyptic one that this author believes is necessary, and at times Keentouches on it, but his brimming prurience[pretentious wording] and needless moral disgust[ranting][POV pushing]

Because, you, said, so. And ooooo damn his morals. Your Amazonian, Yahooligan, Wikipedian, Darwinian Truth-Don’t Matter Just Evolution and Amazonian, Yahooligan, Wikipedian, Darwinian Approved References religion is the right one. I’m so happy that all I have to do is call myself an Calvinistic Christian or just an eternian to identify what I stand for.

Curls nose:

“- at the cost of level-headed anlysis[typo] and expostion[typo][pretentious rant]

“- towards a community which has simply adjusted to the new social envinronment[typo] more quickly than traditional political and business models have makes this a poor entry for the purposes of kicking off that debate.[pretentious rant][word salad]

Do I need to call the police? I said no solicitations, can you read spammer? What little you know about good and evil you are confused about; that’s not debatable.

“In the mean time, Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom and Lawrence Lessig’s Code: Version 2.0 (neither of which Keen seems to have read)[dubious][POV pushing][pointless repetition]

“might be a better place for interested persons to start.”

A Mob Spokesman: Hey everyone, our mob of Congressman have decided to pass the Patriot Act (except presidential candidate Ron Paul). Does that men the FBI might come to your house and that you might lose some of your rights when they come to investigate you? Maybe, maybe. But which is more important? Your security, or your freedom? Maybe it’s your security. It just might be a better country now that we get to spy on you whenever we feel like it. It just maybe might be the truth. So yeah. There.

The truth is out there, but don’t be a gullible simpleton. Learn the definitions of words, including the common words you use, and once you understand these common words, start reading the Bible and learning what the words in it mean, especially in their original languages. And believe the Bible above all else.

Visit this excellent store and gain wisdom. Purchase a book to help me continue to expose lies and to spread the truth.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. March 29, 2008 at 6:28 PM

    thanks for taking so much time to dissect my review…

    … which clearly seems to have touched a nerve –

    However, after a couple of paragraphs your ranting begins to get boring and I couldn’t be arsed slogging through your whole analysis – and if I can’t be stuffed, despite writing the review in question, God (an invisible friend of yours, I think?) knows who else is going to read it. But anyway – best of luck with your curious view of the world. It seems to make you rather angry, which seems a pity (but what do you care what *I* think?). (Secretly, you seem to care quite a lot!)

    British English spellings seems to trouble you. Sorry, old bean – I can’t help not being a septic tank!

    With cordial regards for a lady who, methinks, doth protest too much*,

    Olly Buxton

    * Shakespeare – Macbeth, if I recall.

    • March 30, 2008 at 12:38 AM

      Re: thanks for taking so much time to dissect my review…

      Thanks for taking the time (supposedly) to read my review, which clearly HAS touched your nerves from the length of your review (which after reading the childishly sarcastic glee you’ve expressed with the “I made you feel pain” nonsense I wont be reading, although I did notice you quoting the foul-mouthed Shakespear (a typical tactic used by arrogant knows-nothings like yourselves who think, as I pointed out in this review but which went right over your head being that you are a vain self-obsessed babbler) indicating again, that you think being eloquent and using high words makes you right and wise. No, it doesn’t.

      And presumptuous gloater: the only pain I felt was the feeling of annoyance that you were droning on and on; you’re a very transparent, lightweight, sophist.

      I’ll leave your reply so everyone can see you are a sadist, that is, a person who enjoys hurting others merely because it makes him feel good, and not because it pleases God.

      • March 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM

        Re: thanks for taking so much time to dissect my review…

        Ok then;
        Happy travels

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: