UPDATE(Reliapundit):
WE SCOOPED WEASEL ZIPPERS ON THIS - BY A DAY.
THEY SEEM TO HAVE LINKED TO THE SAME SOURCE - ONE THEY DON'T NORMALLY LINK TO. WE DID NOT GET A HAT-TIP.
The submitters - dhimmis - of Cologne have agreed that a new mega-mosque to be built there will be allowed to dominate the city's skyline.
 Cologne's Gothic Cathedral built 1248 to 1880 |
The structure will cost between €15 billion and €20 billion, financed by private donations from more than 800 groups in Germany. Construction will be completed in 2010 by the locally based Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), which has close ties to Ankara.
The mosque, designed by German architects Paul and Gottfried Böhm, will be a domed building with glass walls and two minarets.
The minarets will be 180 feet tall, one-third the height of the towers of the Cologne Cathedral. The mosque will also be flanked by tall office buildings. DITIB has agreed not to broadcast the call to prayer over loudspeakers.
12 comments:
You know, every time I see a minaret my mind immediately thinks 'rocket'. Dunno why.
Europe is well on their way to becoming an Islamic state. How proud they must all be for being so tolerant.
What if the US would have cared about Cologne's Skyline in 1945 before the terror bombing of the city.
A mosque seems pretty harmless compared to what you did to Cologne then.
that bombing was hitler's fault:
when a crime is perped and the cops damage things arresting the perps, then the damage is the perps fault.
why not ask the germans if they think they'd be better off now had fdr not done everything to win the wart and had not won the war?
u r a piece of immoral postmodern brainwashed fecking shite oskar.
Are you crazy? Claiming I stole your material? The only reason I'm even here is because I saw a referral on my sitemeter.
Absolute bullshit, I know exactly where I got it from and it isn't this place I can assure you of that. It's called a reader tip and not everyone wants to be credited publicly.
If you want to make friends and get links that can send you traffic accusing someone of stealing is NOT the way to do it.
Are you crazy? Claiming I stole your material? The only reason I'm even here is because I saw a referral on my sitemeter.
Absolute bullshit, I know exactly where I got it from and it isn't this place I can assure you of that. It's called a reader tip and not everyone wants to be credited publicly.
If you want to make friends and get links that can send you traffic accusing someone of stealing is NOT the way to do it.
HA!
THANKS FOR COMING BY - ANNOUNCED WEASEL!
YOU DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH!
YOU STEAL SHIT ALL THE TIME!
FROM BIGGER BLOGS THAN THIS!
HALF YOUR POSTS ARE STOLEN FROM HOFT AT GATEWAY!
SOMETIMES WHEN YOU DO ACKNOWLEDGE A HAT-TIP, YOU DO SO ONLY AFTER STEALING THE BEST PART AND LEAVING NO REASON FOR ANYONE TO USE THE LINK.
SCUMBAG.
ACE WROTE ABOUT THIS YEARS AGO:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187520.php
July 24, 2006
Rules of Netiquette For New Bloggers
Some people ask if it's permissible to track-back an article, or even add someone to a blogroll. Chad didn't know it was permissible to send other bloggers emails promoting an article on their site.
So here are "the rules," at least as I understand them:
1) Bloggers appreciate emails tipping to stories. I know I do. There are a couple of cautionary notes here:
a) Don't flood bloggers with emails pimping marginal pieces. Send out your best stuff. Or the most interesting stories you find.
b) Please, please, please, for the love of everything holy, DO NOT just link a story which has already been linked by Drudge or Instapundit and expect a link to your site. "Finding" a story on Drudge or Instapundit and wanting a link for it is much like an astronomer wanting credit for the discovery of a new heavenly body, tentatively called "The Moon."
c) You may also want to send along tips to stories with no request to a link to your own blog, i.e., just send the URL of the actual story. However, this is by no means necessary. If you found it, and you alert the blogger to it, I think it's fair for you to get a link right to your site, where people can then click on the whole article, if they want to read more.
2) You don't have to ask permission to track-back. It's always permissible. I have never heard of someone saying "How dare you track me back." If someone really finds you objectionable, I guess they can always delete the trackback. As I suspect Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald do.
a) But you can't trackback on my site, because trackbacks are hopelessly fragged.
3) You also don't have to ask permission to blogroll someone. It's an honor, and it always helps one's standing in the ecosystem, which some people care about.
4) On the other hand, it's kind of a dick move to ask someone for a "link exchange." That's a quid pro quo, and most people don't appreciate that. It's better to just blogroll the blog you like -- if you like them, you should link them, whether it's reciprocated or not -- and then send them an email informing them they've been blogrolled, and maybe they want to check out your site.
Little story: A while ago I realized I didn't have Iowahawk on my blogroll, and he didn't have me on his. I began a letter to him suggesting a link exchange. Then I realized how dickish this was, so I just added him, then told him I'd added him and invited him to add me. He did.
a) But bear in mind that the bigger the blogger, the more of such requests he gets (often from people who have never even read his site, but have just seen it was a big blog on the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem).
b) It might help to mention you are, in fact, a reader of the site, and kind of signal that by mentioning the blogger's interest/schtick/style. You don't have to kiss ass, just prove you are actually a reader, not a random person looking for a link. Bloggers usually want to help their readers; random dudes on the internet, less so.
c) Also keep in mind that being blogrolled is no big deal. Starting bloggers think if they can just get on the blogroll, then the hits will start rolling in. That's what I thought when I started. It's not true. You get hits from people linking your blog in a post, not by having a link in the blogroll. People usually don't even bother with blogrolls-- they have their own favorites bookmarked on their own computers -- and they almost never just randomly click on a blogger's blogroll just to "check a new site out." Getting blogrolled is a cosmetic thing that will goose you in the ecosystem, but it doesn't expand your audience, and no one except bloggers keep tabs on the ecosystem either.
I am told that being blogrolled puts you up in Google and Yahoo searches a little, but trust me, those searches are bullshit hits by people who will almost certainly never come back to your website again.
5) Sock-puppetting to create a false impression of widespread popularity is frowned upon, unless you're a rabidly left-wing blogger, and you have a Magic Boyfriend living in your Rio pad you can conveniently pin it on.
Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. If you have anything more questions about netiquette, I'll answer them.
The Biggest Rule of All: Rule Zero: When excerpting another blogger's work, do not post most of it or "take the heart" out of the piece and put it on your own site. What is left, then, for the reader to read on the original writer's site?
You should tease a piece, quote some good stuff, but not all the good stuff; be mindful that if someone wrote something good, he'd like a little traffic off it, and will not appreciate you simply posting almost the entirety of his piece on your own blog.
When quoting an MSM article discovered or at least brought to wide attention by a blogger, you can quote a little more, but still, bear in mind, the blogger who found it has earned some traffic for his news-scouring skills, and you should still leave enough of the article behind so that someone has a reason to click-through to it.
I'll tell you, nothing pisses me off more than seeing an entire Top Ten of mine posted on another blog with a simple "Via Ace" link at the end. Gee, thanks. You just posted the entire list. Why would anyone now click on that link to read more?
This is a difficult thing to do. You have to balance a couple of things-- you want to inform your own readers and put up a nice quote for them to read, but on the other hand, you don't want to just completely rip someone else off and post most of the substance of his piece on your site. It's a balancing act, and sometimes you fail.
If you're in the situation, which comes up a lot, where you almost can't quote anything without stealing the heart of the piece, you have three options:
a) Just digest the piece and provide the link to the quote or the piece.
b) Do an Instapundit-style blind-link that just says "Heh" or something. In my experience, these aren't very good links, because people have to know what they're gonna get before they click.
c) Post the quote, even if it does steal the heart from someone's find, but make damn-sure you then scour the site for something ELSE interesting to click on, and then tease that at urge your readers to click on it.
This is a tricky one, and sometimes you'll find you've gone too far and pretty much stolen something from someone. I know I do from time to time. If that happens, bear in mind you owe someone a prominent link in the very near future.
Another Common Situation: What if you find an MSM article just quoted and linked with little analysis on a blog, and you want to do a longer, more thoughtful, more substantive piece on the article? Do you still have to leave all the good quotes behind at the blog you found it on?
I think the answer is "No." Here, you have in mind something more ambitious than the original blogger did; for him it was a throwaway link, for you, it's the basis for something approaching an essay. In that case, you can link directly to the original article and quote from it to your heart's content.
However, you should still hat-tip the blogger at the end, and you should still look for something else on his site to link to with a nice, juicy tease so that he'll get some traffic off your post, even if not for the original bit that caught your attention.
Since I never write long, thoughtful, substantive pieces, I never run into this situation myself, but I'm informed it does happen.
Incidentally, I "stole the heart" of that Muslim's Letter to His Fellow Faithful piece. I did take care, however, to really tease the site I got it from at the end, with promises of boobies and heinies which I knew, in all likelihood, would send a lot of traffic to the guy.
Again, it's an art, not a science.
One More Thing: When sending an email tip, include your blog's URL, even if you're just sending an article without the expectation of a link!
Even if you don't get a full "go here and read" link, you are still owed a hat-tip, at the very, very least. (Which of course counts as link on the ecosystem, if you care, and most smaller bloggers do.)
Don't assume the blogger you're sending the tip to knows what your blog is, or even if you have a blog! A bunch of times I got good tips sent to me from someone calling himself by his first name, and I just thanked him, by his first name, at the end of the post. I did not not know this person actually had a blog, called "The SkinnerSphere." Thus, no hat-tip to his blog.
It wasn't that I was being a dick; it's just I didn't know this person was a blogger at all. He didn't alert me in his email as to his blog. I knew of the Skinner Sphere, but not that this guy was associated with it-- he'd only given me a not-terribly-uncommon first name.
GET SOME NETIQUETTE U OPIECE OF CRAP.
FREETHINKER IS OK.
BUT U SUCK.
YOU REGULARLY STEAL MY JPEGS WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION OR HAT TIP.
REPEAT: U R SCUM.
YES: ZIP: UR SITE STEALS CONTENT AND JPEGS.
Post a Comment