The nightmare that is my adventure in Internetdumb continues. It all seems just too preposterous... apparently in the virtual reality of cyberspace there is a virtual intellectual vacuum and little hope of anything ever making any sense. Everything Internet is apparently built on the same upside-down logic that makes it profitable to annoy a hundred thousand people (and destroy many hours of human life) with a Spam e-mail to sell one bottle of fake viagira to some kind of techno idiot savant, smart enough to get on-line, yet profoundly retarded enough to eat Spam. I suppose compared to this insanity the fact that every Internet watchdog is nothing but a sellout lap cat is no surprise in such a back assword Internet Wonderland.

The newest man turned mouse (at least in my perception) is the dick head Daniel Brandt of google watch. I gave the jerk a followup call the other day to inquire what his impression of this website was and whether he was willing to work together on anything or least provide a fn link. In his little wimp nerdy voice he hemmed and hawed --spoutted some bullshit about taking another look-- but in the end clearly implied that he saw no need or reason for any kind of alliance-- even the minor alliance of a sensible link exchange. (I've been linking to his shittily formatted crap for over three years)

We didn't exactly argue about anything, but I did point out that I don't think he's doing much for the cause as his (highly visited) website provides no opportunity for discussion, and likewise no opportunity for development of proposed changes or organization. Without motivation, organization and a PLAN (proposed alternative/solution) nothing's going to change and all Daniel's wining regarding the evil corporations lack of respect for privacy is pretty much just a useless distraction. In my estimation, this one gallon man in a 10 gallon crusaders white hat is in practical effect the worst enemy of the cause of Internet reform/salvation (next to that Bernard's lee jerk of course). He is the only alternative voice the corporate media ever quotes or references when they need to placate the appearance of fairness. He is the only recognized (heard) opposition voice to corporate/marketing control of the Internet... and how does he responsibly use that power? ... In other words, how exactly does creating a website that is a virtual dead-end-- educate, motivate, or empower any of the concerned Internet citizens directed by the bogus search industry to his site for answers?

As always I hate all you snake-oil-selling, shit for ethics, progress fucking scum.

There's a fireFox extension called greasemonkey that caught my interest-- It basically auto-loads .js files. I thought this might be an easy way to inject my toolbox into web pages... As it turns out it was, and it wasn't...easy. In the end, I got something that's working pretty good so I figure it's time to see if I can't generate enough interest to justify making the abundant possible improvements. This version of my standard toolbox opens a little remote control style window instead of actually incorporating itself into the web page-- this has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are it doesn't mess up non-compatible web pages, and for some web pages it's the only way to get into the page. It also eliminates the need to come up with some most-page workable method of scrolling. The disadvantages are the slight inconvenience of getting used to controlling what window has the focus and positioning the toolbox.

IInstallation is pretty easy, and virtually harmless, you first install the greasemonkey extension by clicking the link on this greasemonkey homepage. Then you return here and right-click this see update below file. and select the "install user script" option say yes a couple of times and that's it. To uninstall the toolbox (prevent it from autoloading) select "manage user scripts" off the firefox "tools" menu.

1/28/05 update:
I have made some improvements and decided it's best to offer different varieties of the toolbox. You'll will need to understand how the grease monkey Manager works (Tools--Manage User Scripts) so you don't end up having more than one toolbox loading on the same page. As you click on each "userscript" in the manager window, the "enabled" check box indicates whether the script is active or inactive-- just unselect the check box to disable the userscript-- don't click uninstall (unless thats what you want to do). Remember if you install more than one toolbox userscript you must dis-enable all but one-- so only ONE toolbox script loads in to webpages.

The 4 available varieties of the toolbox all load a link-- hopefully near the top of the page-- titled "DNG TOOLBOX" with a trailing number indicating the height of the sub-document that toolbox will control. The main page toolbox link will probably be in a gray frame near the top of the document. On particular websites (blogger for example) the top portion of the website might be replaced (hidden ) by the toolbox link (taskbar)-- currently, clicking on the toolbox link will restore the hidden content-- I will be adding "taskbar" options including a link just to restore blocked content.

gmfoxbox.user.js -- Standard operation.

gmfoxbox2.user.js -- Standard operation + automatically highlights borders on every page viewed. gmfoxboxbw.user.js -- Standard operation + automatically converts every page to black-and-white.

gmfoxboxbbw.user.js -- Standard operation + automatically converts every page to white on black and shows borders.

The .js files can be (like regular .js files) written into the design of an HTML page. This provides the ability preview or use the toolbox without having to install the GreaseMonkey extension. -- also works in Internet Explorer. View this Working Example Page and click the DNG TOOLBOX link at the top.

Operation is pretty straightforward-- towards the last half of the page loading process the toolbox link should automatically appear. Clinking the link loads the toolbox --It regains the "focus" (top window position ) every 10 seconds-- a feature that is disabled the first time you click the "close this" link at the top-- the second time you click that link the toolbox will be closed. The toolbox will automatically close, and a new one opened, when you click a link changing the location of the window.-- a toolbox only works on the page that loaded it. The font and image resizing tools don't work on some pages-- but the "select text and search" tools work on just about all. When I am doing just-reading style research and searching I surf with images-off (firefox menu bar-tools-options-web features) as the tool box loads, sometimes a lot, quicker that way. I will soon be adding the ability to load and view selected images. -- discussion

A last round (hopefully the last, last time) of debate with the "do be evil" David F. Prenatt, Jr. has got me thinking a lot about conflict resolution, argument and debate. Although there is no explicit science defining "how to" it seems clear there are rules-- we just haven't properly isolated and defined them. So much seems dependent on the actual agenda of the players (combatants). The mutual goal has to be "resolution" of the disagreement or at least "resolution" down to the real basic issues of contention. Even if persuasion, and conversion are not realistic possibilities the combatants have to be focused on that goal rather than the "fool's goal" of winning theatrical points. In more simplistic terms, persuasion worth achieving, is more about explaining than selling. Argument shouldn't be just about getting people to "buy" what you say, it has got to be about getting people to understand what you think.

Anyway, thinking on the subject, lead me to an old memory of the Firing Line program on PBS. Although the host was almost incomprehensibly pompous, the show format was very intelligent and makes current shows like Crossfire look infantile by comparison. On Firing Line the debate centered on a yes or no style proposition and debate was focused on proving truth or fallacy.

Stealing from that format, I've decided to try to weed some of the chaos out of debate by carefully framing and ordering the discussion.

Be it resolved:
Is basic Internet infrastructure in need of upgrading or repair?

Myself for the affirmative,

The answer is most decidedly YES. The simplest and perhaps most persuasive argument in the affirmative is the simple truth that the Internet was never thoughtfully designed before it was implemented. The Internet basically has been evolved through small bursts of innovation, provided by small groups of innovators, basically one piece at a time. First there were the protocols of connection, then the standards of communication, then the language of linking...etc. Through this process of stages there wasn't any controlling force obligating innovations to be perfected before they were popularly adopted-- so begins what has become the internal drag on efficiency that is the "damage (spam) control" needed to compensate for a poor original design.

The catastrophic flaws in the current design are numerous, obvious and exist throughout the infrastructure.

Here is a short list of the most egregious "design flaws"

E-mail protocols provide the ability to Disguise Identity stripping the system of accountability and denying the system any ability to enforce rights and responsibilities. Spam e-mail is an offense to our sensibilities, intelligence, and it substantially marginalizes the efficiency and in turn value of the overall technology.

The DNS or domain name system is not substantially flawed technically-- damage to this system was more or less a willfully corrupt "political" decision made outside of the public's notice. The racket works something like this: Domain names (whatever. something) translate into a number that basically provides a unique slot in a Internet address database. There is very little practical expense to establishing the database reference and the switch to direct traffic to the location-- actual cost per registration might be less than 50›. The unnecessarily capitalized system established to perform this 50› of work, through amazing dysfunction, provides this service to the average domain owner at a cost that ranges from $8 to $35 a year. There is absolutely no practical need to have competitive providers of this basic necessity of infrastructure. They're all basically re-selling the exact same thing and providing absolutely no added value for the 2 to 7,000% "greed tax" they are imposing.

Internet Search technically does not exist as a part of Internet infrastructure. That is to say the infrastructure makes no accommodation to the obvious fact that the network needs to be mapped to be usefully functional. The design flaw is in essence the act of omission that has allowed unrestrained chaos to define functionality. Put simply, a "search industry" evolved by chaos has created "incentives" completely inverse to the objective of rational, logical and efficient navigation. Simply described the system is basically rewarding people for sneaking weeds into the Internet Garden and provides no practical ability for anyone to pull any weeds out. Using another real world analogy imagine if there was unrestricted freedom to erect roadside billboards... that anyone could either pay someone to put one up, or they could build one themselves and that they could make them look just like offical road signs... obviously such a scenario would make it fairly easy for the traveler to take a wrong turn, and waste a lot of time. Also obviously, the inexperienced, and the less intelligent would be the most easily victimized. This is in fact the "superhighway" we have created and it is the antithesis of efficiency.

The argument that Internet infrastructure is in need of upgrading or repair is irrefutable and should be declared over. Those defending the simple truth of flawed design suggest we begin "in earnest" the argument over what repairs should be made.

I have set up this message board for anyone willing to pick a side and make an argument.

Although today started off with the depressing re-re-re-acknowledgement of the fact that David F. Prenatt, Jr. of Xodp is a waste of cosmic space, and a waste of my valuable time-- things did improve substantially later in the day. Figuring that things can't get much worse, I decided to ignore my inhibitions and try to contact Daniel Brandt of Google-watch using that crazy old device of the past "the telephone". Embracing the 21st century, it goes against my modern instincts to use a telephone for anything other than personal communication.... but I needed to know for sure what a half dozen e-mail's over the past three or four years hadn't been able to resolve. The harping question was Why is Daniel Brandt ignoring me? I mean it just didn't make sense that this guy couldn't use another ally --I kind of figure a loose cannon, is better than no cannon. You really can't deny the logic that individuals in a minority need to stick together if they are going to have any hope of surviving the tyranny of the masses. It also seems logical that individuals in microscopically small minorities would have a pretty strong incentive to see past any personal differences and try to accrue some strength in numbers.

Anyway, I stepped past my concern, that it is kind of Spammish to use the telephone to force someone to call you a jerk, and tell you to leave them alone... and just made the call. It turns out that Daniel Brandt didn't even know who I was or anything about this website-- Which is on its face pretty bad news in that it confirms that my irrelevancy has imploded and effectively turned this website into anti-matter. The funny thing is I feel a lot better-- I guess happiness is not being hated [yet] as much as you thought you were. The conversation really was all good, we shared some "how many Google jerks does it take to..." jokes, and for 15 minutes or so life was really pretty good. I don't know if this will be the beginning of a "beautiful friendship" or not... but regardless the 15 minutes of rational conversation was probably enough to keep me fighting another year.

Here is the text of what I hope will be my last direct communication with the preposterously irrational David F. Prenatt, Jr

Once again our argument has crashed into the unyielding wall of your fanatic libertarianism. In your universe sweatshops don't exist, and any man can fly to the moon if he is just willing to tie enough tin cans together. I can't and won't argue with complete nonsense. You are in practical fact a "flat earth" style imbecile appropriately qualified as a crazy zealot.-- unfortunately there is a lot of that going around... especially in them red states.

So once again we have reached the impasse-- As you have proven yourself capable of self contradiction and duplicity and it is unlikely I will be fooled again into seeing hope for resolution of our "intractable" disagreement, or any purpose in sparring (practicing) with someone who can't fight by the rules of intelligent discourse. Maybe every boxer/advocate should practice with a guy who's just trying to bite their ear off-- as apparently that maybe what they will be obligated to face as a qualified opponent... but this Homie don't play that. I respect intelligence, and the art of argument, and I won't waste it on people who will insult it, by trying to steal a cheap victory, with cheap tactics.

By a ratio of more than 10 to 1 you have left my arguments unanswered and have excluded portions of quotes to pervert context. Out of desperation, or sheer lazy and insulting disregard, your last few posts have done nothing but provide preposterous evasion's by pointing to fantasy pies in nonexistence skies-- or by using the old "your fly is undone" ploy. Enduring this nonsense, has about as much purpose, as arguing with a Jehovah's witness-- as the depth of their mindless stupidity is already proof of their immunity to logic. Similarly, you have been rendered immune to logic and facts by a preposterous faith in a narrow dogma of silly absolutes. The sad fact is your substantial intelligence has been corrupted, disabled, and destroyed by a dogma you apparently need to justify fulfilling your perceived obligations to elitist traditions. Although I don't feel any responsibility to fix that-- I would like to-- but it really isn't in the cards of realistic possibility. So it's back home I go, hi ho.. hi ho.