I'm a Libertarian living in Humboldt County, CA. I've lived here in Eureka since 1973 and joined the Libertarian Party in 1992. This blog will mostly focus on local political issues, but I may stray into state and national issues as well, when I can't help myself. Please post your comments by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of each post. Although I do moderate comments, you need not be a registered user to post them.
Kudos to Cap'n Buhne, over at the Buhne Tribune, for the heads up on this archived Times- Standard story on the Arkleys. Apparently published back in 2004, I must have missed it as I don't remember reading it.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:50 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Since all TS links die after 2 weeks, isn't it curious that that one is still live?
I'm not sure it is. I don't really know how such things work, but I wonder if Cap'n Buhne paid to get to the archive and then used that url to post. Maybe the archive url is good for anyone to use after the first person pays for it?
I don't know.
When I hit the link, there's a google thingy-wingy (that's techno-jargon for whosamawich) at the top. Perhaps it's in the Google cache.
You are correct. That must be what it is. It says it's in the Google cache and the original page might have changed since they added it to their cache. So, Buhne probably did a google search and found it that way.
I was looking at the url in Buhne's link and it doesn't start out as a times- standard link but towards the end it has:
www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%7E2896%7E2534879,00.html+site:www.times-standard.com+arkley+schwarzenegger+phone&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
So, I was wondering if maybe that led to the archived story on the T-S web site and copied and pasted just that part into my browser. Nope. It took me to today's front page of the T-S.
Interesting. I was thinking maybe the archives were "free" if you knew how to find them without asking for permission from the T-S, but I guess not.
I used to be able to get around them by running a google search of the terms in the article.
The TS is grotesquely overpriced on their online archives, and it is a stupid thing for them to charge for it.
I don't understand why they have paid archives, although I'm sure it costs them something to maintain them.
You'd think they'd want people to use their web stuff. Maybe it has something to do with whoever does their web stuff?
As an aside, it looks like the same people do the T-S web page as do the Ukiah Daily Journal. The Ukiah Daily Journal used to have some of their letters to the editor available online. They stopped doing that not long ago. The T-S never has had their letters online.
the TS has earned its demise
Maybe they should reevaluate thier policy in this modern age. The blogs link to their articles and it gives them more traffic.
Bit wrote: "Plus the T-S is touchy about anyone posting their stories online even when you have a link back to the T-S.".
I wasn't aware of that. I know I one of their writers e- mailed me a while back and suggested I link to their stories more often. I had to tell him I didn't have a problem with that except their links are only good for two weeks so I try to link to the E/R if at all possible.
nope
I don't think so. I know just about anybody who's anybody in Humboldt County comes here, but I don't think Rob Arkley does. Brian Morrissey does, as many of you have noticed, as does Nancy Flemming, or so she told me. But that's about it that I know of from the Arkley camp.
Then again, most people post anonymously so I guess you never know.
"Here was the response from Charles Winkler.".
Hmmm...I would think as long as proper attribution is made there wouldn't be a problem.
I know they got on one bloggers case for publishing something but that was because he published excerpts of something that was in the Times- Standard which changed the meaning of the original article.
So, Buhne probably did a google search and found it that way.
Yep. Google's cache is rendering the T-S's paid archives obsolete.
Fascinating, isn't it, that Google's databases are archiving the history of the Web.
Anon Couldn't be Anon. Anon is far too obsessed with Bravo, Rose, and others who are mere insects to someone like Rob Arkley. Besides I would assume Arkley has better things to do than haunt blogsites.
However, there are others who could be Anon, such as Rob Amerman or someone in Councilwoman Groves's circle of power.
Anon.R.Mous or Plain Jane Anon?
neither
Post a Comment
<< Home