Quick, copy and paste it
The very prolific Antony Loewenstein's 11 most recent posts – one is an embedded video with no text – copied and pasted into Word total 2,279 words, of which only 190 words, or 8.3 percent, were written by Loewenstein. Put another way, almost 92 percent of Loewenstein's content is copied and pasted. And so slap-dash is Loewenstein's copying and pasting that he often fails to remove advertising blurbs, which remain embedded in copied text:
Sadly, anyone relying on Loewenstein as a source of information on any topic is automatically dumbed down. This is one of the great drawbacks of the internet: how to differentiate good information from bad.
Hey, maybe Loewenstein's publisher, Melbourne University Publishing, should get him to write a book about his worldwide influence. It could be called Melbourne University Publishing and Antony Loewenstein: The Great Dumbening.
Advertisement: Story continues belowLoewenstein can't write and is incapable of critiquing or analysing the writings and views of others, yet is regarded as something of an authority on a number of disparate topics ranging from the Middle East to internet censorship to Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
Sadly, anyone relying on Loewenstein as a source of information on any topic is automatically dumbed down. This is one of the great drawbacks of the internet: how to differentiate good information from bad.
Hey, maybe Loewenstein's publisher, Melbourne University Publishing, should get him to write a book about his worldwide influence. It could be called Melbourne University Publishing and Antony Loewenstein: The Great Dumbening.
posted by Anonymous at 5:37 PM |
5 Comments:
But he's good enough for Our ABC...
I've been waiting to see his incredibly insightful 'analysis' of what's happening in Egypt.
Most of his posts are of course about Israel.
I assume he's waiting for someone to write something in Ha'aretz blaming Israel for all of this, which he can plagiarise.
I would so dearly like to see him appear on ABC TV as an "expert" to discuss this. In fact, I suspect he's turned it down already, aware for once of his own cluelessness.
I've been waiting to see his incredibly insightful 'analysis' of what's happening in Egypt.
Wait no longer, he's posted a Jon Stewart sketch.
I almost get embarrassed for morons whose work is mainly comprised of huge slabs of copypasta. Sometimes they leave the "Advertisement: Story continues below" blurb in, sometimes[1][2] they leave the endnote numbering[3] from Wikipedia[3][10] in.
It makes my eyebrows twitch, much like when I'm watching The Office.
*cringe*
**twitch**
We're just getting to know this hack.
He's a co-signatory to a boycott of a literary festival in Sri Lanka.
He was 'honoured' to participate in the boycott.
Anyone who disagreed with him (including the wet Colombo liberals:) were 'nationalists'!
Even better, Loewenstein says 'well done' to the pro-LTTE diaspora instigated, Sri Lankan textiles boycott in Europe. That'll really help the over-paid girls in garment factories to overthrow the 'genocidal regime'.
His Twatter (sic) feed glories in his power and influence. http://twitter.com/antloewenstein/status/32575621808791552
Unfortunately Antony's commitment to free speech doesn't extend to dissenting views be posted his blog. Typical!
So, I'm looking into his pronouncements and pontification about Sri Lanka's war here:
http://tinyurl.com/677r2nw
The best example of AL's doublethink is this:
“Free speech is a delicate beast that must be constantly nurtured and defended. Our society can handle robust engagement on a host of issues. Some will offend Jews. Some will offend Muslims. Some won't offend anybody. Hurt feelings shouldn't be a crime.”
http://tinyurl.com/459x4jv
Yet, he supports a boycott of a literary festival!! :)
"Our society can handle robust engagement on a host of issues."
Perhaps, but Antony Loewenstein can't.
He routinely censors comments on his blog with which he disagrees. Ordinarily that would be reasonable - his blog, his rules. But for a guy who built his entire career on the basis that he was "Silenced" for his views it's hypocritical. It's also dishonest - most first time incompetent authors could only dream of the 'silencing' he received in the media.
Check out my little experiment (particularly comment #10)
Post a Comment
<< Home