🚀 go-pugleaf

"Buzz" <abu...@snip.net> wrote:

>Thank you for finally posting the definition of HACKER.

>I was just about to do that when I saw your post. I agree with many of the
>posts in here. Hacker never was meant in a negative way.

>As you notic in the definitions provided below, effort is made to redirect
>the negative aspects to another term. Hence, hacker is not, and should not
>be considered derogatory.

>I think that all media writers who use hacker in a negative fashion or with
>implications of negativity whould learn how to use a dictionary. They are
>just too damn lazy to find out what the hell they are talking about. 

No, not at all. The jounalists are more interested in sensationalism
in order to sell more air time or newspapers than they are interested
in objective reporting. Ever notice how airplanes don't just "crash",
they "slam into the ground (or mountainside)". Even notice how people
are not "shot", they are "gunned down". That all depends on whether
they are one of the good guys or the baddies of course. Then there are
the people who have been convicted of some crime or other, or even if
they have only gone through bankruptcy or some other event, and they
are always refered to as "disgraced former businessman..."

>In the end, the common public is swayed into believing the uneducated 
>media-groups.

And that is the other side of the coin, the use of the media to
deliberately sway public opinion to a point of view. Who needs big
brother when you can get someone to do it for you.