Obstacles strewn in our path

The tools at our disposal

This below is in response to Ripper, but Google's system requires posting it first, it won’t allow review in draft:

La première «tribune des militaires» avait fait des remous, la seconde vient d’être dévoilée. Elle est cette fois signée de soldats en service, mais qui ont gardé leur anonymat.

Publié sur le blog Place d’Armes, qui précise que «quelques termes peuvent encore évoluer, mais le fond est là», le nouveau texte s’adresse au «président de la République», aux «ministres», aux «parlementaires» et aux «officiers généraux». 

Il dénonce le traitement qu’ils ont reservé aux «vieux soldats» ayant signé la précédente tribune, contre qui des sanctions ont été réclamées et promises par le ministère des Armées. 

Leur honneur a été «piétiné», estiment les signataires. «Ces gens qui ont lutté contre tous les ennemis de la France, vous les avez  traités de factieux alors que leur seul tort est d’aimer leur pays et de pleurer sa visible déchéance», affirment-ils.

 

Se présentant comme «récemment entrés dans la carrière», «hommes et femmes», «de tous les grades, de toutes le sensibilités», ils disent avoir presque tous connu l’opération Sentinelle et avoir vu «de nos  yeux les banlieues abandonnées, les accommodements avec la délinquance». 

Ils pointent également les «tentatives d’instrumentalisation de plusieurs communautés religieuses, pour qui la  France ne signifie rien -rien qu’un objet de sarcasmes, de mépris voire de haine».

This is a machine translation first, then reviewed by me and some expressions anglicised for our readership:

The first "military forum" caused quite a stir, the second has just been unveiled. This time it is signed by soldiers in service, but who have kept their anonymity.

Published on the blog Place d'Armes, which specifies that "some terms can still evolve, but the substance is there", the new text is addressed to the "President of the Republic", to "ministers", to "parliamentarians" and to "general officers". 

It denounces the treatment they have given those "old soldiers" who signed the previous forum, against whom sanctions were demanded and promised by the Ministry of the Armed Forces. 

Their honour has been “trampled”, say the signatories. "These people who fought against all the enemies of France, you have treated them as factious when their only fault is to love their country and to mourn its visible downfall," they say.

Presenting themselves as "recently entered the career", "men and women", "of all ranks, of all sensibilities", they say they have almost all known Operation Sentinel and have seen "with our own eyes the abandoned suburbs, accommodation with delinquency ”. 

They also point to "attempts to "instrumentalise" several religious communities, for whom France means nothing - nothing but an object of sarcasm, contempt or even hatred".

Machine translations have their place but of course, certain grammar and certain idioms need restating in our way.  Sometimes, e.g. in Russian, even after my mate and I have agreed basic text, we're still confused, for cultural reasons, why this or that has been chosen. 

It really depends what use is to be made of the translation - high grade [for publication in a glossy journal for example] down to just getting the general idea ... and it does come down to cost.  I used to charge premium rates if it was required to be first class because it involved a complex process.  

This one above is just for getting the general idea, "instrumentalise" being the only contentiously translated term.  I get the feeling the French writer here means "polarise, co-opt, target, push into, use a community the cabal knows the French people would not accept."  That's close enough anyway for this post.

In short, the cabal most certainly wants civil unrest, even war.  Now I'm going to get off the topic for the moment of translations, of what the cabal is doing in France and so on.  

I'd like to look at the available tools today being degraded into close to useless.

Let's take the ability to edit and preview - what sort of platform does not allow it without it having to be posted first?  It certainly used to be that an editor could view the draft in situ and see how it looked - this is just one of a myriad things now removed from the service which were once available.

And that's why someone coming in here, having the gall to suggest I am moaning about a "free" service, is out of order.  Not if there was a far better service in an earlier time, when there very much was.  

Why on earth would you reduce your service to users, while at the same time offer a plethora of options no one either needs nor wants?  Something quite easy and straightforward now becomes impossible after some script kiddy gets to it and wrecks it.

And don't give me that "free" service c**p - it was going downhill at pay-WP as well, it's been going down across all social media.  Why?  

That's the real question to address.

There are two obvious replies - first is to make money, second is for political reasons - to make it far more difficult to access sources and turn them into posts.  Why?  

To stop anyone outside the MSM doing this.

Youtube

This is more difficult to pin the blame on, an example:

YT monitor my watching, I want them to because I need constant ideas - some ideas used, some reserved for later, some discarded.  YT learns from that and tailors what they send ... theoretically.

But ... far from learning from my running films on Wednesdays and Saturdays and helping out with suggestions, they've done the opposite. 

Having got the idea of what I'm doing, they've ceased recommending noirs, quite against what I'm clearly indicating I need. Not just that but when I go to "Library", a most useful function listing everything I've watched going back forever, now they'll only show the last two dozen or so in thumb nail form.  Plus they'll include things I supposedly watched which there's no way I did and I throw them out immediately.

Morse

I'd not planned to run a Morse this evening because there's something pretentious about that 80s series - the treatment of topics is what luvvies would make about something they have no understanding of.  

It's embarrassing, like the sixties dancing in music clips and awful filmmaker ideas of what hip music and sixties dancing was - I can assure you I never saw anyone dancing like that on a dance floor [and I was there].  

It's like an advertiser saying: "These are real people in real situations," when they're nothing of the kind. They're some studio notion of what real people might be like.

That's the first reason why there's no Morse this evening.  

The second reason is that there is just pigswill available in noir - really poor films, not even B movies but more like F, obviously designed to make people stop viewing them and pay money to watch something decent. 

Occasionally they'll run a teaser movie such as two Hitchcocks we ran, just to give people hope.  Now look - I have a few dozen DVDs out there I paid for, inc. Jason Bourne, I do not expect that to be the full movie on YT, that's unrealistic. I don't expect Bond to be a full movie on YT.  Cut me at least some slack.

But it goes further than that and that's my contention in this post - it goes much further than that.

And here I don't necessarily blame Google/Youtube, I blame the film uploader. Oh, you can view a dozen Morse episodes right now if you wish, not an issue ... except they've been altered, not the aspect ratio but the resolution and even more annoying - it's like they've taken the whole screen in the right proportion but they've then rectangle selected only a small part of the screen and shown that, cutting out the vital things going on peripherally, also people's faces filling the screen with monotonous regularity.

Thus, let's say Morse is leaning against his S series, speaking with Lewis, which as you would well know was set against the grounds of the college or whatever behind for context.  Now all you see is Morse's moosh filling the screen, with a corner of Lewis to the side.  Most disconcerting.

And even worse than that are the testimonials in comments, saying how fabulous it all is and thank you, thank you.  The guy has also peppered the running time with adverts which cut in with zero finesse, mid-conversation.  It's total c**p what he's done, and there are dozens of episodes like that.

All right, I've used Morse as an example - you think it's any better with Poirot or Miss Marple?  

Another trick is to have the screen at full resolution but the film is in a little box in the middle or corner. They claim it's so YT won't take it down.  Maybe.  Seems to me it's those uploaders themselves away with the fairies.

Now let me come back to the [expletive] person who says - well what do you expect for nothing?

I tell you what I expect - that they cease the giant ripoff, that they provide what used to be provided - and that is the core point here - what was once commonplace on YT.  If it never ever was available, well it would not be worth this post.  But it was available before.

In its current slickness and exhortation to get this app or pay this premium, the service has become seriously debased.  And that's the fault of that woman at the top, the greedy cow.

Plus I can't help feel that there are politics behind it too.  Let alone the lies.  They gave me the option of publicly revealing my viewing habits to them so that they could tailor what was being offered to my tastes - that's what was written on the box, yet they're doing anything but - they're playing tricky-dicky games.

One intensely annoying thing was that I can't stand Benny Hill.  So if I see that sleazeball in the offerings, I click for it to be removed.  YT then put up a panel - tell us why.  

Fine. If I could type in what I just wrote in the preceding paragraph and never saw another clip or episode, I'd be a happy chappy.  But as many know, they offer possible responses, none of which answer the question, except: "I just don't like it."

They then guess what I don't like and send Benny Hill next time just in case because it might have been that I didn't like one of the other actors or the decade or whatever. They guess when I could have just told them - all they needed do was ask.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the middle of the utter BS of politicised non-comp script-kiddies.  These people are not just bad, they are idiots.

Here endeth the rant.

Further

Rossa's mother sends this and ta:

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/french-letter-demands-major-changes/