Rochelle, that was pretty good.

78 comments on “Rochelle, that was pretty good. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. randal 1

   15 September 2008 at 11:37 am

   hey rochelle baby….way to go!!!
2. Dom 2

   15 September 2008 at 11:44 am

   The Right are only jealous that they didn’t think of this – but given that half their supporters don’t even know how to turn on their computers I’m not surprised…

   Props to Rochelle. And I still think Key is clueless…my god, look at how he constantly mucks up time and time again – he is the most clueless political leader I’ve ever seen.
3. randal 3

   15 September 2008 at 11:47 am

   yes he seems to have a big gap in his corpus callosum!
4. the bean 4

   15 September 2008 at 11:52 am

   I think DPF has taken the post down…? It is there when you click the above link but not when you search his site.
5. Bill 5

   15 September 2008 at 12:00 pm

   And although I agree it was a minor thing that shouldn’t have been on national news, the item DID link JK with two unsavoury fucked up politicians. And that’s an okay thing in my book.
6. Anita 6

   15 September 2008 at 12:08 pm

   I didn’t see it, but anyhow…

   I like that it made national news. I like that individuals and small groups can have a voice in this election campaign. Few individuals have the money to buy media coverage, but this proves that clever can work too.
7. Daveski 7

   15 September 2008 at 12:11 pm

   The bean … it’s on page 2 … DPF has been very active over the weekend! No conspiracy there.

   That’s she’s not currently affiliated is quite different from the fact that she has had affiliations or rather is somehow independent.

   But frankly, that this is news is disturbing regardless of one’s political pov.

   I can see what Anita is saying too although I suspect that the attitude’s towards it are skewed because it is anti-Key and a similar campaign against HC would be seen as dirty (based on past reactions).

   And LP – you should train her up as the next BOFH 🙂
8. keith 8

   15 September 2008 at 12:24 pm

   Supporting this kind of a stunt makes you lot look pathetic. Do you really want to be associated with schemes originating from the gutter?

   The only thing that this does is destroy Labour’s credibility – and you guys are endorsing it?
9. r0b 9

   15 September 2008 at 12:38 pm

   The only thing that this does is destroy Labour’s credibility – and you guys are endorsing it?

   Warning – humour free zone!
10. lprent 10

    15 September 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Daveski: It does become a bit of a problem when you have to try and anticipate what the journo MIGHT want to know.

    The standing rule is that one should answer journo’s questions with truth, however you’re there to expand on what you’d like presented to the public. If a journo wants to know more then they will continue with follow up questions.

    In this case Rochelle did exactly that and when asked what her political party affiliations were said that she didn’t know who she was going to vote for, and she had no current affiliations. That is the case. She isn’t going to vote for the Nats or Act, and is probably going to vote green or labour.

    Daveski – should she try to read a journo’s mind? Or aren’t they trained to ask questions.
11. keith 11

    15 September 2008 at 12:52 pm

    r0b – its a great way of turning people off Labour. Do you really think that anyone other than teenagers would be impressed with lame stunts like that?
12. Brett Dale 12

    15 September 2008 at 1:03 pm

    I think the reason it made the news, is not because someone did a google bomb, they are very common, but being a family member of the person who runs the standard and the media’s perception of the standard’s connection to the Labour party.

    Im pretty sure if the guy that runs kiwiblog had a relative who did this, everyone here would be up in arms.
13. jbc 13

    15 September 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Im pretty sure if the guy that runs kiwiblog had a relative who did this, everyone here would be up in arms.

    Because that would be dirty, not simply negative. Haven’t you been following the programme? 😉
14. lprent 14

    15 September 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Brett – probably not. The left appear to have less of a tendency at seeing conspiracies everywhere.

    I see that it is a common affliction in National politicians. First Bill English, and now John Key.
15. lukas 15

    15 September 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Brett – probably not. The left appear to have less of a tendency at seeing conspiracies everywhere.

    Iprent…. have you seen any posts by Trav?
16. lprent 16

    15 September 2008 at 1:55 pm

    lukas: Arrggghhhh, I even highlighted the ‘less’ with italics. It wasn’t an absolute statement.

    Have you read big bruv, redbaiter, whale, clint heine, etc writing. There are some that I suspect are faking it, but for some it is actually their reality. Shall we compare the ‘reality challenged’ (there was another phrase there, but in the interests of debate..)

    😈
17. lukas 17

    15 September 2008 at 1:59 pm

    heh agreed. Sorry, didn’t pay attention to the “less”. Apology given 🙂

    captcha 6th level- Isn’t the conspiracy that this is from the 9th level?
18. Killinginthenameof 18

    15 September 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Keep up the good work Rochelle!
19. randal 19

    15 September 2008 at 2:24 pm

    keith do you think we care about what you think. And furthermore there are just as many people who think rochelles prank was good stuff and will now vote for labour especially after bad tempered responses from the likes of yourself.
20. Tim 20

    15 September 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Rochelle (and supporters) – if you think this pathetic stunt will cause National to lose support your misguided. Idiots like you make Labour seem like a bunch of power hungry maniacs who will stop at nothing to impose their radical beliefs on NZers. In a few more weeks you guys will be gone – frankly it will be good riddance as far as the majority of NZers are concerned!!!
21. lprent 21

    15 September 2008 at 2:44 pm

    Ah radical beliefs? You mean like having a sense of humor. It is something that has obviously escaped you.

    By the way you used ‘your’ where you should have used ‘you’re’ or even better still ‘you are’. Besides, it is unlikely we will be ‘gone’. Unless you are planning on starting up some death camps somewhere.

    If you want to rant, then at least do it in manner that makes it look like you have passed some english classes somewhere and at some time.
22. Daveski 22

    15 September 2008 at 2:47 pm

    LP – fair enough.

    I don’t think my comments were at all negative of Rochelle and I certainly didn’t state she was being duplicitous. It does become an issue if it is inferred that she is independent but again your point is that this was not what she said.

    My bigger concern is that it’s just not really newsworthy – even if the journos did their job fairly.

    Let’s hope we don’t have copy cat Nats!
23. Draco TB 23

    15 September 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Ah, Tim (and others), most people would have a good giggle and carry on. I doubt if it’s going to change anyones vote at all. Some people, though, will actually think it means something.

    Im pretty sure if the guy that runs kiwiblog had a relative who did this, everyone here would be up in arms.

    If DPFs relative had a comparable sense of humour I’m sure that most people would still have a good laugh and carry on. Some people will think it means something.
24. the sprout 24

    15 September 2008 at 3:13 pm

    my my, there are some tetchy conservatives out there – who would have thunk they are bereft of humour and perspective?

    of course this won’t do much to change anyone’s opinions, that’s not how shifting public opinion works.

    what it will do is just help to consolidate the frame of JK not really knowing what he’s doing. and that frame has been slowly and carefully constructed over an extended period of time, with a lot of help from JK himself. that’s why the Nats can’t laugh this off – they know there’s a ring of truth the public agrees with.
25. lprent 25

    15 September 2008 at 3:27 pm

    I think that it is probably newsworthy in some minor form. People in my profession get quite interested in this stuff. Google bombing was meant to be quite hard to achieve these days since they played with the algorithms about 3 or 4 years ago.

    I don’t think that it rates as being prime-time TV news etc either.

    Of course it helped the news media that she is a female programmer (still a rare breed), young, reasonably photogenic, and she knows how to put a press release together (and to sound bite very effectively).

    More importantly it was the first time in NZ and done in a context of an immenent election.

    There will probably be other attempts to google-bomb. However in NZ, it takes a quite a level of persistence amongst a small group. If it is widely know then it it is too easy to block it.

    I haven’t noticed the requisite level of persistence and skills being widely spread.
26. Daveski 26

    15 September 2008 at 3:50 pm

    LP – all good points and reason for being a proud uncle too! I didn’t really the extent to which it is an achievement 🙂

    Good to see DPF seeing it for what it was worth too.
27. infused 27

    15 September 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Google bombing has been around and used for yonks. Just makes your niece look like an idiot imo. If it’s associated with The Standard in anyway, Google will in fact sink your your website – hence why people aren’t stupid enough to do it anymore.

    Just some information for you.
28. Brett Dale 28

    15 September 2008 at 5:03 pm

    I doubt if this site or the right’s Kiwiblog will make one voter change their mind.

    Bloggers and internet forums wont have a big enough sway to decide this election.
29. Phil 29

    15 September 2008 at 5:23 pm

    I doubt if this site or the right’s Kiwiblog will make one voter change their mind.
    Bloggers and internet forums wont have a big enough sway to decide this election.

    Don’t be so sure. Even though I’m still cheering the blue team, it’s a little less vocal than before I started reading this, and other, blogs. I’ve even defended Green Party policy (not just playing devils advocate) using some of the posts and comments here…
30. Keith 30

    15 September 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Randal – in the same way I don’t care what you think – pathetic stunts like this only serve in tarring Labour with a power-hungry, muck-raking brush which is bad look when they are trying to campaign on trust and ambition.

    In enjoying this stunt you demonstrate either your simple intelligence levels or that you’re pretty immature.
31. lprent 31

    15 September 2008 at 5:59 pm

    infused: I think you’re thinking about google-washing. Quite a different technique.

    As far as I’m aware the google bomb has never been used here. It’d be easy enough to find out though – I’ll run a search when I eat.

    BTW: have a look at this (highlighted section).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

    In the 2006 US midterm elections, many left-wing bloggers, led by MyDD.com, banded together to propel neutral or negative articles about many Republican House candidates to the top of Google searches for their names.[1] Right-wing bloggers responded similarly.[27]
    In January 2007, Google announced they altered their search engine algorithm to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the technique.[28]
    In March 2007, the Washington Post reported that Nikolas Schiller was able to Google bomb “Redacted Name” to highlight his website’s block on search engines.[29]
    In September 2008, John Key, leader of the New Zealand National Party was Google Bombed with the query “clueless”[30]
32. Brett Dale 32

    15 September 2008 at 5:59 pm

    I just don’t think there will be a big enough swing because of bloggers, it didn’t happen in the states in 2006, and I don’t think it will happen here.

    How many people will actually change their mind who come here? A dozen maybe, two dozen tops, and the same goes for kiwiblog.

    Basically this election will be won by National, people are tried of this government and wont want to give it a fourth term, no matter how many google bombs or blogs hit the web.
33. r0b 33

    15 September 2008 at 6:25 pm

    I just don’t think there will be a big enough swing because of bloggers

    Has anyone made such a claim? Be pretty silly if they had.

    Basically this election will be won by National

    Maybe, maybe not.
34. illuminatedtiger 34

    15 September 2008 at 6:35 pm

    A nice change to see some more female coders out there!
35. Brett Dale 35

    15 September 2008 at 6:46 pm

    I somehow don’t think Key is clueless anyway? I mean anyone who has made themselves millions in not clueless.
36. Felix 36

    15 September 2008 at 7:05 pm

    He’s not clueless about making millions of dollars. Well spotted. But does that mean he’s not clueless?

    I’ve met people (and you probably have too) who have made a pretty good pile of money for themselves but don’t really have much of a clue about anything else. From what I’ve seen of Key I’d say he probably isn’t that interested in much else.

    Do we want a leader who has spent his whole life making millions of dollars for himself? Is that really a qualification to lead?
37. randal 37

    15 September 2008 at 7:07 pm

    actually most of it was in bonuses for firing other people who underperformed!
38. mike 38

    15 September 2008 at 8:02 pm

    FFS, you guys are incredible. Always going on about the real issues not getting debated and then thinking it’s great when a little fema-nazi cyber smears JK.

    Keep up the dirty stuff though as its playing right into the Nats hands.

    [lprent: There is a reason that phrase in the moderation (as I guess you’ve found previously). I don’t like it. Take 8 weeks off to contemplate why it isn’t a good idea to offend a male-nazi sysop. ]
39. Pascal's bookie 39

    15 September 2008 at 8:06 pm

    The top execs at ML, Bear Sterns, Freddie and Fannie, The L’ Brothers and so on all made bloody great piles of dosh for themselves over the last few years.

    Ask the shareholders of those firms for a reference on their awesomeness.
40. Brett Dale 40

    15 September 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Felix:

    I have never met anyone who has made that much money for themselves (unless its a lotto win) that was clueless.

    If he was that clueless, he would of lost it all by now. Its crazy to say the guy is clueless, its like the right in the states saying America is doomed because Obama doesn’t understand the issue of security.

    Key is not Clueless, Clark is not Clueless and talk like that just brings the debate down a peg or two but hey if ya want to be a bunch of little Karl Roves, be my guess.

    I want a leader who understands what personal responsibility is and that isn’t Clark.
41. Trust me Satan 41

    15 September 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Rochelle from hell.
42. Draco TB 42

    15 September 2008 at 8:20 pm

    I want a leader who understands what personal responsibility is and that isn’t Clark.

    From what I’ve seen of JK over the last 2 years I’m absolutely certain he does, as a matter of fact, know what personal responsibility is – and how to avoid it.
43. mike 43

    15 September 2008 at 8:22 pm

    “Do we want a leader who has spent his whole life making millions of dollars for himself?”

    Yes Felix I do. If it’s a choice between a self starter with real life experience or a career civil servant who puts her own lust for power before the NZ public then go figure
44. RedLogix 44

    15 September 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Ah right Mike, the kind of real life experience that has resulted in the Lehman Bros bankrupcy today… or BOA having to buy out Key’s old alma mater … is this the kind of experience you have in mind?
45. Robinsod 45

    15 September 2008 at 8:35 pm

    So if Rochelle is engaged in dirty tricks because she once held a minor position on labour’s youth council and is related to Lynn then what is it when a current National party office holder who is on the National Party pay roll and the nephew of a very senior National Party MP gets involved in spreading smears about a Labour candidate’s sex life?

    http://robinsod.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/stalkathon/
46. r0b 46

    15 September 2008 at 8:35 pm

    a little fema-nazi cyber

    Why do so many of your right wing boys have problems with competent women? It is sad that you feel so threatened.

    (Captcha: ‘socialists might’ – well they might indeed!)
47. Pascal's bookie 47

    15 September 2008 at 8:37 pm

    That’s right mike, international bankers hate power, especially when compared to teachers. The are truly the salt of the earth.
48. Brett Dale 48

    15 September 2008 at 8:51 pm

    rOb

    The right loves powerful woman, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Trisha Yearwood, Ann Coulter,

    We just dont like woman who play on the fact that they are woman.
49. Brett Dale 49

    15 September 2008 at 8:54 pm

    A politician’s sex life should be private has long as they aren’t doing anything illegal.

    If Larry Craig wanted to hid the fact that he is gay and hung around in airport bathrooms that is his business.
50. Robinsod 50

    15 September 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Brett – what about the National party connection? Surely that’s not a sign of an “upbeat and positive campaign”?
51. Brett Dale 51

    15 September 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Im sure this nephew of someone would be told not to do it again, unless the left who encourages this sort of thing.
52. r0b 52

    15 September 2008 at 9:04 pm

    We just dont like woman who play on the fact that they are woman.

    And Rochelle has done that how? She needs to be called a “fema-nazi” because?

    As for Sarah Palin, playing on the fact that she’s a woman is positively the only thing she has going for her.
53. Brett Dale 53

    15 September 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Rob:

    If anyone dares says something bad about Aunty Helen, the left automatically jumps up and says “Your just saying this because she is a woman”

    Im sure if a relative of someone from kiwiblog had googled bombed a Maori MP, then you guys would be up in arms.

    As for Palin, well she has a good record in Alaska, but personally I hope Obama/Biden wins
54. Tim Ellis 54

    15 September 2008 at 9:21 pm

    I don’t think people should come down too harshly on Rochelle. It was an amusing prank, and quite novel in its approach. I think she could have been more up-front about her political affiliations and leanings, when asked, because I think it is material that she is a recent office-holder in the Labour Party. She set up this google-bomb, by her own admission, a year ago. She is, by LP’s admission, an LPG voter.

    I’ve said in another thread that I have noticed the tendency of some blog-writers and commenters to say they aren’t members of the Labour Party, while sounding, acting, and writing exactly as if they are. The Exclusive Brethren weren’t members of the National Party, either. The Exclusive Brethren members don’t vote. That doesn’t mean they weren’t campaigning against the Labour and Green Parties, on behalf of National and its friends. It’s just insulting to anybody’s intelligence to say otherwise. Rochelle isn’t alone in this, of course. As I’ve said, I think it seems to be a common theme.

    On the face of it, it also seems that Rochelle was not alone in setting up this google-bombing stunt. A number of people appear to have been involved in it. I very much doubt any of them were National supporters or right-wingers. Some of them appear to be commenters at the Standard, if this google-search is anything to go by:

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=clueless+site%3A.thestandard.org.nz&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    [lprent: Ummm This is a site with literally millions of words in in. Typing in almost any phrase gets a massive hit rate.

    Try lemme see pejorative terms – pathetic, poppycock (an HS special), idiot, moron, dickhead, troll, whale etc…
    Hell you even get a few hits from gormless, dildo, wanker, etc..

    In fact you even get a few hits off pejorative

    I’d say that wasn’t particularly conclusive. Besides have a read of the wiki link – it is the hidden stuff on a link that does it]
55. Brett Dale 55

    15 September 2008 at 9:31 pm

    I guess “Clueless” is the buzz word for the extreme left. Oh well ya got to have a catch phrase I guess.
56. r0b 56

    15 September 2008 at 9:32 pm

    If anyone dares says something bad about Aunty Helen, the left automatically jumps up and says “Your just saying this because she is a woman’

    I’ve never said such a thing Brett, and I don’t recall it on The Standard. But We weren’t discussing HC, we were discussing the pathetic use of “fema-nazi” to describe Rochelle.

    Some of them appear to be commenters at the Standard, if this google-search is anything to go by

    Ahhh Tim, all you’re displaying there is ignorance of how a google bomb works.
57. Killinginthenameof 57

    15 September 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Perhaps we need a guest post from Rochelle to get the righties really wound up haha
58. Brett Dale 58

    15 September 2008 at 9:39 pm

    rOb

    People have been called “Retards” on this site, do you agree with that?
59. Robinsod 59

    15 September 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Brett. You are a retard.
60. r0b 60

    15 September 2008 at 9:59 pm

    People have been called “Retards’ on this site, do you agree with that?

    What’s that got to do with anything Brett? No, I don’t like it when people get insulting. Except when ‘Sod does it – it’s part of his “thing”, like d4j and his surreal nonsense.
61. Brett Dale 61

    15 September 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Yo seem to be upset because someone was called a fema nazi, but not upset if someone is called a a retard.
62. mattyroo 62

    15 September 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Jeez, are all lefties bloody ugly… clark, rees, et al…

    Pity clark’s social engineering doesn’t run to looks!
63. Andrew 63

    15 September 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Try googling ‘labour funded blog’ from NZ pages and see what come up. Now that’s way more amusing than ‘Clueless’

    You couldn’t make it up any funnier. It just shows that you have to be carefull what you make a big deal out of as it may come back to bite you.

    Im sure there are many, many more variations out there in google land for both Labour and National. At the end of the day its just silly and who cares.
64. Brett Dale 64

    15 September 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Robinsod:

    Thanks for sharing! Your a funny guy, you should rent yourself out for formal occasions, well maybe not for the IHC fund raisers they might take offense.
65. r0b 65

    15 September 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Yo seem to be upset because someone was called a fema nazi, but not upset if someone is called a a retard.

    I said I didn’t like it Brett. Whereas your only comment on “fema nazi” is: “We just dont like woman who play on the fact that they are woman”.
66. Robinsod 66

    15 September 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Jeez, are all lefties bloody ugly clark, rees, et al

    Pity clark’s social engineering doesn’t run to looks!
    

    Not as ugly as your mum matty – not as easy either…

    Brett – no problemo my retarded hombre…
67. Conrad 67

    15 September 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Clueless is a good start, but perhaps someone should create google bombs around other words too: Slimy, rat, dirty, filthy, hopeless, incoherent, Armageddon, earthquake, black abyss, Lord Ashcroft, Hannibal, plague, economic ruin, flip-flop, idiot, moron and pond scum, to name a few.
    Let the Bombing begin!
68. Brett Dale 68

    15 September 2008 at 10:19 pm

    rOB

    Like most people, I despise anything that comes out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, I understand he came up with the phrase Fema-Nazi.

    Like most on the right I love strong woman, and my take is, a lot of feminist are not out to make woman stronger, but make them into victims.
69. Conrad 69

    15 September 2008 at 10:36 pm

    -“a lot of feminist are not out to make woman stronger, but make them into victims.”

    Brett Dale is clearly right. It’s obvious that the majority of feminists have a secret burning desire to be repressed. They love being victims. In fact, it’s cruel not to persecute women. Let’s support the feminist movement by victimising women!

    Brett Dale, visionary. He spreads the light.

    I salute your towering intellect.
70. Brett Dale 70

    15 September 2008 at 10:44 pm

    That’s not what I said at all.

    The true strong feminists are all about power and making woman stronger and not playing the part of the victim, unfortunately a lot of people fall into the trap of doing this.
71. Conrad 71

    15 September 2008 at 11:01 pm

    It is true that some women often demand a double standard. They expect equal treatment in every respect (which of course they should have), but then retreat behind accusations of sexism when criticised. Look no further than Sarah Palin.

    But on the other hand I don’t think it’s correct to say that a lot of women set out specifically to play the part of the victim. Most women would take offence at that suggestion.

    By the way, the plural of woman is “women”
72. Clint Heine 72

    16 September 2008 at 3:14 am

    Lprent- you mentioned me, but I am at a loss at what you are talking about? My blog has the same opinion of the Standard as you have of me. Except I revel in the fact that I am not in NZ seeing Labour in action…. and for that I am incredibly thankful.

    Although I am not that wound up enough to not want to have a Xmas beer with you on my return to NZ. I am not that bitter 🙂
73. Dan 73

    16 September 2008 at 10:23 am

    How childish of her… I see Canterbury Uni cut ties with her before mid-morning yesterday http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=29723066&threadid=29723066
74. infused 74

    16 September 2008 at 10:37 am

    I know they changed it. You can still pull it off easily enough. What I am saying is, when they detect one they investigate it. If they can link it to someone, using The Standard as an example, they will drop your ranking in Google.

    That’s why people normally use it for MPs, Presidents, CEOs etc.

    Regardless, I think it’s a rather childish thing to do. It’s not because I prefer National over Labour. If a nat did something like this i’d think the same. I know she apparently has no political affiliation (yeah right) but anyway…
75. mike 75

    16 September 2008 at 6:40 pm

    8 weeks thats a bit harsh

    [lprent: I was annoyed – you called my niece one of my least favored terms. Ok – lets drop it to two weeks.

    Of course I could always ask rochelle for her opinion? Ok I’ve been overruled by my girlfriend….. 4 weeks.

    BTW: she had a description about where you should stuff your complaint… Perhaps you could redeem yourself – try commenting on thehandmirror. I’ll watch with interest. ]
76. Falafulu Fisi 76

    16 September 2008 at 11:19 pm

    Lprent if you want your niece to be a top-notch in developing search engine algorithm, then I could point her out to resources of where to start. This is my domain area. I do know very well how the Google PageRank algorithm works. There are many variants of PageRank where they only vary in their precisions & recall capabilities. I have written one (power-law variant of PageRank) for the purpose of web-site surveillance. This is not new, intelligence services are using it. Also corporates are using it as well to keep an eye on their competitors in real-time (for the purpose of price wars) rather than manually (ie, a staff that is doing the surveillance) which is time-consuming (hard to keep up). The original article on PageRank (title : The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine) was published by Page & Brin (Google founders) was made available in the Proceedings of the seventh international conference on World Wide Web, 1998, so any interested person can grab the algorithm from this publication (available in most University libraries).

    The best online free publications (peer reviewed) of search algorithms is the Internet Mathematics. There are tons of other sources (online & print computing journals) that are dedicated to text/web search in general that I can list them here if your niece is interested & wants to be a top-notch software developer.
77. randal 77

    17 September 2008 at 1:55 pm

    mike…are you the person writing horrible thread headers on twademe about rachel?
78. sean 78

    22 September 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Why is that female computer programmers are always so naff-looking?

    [lprent: Why is it that trolls are such morons? Not to mention have the social manners of a yeti. ]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS