1st Voicemail to NYT on 10/07/11

October 8, 2011

 

It couldn't have been more obvious from the second I signed up for this blog that the service is servile to the conglomerate.  However, as in other situations, I have to use what's available to me.

 

I suppose I could spend a lot of time looking for a more hospitable, free audio blog.  However, time is something that I don't have a lot of on the Internet. 

 

I have called this audio blog castironnerves because, despite both my occasional loss of them and my occasional failure to inspire others to possess them, I like the phrase.

As I was signing up for this blog, the first security word that the blog asked me to confirm was “fezzy,” written in green.

The final one was “chafewax,” in red.

That means that someone who works for podbean was sitting there sending me those security words, which I think is both invasive and abusive.

(I don't know why the print changed in the middle.  I have that problem with this computer a lot.)

 

 

A few notes about my 10/07/11 voicemails to the New York Times reader comment line:

--I don’t agree with Taylor Swift’s politics

--I don’t agree with anyone calling Ms. Swift “trailer”

--I don’t agree with the ongoing cruelty of the conglomerate and its supporters to people whom the conglomerate has manipulated over the past year

--On the front page of the NYT today, there are these three, small captions for stories at the bottom of the page, with the first two in one section and the third one next to that section:

 

“NEW YORK A-14-15

Neighbors weary of protest

With the long lines for restrooms and barricades that block strollers, among other things, many have lost patience with Occupy Wall Street  Page A 14

 

672 School Layoffs Take Effect

The loss of jobs represents the largest number of single-agency layoffs under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg  Page A 14”

 

“BUSINESS DAY

Endangered Mail Service

The United States Postal Service has warned 3, 700 communities, many of them in rural areas, that it is considering shuttering their local offices over the next few months.  That is worrying towns like Neville, Ohio.  Page B 1”

 

Here’s my analysis of the New York Times’ use of code with those three stories and the placement of those captions on the front page:

 

--The New York Times took what I said last night, 10/07/11, about the conglomerate’s abuse of people who live in and around Boston, with all of the fake and unnecessary construction in Boston and the possibly faked problems on roads, blocking traffic to and from Boston’s surrounding areas, and the NYT used that idea to attack Occupy Wall Street.

 

--The New York Times is continuing to tell the conglomerate’s lie that there is no government money to pay for public schools.  That lie is a preliminary phase of the conglomerate's plan to sell public schools and the students in them to corporations.

 

--This is the first time that the New York Times has threatened to shut off the reader comment line, or to refuse to tell anyone what I say in my voicemails on that comment line.  I’ve been leaving voicemails on that line since at least December of 2010; while I was in the hospital, I would sometimes leave long, rambling, raging messages several times a day, and the NYT never threatened before to shut the comment line off.  In fact, I’ve left long, rambling, raging messages on that line for months, even since I’ve been in Boston, although my contact with the NYT has been diminishing more all the time.  I’ll go weeks without calling them, and haven’t called them much at all recently.

My messages from last night aren’t particularly long, rambling or raging. 

However, what I did say in the first message was that my tape-recording the message and then playing it into the phone for the reader comment line would mean that if any dispute occurred about what the message I had left said, I would have a record of exactly the message I had left.  I said nothing at all into the phone last night to the reader comment line except for what was in the pre-recorded messages; all I did was call the number and then hold the tape recorder to the receiver.

My using that method for leaving messages for the New York Times means that the newspaper can’t abuse the messages I leave for it anymore, or twist around its interpretation of those messages; not without the newspaper being found out by everyone who follows what I write, and now say, online.

As for the newspaper’s use of the word “shuttered;” anyone who’s interested in finding out why the newspaper used that word should ask the newspaper, which will be incapable of producing any voicemail from yesterday, from me, except for what I put in those 2 messages.  As anyone can hear, I made no mention at all of Leonardo DiCaprio in those messages, and I’m wondering what people who have accused me of being a liar, untrustworthy and a callous person think of the efforts of that newspaper and other media, businesses, organizations and individuals who continue to try to encourage Mr. DiCaprio’s interest in me.

I didn't say "worser" in the first message.  It sounds that way, but I was saying "worse" and "or" or "worse" and "er." Either way, it's not fabulous public speaking, with all of my hemming and hawing, but hemming and hawing is still better than saying something such as "worser." 

There's no code in any of it, or in any of this. 

I think that there’s another note I should make about the first recording.

A “pressing issue” is the fact that I can’t do a Google search on anyone’s name without being accused of things that aren’t true.  It is a really bad invasion of privacy, in addition to being harassment, in addition to being malicious, in addition to being deceitful, that that happens to me.

A settled issue is a settled issue; I hope I’m not too guilty of over-settling.  I seem more often to be accused of being maliciously unsettling, which has never been true.

 

 

 

Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 8, 2011 @ 12:47 p.m./addition @ 1:26 p.m.