Social media, email and the Internet have not only brought about the quick and convincing scare syndrome and the quick-spread falsehood but it has also brought about the passionate reactionary. Witness Hans Groiner. No, he's not a passionate reactionary. He is however, a very clever entertainment presentation from the clever and talented Larry Goldings, who is not may I mention, a comic by trade.
The passion, both rational and not, enters the picture when you read the commentaries of the YouTube offerings of Hans Groiner. In short, the fictional Mr. Groiner is a musician who, although he does not like jazz, has undertaken the project of 'correcting' the music of Thelonious Monk. The result is a new-age-y, benign, vaguely familiar tune chock-full of major chords and 'straight' rhythms. But Larry's shtick is very SNL-ish or Christopher Guest/Rob Reiner parody-like and every bit as witty.
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD) OHO is Jay Graboski, David Reeve & Ray Jozwiak
My latest solo release, '2014' of original, instrumental piano music, can be downloaded digitally at:
(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak4)
". . . I’ve been meaning to email you for a little while now, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long.
Got your package on OHO, and yes, I’m definitely interested in
featuring the band on my show, Baltimore Hit Parade. I did Steptoe and
Pooba as a Baltimore Backtrack, which is a feature where I catch up with
Baltimore bands from back in the day. Would you or another member of
OHO be interested in coming in for an interview next Tuesday afternoon
or sometime during the day next Thursday? We’re at 1 Olympic Place off the circle in Towson. . . "
. . . well hell yes, we WOULD be interested in that. More Shortly. . .
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
My latest solo release, '2014', can be downloaded digitally at:
(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak4)
(Thanks to http://www.hoax-slayer.com/why-hoaxes.html)
Spreading viral hoax emails is essentially cyber graffiti. Is it a cheap thrill or revenge against society in general?
In some cases, a newly created hoax message might spread a lot further than the author originally intended. Some hoaxes start out as just a practical joke aimed squarely at a select group of friends. But the friends send it to their friends and, in short order, the message has irretrievably escaped into the wilds of Cyberspace. Some time back, a widely distributed hoax message about a group of Cambodian midgets fighting a lion started in exactly this way.
Sometimes the author misinterpreted something and genuinely felt compelled to let others know about it. For example, the infamous "Bonsai Kittens" website appears to have prompted one outraged visitor to create and send out an email petition calling for authorities to close down the site. However, the creator of the email petition apparently did not realize that the site was just a joke. In spite of the fact that nobody is really making Bonsai Kittens, this misguided petition continues to circulate and collect email addresses years after it was first launched.
Some say spammers deliberately create hoax emails as a way of subsequently collecting email addresses. Certainly, messages that get forwarded many times can accumulate a great many email addresses and spammers may well harvest these addresses for use on spam lists. For such an exercise to be successful (from the spammer's point of view), he or she would have to set up a mechanism by which the hoax messages were eventually returned after they had accumulated a large number of email addresses. Typically, email hoaxes do not have any such mechanism. If they did, it would perhaps make it possible to identify the original author.
Hoaxbusters.org says there are 5 tell-tale signs that an email is a hoax:
1. It clearly conveys urgency through capitalization and/or many exclamation points
2. The importance of the message is stressed telling you to share by sending it to as many others as you possibly can
3. It states that it is NOT a hoax. It may even contain a disclaimer such as, 'This came from my neighbor who works for Microsoft so I know it's true'
or even a link to Snopes (which most people will not bother to follow)
4. "Dire Consequences" will result if you do not act
5. Many >>>>> marks appear in the left margin indicating many forwardings
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
There is a 'chain' email circulating (since about 2009) claiming that a 28th amendment to the Constitution, purported to be written by Warren Buffet, that could easily end the deficit. Some of the information contained therein is true. Some is false. And some is simply unverifiable.
But did you know . . .
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation — no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments.
The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It's probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed.
(taken from http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/ by Viveca Novak on Friday, April 10, 2009)
A widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
One issue prompting the tirade was a sign Gregg posted last summer outside his office in Mandeville, La. It said, "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." Snopes.com wrote it up in an article headlined "Chicken Hawked." The e-mail writer says that "they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place." But that’s exactly what did happen, according a company representative.
In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word "pressured" as the e-mail claims. What she said was: "A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns."
And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier: "Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns." The e-mail’s author says the Mikkelsons didn’t call Gregg, and David says that’s true. He says he sent the insurance agent an e-mail, but did not receive a response.
The e-mail goes on: "Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal," adding: "There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings." The author cites no evidence and no sources for either of these propositions.
We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, "My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate. . . You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson said. . ."
The e-mail also accuses the Mikkelsons of "hiding" their identities. "Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it," the message claims. That’s nonsense. It may well be that the author of this e-mail was ignorant of the Mikkelsons until recently, but it’s never been a secret who is behind Snopes.com. We even dug up a reference to David Mikkelson from 1995, a year when the Internet was in its infancy. A collection of short items under the headline "A Special Report: The Virtual Valley" in the Los Angeles Times included a photo of him.
The e-mail’s last paragraph advises that everyone who goes to Snopes.com for "the bottom line facts" should "proceed with caution." We think that’s terrific advice, not just in connection with material on Snopes but for practically anything a reader finds online — including articles on FactCheck.org. The very reason we list our sources (as does Snopes.com) and provide links is so that readers can check things out for themselves. . .
The mistakes (in the email) could have been avoided if the authors had contacted the couple. "None of them did," Mikkelson said.
. . . already read the story of 'Jerry' that I posted yesterday and I want to be clear that I posted it for the value I see in it and by no means whatsoever take credit for the composition of it. I have seen it, as I'm sure you have, numerous times on the internet and have received it by email, but have never learned the author of it. Well, CHEERS to her or him.
I did add the note at the conclusion myself. The originals say something like, "Now you have two choices to make (which interestingly enough is grammatically incorrect) : 1. You can delete this message or 2. You can forward it to someone you care about. I hope you will choose #2. I did.
First time I read the story, I expected the ending to say, "Forward this to XXX amount of people or you will have seven years bad luck" or something to that effect.
