You are Time Magazine's Person of the Year

Originally posted by dawnstar

another topple of the powerful elite, acknowledging the power of the not so powerful. confirmation that those in power only have the power that we chose to give them, and well, we can choose to take back.

But I guess that's the problem. We are not supposed to be self-aware, or cognizant of our own power.

Maybe the critics are scared?

hehe

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is not a single person that I can think of who deserves this honor more than the contributors to the wealth of information and truth to be found on the Internet.my emphasis

That's the thing. Truth. How much of a webuser's key demographic is spent on corporate website's, where the truth is the amount of spin they can place on any given topic? Or on a rating site, or myspace, where the truth is the amount of friends and inane validation one can recieve?

The internet as a valid tool for bookkeeping, research, and information utilization is lost, imo, on the majority of humans who log on.

I have to side with sofi in one respect, however. I like it.

But that doesn't stop me from seeing that the motivations of the recognition as well as the motivations of the recognized are probably chasmed in the middle....

I'd like to thank the editors, my agent, my parents, and Earthlink for making this possible............

Pretty weak. I guess I see what they were shooting for, but all in all, there's only one thing I can say about this......

Thank God it wasn't Bono!!

Originally posted by subject x
I'd like to thank the editors, my agent, my parents, and Earthlink for making this possible............

...I needed a good laugh

Originally posted by FlyersFan

If they wanted to do an internet changing the world thing then they should have picked the person who invented it .... (Al Gore

)

Seriously seriously LAME!!

oh god, not this again. Do yourself a favor and actually watch the clip that was taken from. By your statement I know that you have never seen it, and only repeat whatever drivel you hear from talk radio or the media. The words invented or created were never spoken by him in regard to the internet.

But back to the topic at hand, who cares? Are you all so upset that your beloved Bush isn't on the cover? Actuallly, they should have had Bush as person of the year - for the biggest jackass!

Originally posted by LogansRun
Are you all so upset that your beloved Bush isn't on the cover?

Is the no level to which Bush bashers will not sink to take a jab at the President?

For myself, it just seems that Time is saying, "Ah ha, suckers! The "'Person' of the Year" is a meaningless distinction used to part the gullible public from their hard earned money and we're too spineless to even make an attempt to choose one person this year for fear of alienating the public and losing our butts or even prompting a terrorist attack, so we pick no one by choosing everyone ."

[edit on 2006/12/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

... we're too spineless to even make an attempt to choose one person this year for fear of alienating the public and losing our butts or even prompting a terrorist attack, so we pick no one by choosing everyone

I have to ask Grady - Why don't you think everyone is important?

And why do you think one single person might or could have more power than 6 billion other voices?

Originally posted by soficrow
I have to ask Grady - Why don't you think everyone is important?

How would you draw the conclusion that I don't think everyone is important?

I am reminded of the current fashion of giving out awards to everyone so that no one gets his feelings hurt. They used to do that where I used to work. The sum effect was that awards from the department came to mean nothing.

I might ask you why you can't see a cop-out when you see one.

The award is not really to everyone. Not everyone will buy the magazine and see himself in the mirrored cover and not everyone has used the internet, so does "Time" consider those people to be inconsequential? Do you?

The real point is that "Time" has made a mockery of their own award, which exposes the award for having always been a mockery, so there is a kind of poetic justice, I guess.

[edit on 2006/12/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Well I for one would like to Thank TIME magazine!
I dont deserve the person of the year title, but I believe I have done my part.
I agree we webbers are having an effect, and unlike some people I believe that there are enough good, honest, INTELLIGENT people out here on the WWW waging E-peace, dispelling myths and denying doublethink that we can and are making a difference.
After all, it is the information superhighway.
It sure is good to feel appreciated from time to time.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


The real point is that "Time" has made a mockery of their own award, which exposes the award for having always been a mockery, so there is a kind of poetic justice, I guess.

[edit on 2006/12/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady
I dont think the award has always been a mockery. I think choices along with what it is supose to be have been made in the past. Several of which have brought much anger tword the magazine.
I agree with what you said about the awards. That has been an ongoing thing for a while. Although I have not heard how it is afecting the generation moveing into the work place and there after.

Originally posted by LogansRun
By your statement I know that you have never seen it, and only repeat whatever drivel you hear from talk radio or the media.

WRONG.

I have seen it. I have read it - transcripts of it. What is obvious is that YOU didn't bother to look at my post close enough. I had Al Gore in parens and I had a laughing smilie ... It was a JOKE.

You owe me an apology.

In fact .. make it two apologies. One for saying with authority that I hadn't seen or read the Al Gore quote and another for saying that I 'repeat whatever drivel I hear'.

Wrong and double wrong. Triple wrong we count that you missed the OBVIOUS joke. And yes .. I'll count that as well. 3 apologies are due.

Originally posted by LogansRun
Are you all so upset that your beloved Bush isn't on the cover?

Oh brother ... taking a conversation that has nothing to do about Bush and turning it into a Bush bash. LAME. Just like Time picking 'you' (*everyone) . LAME.


[edit on 12/17/2006 by FlyersFan]

Well, let me say that I'm just acknowledging that "Time's" "'Person' of the Year" doesn't mean anything and has never meant anything. Who made "Time" the "decider," anyway?

I'm really just pointing out the irony of the editor making it so obvious.

I don't read "Time," anyway, and haven't in years.

[edit on 2006/12/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't read "Time," anyway, and haven't in years.

I don't read it anymore either. Or Newsweek.

Their choice of basically 'everyone' was lazy and lame. Perhaps they were doing the 'safe' thing. It was supposed to be someone who made a huge change in the world. Both of the whacked leaders of N. Korea and Iran have made huge differences (for the worse). N. Korea and the nuke test and Iran with it's proxy war in Iraq are BIG. Koffi Annan and his pathetic run at the UN as well.

Time....Time...Time?

What is that?
Oh, a magazine..with a website.

"WE" are the person of the year..
Sounds like they are kissing up..To Increase readership?
Nice try, but the "people of the year" are stealing your readership.

"Digital Democracy"?
WTF is that??

There is NO democracy in corporate culture. No one votes for the CEO. No referendum is held to determine corporate policy. There is NO accountability!

"Voting with your dollars" might seem like a good idea, but if you think that attracting customers is all about being a responsible company working towards the good of the people, you are sadly mistaken. The bottom line (and lowest price) is all that matters. Hell, corporate structure is so convoluted that you can't vote with your dollar. You might think you are supporting some funky little games company only to find out that you are supporting a manufacturer of chemical weapons.

Ofcource, I wouldn't expect the truth of this matter to be published in Time, being that Time-Warner is one of the biggest players in the Digital Tyranny.

I can tell from some of the reactions here (more specifically the harsher ones by Grady and DJohnston) that Time has indeed struck gold here. It was a great idea and it does show the increasing power of the people thanks to the continuing innovations of the Digital Era. No longer are the people forced to rely on established institutional leaders in the government and in the media to have their voice heard, we can now do it ourselves. And it has really done the trick and the amount of anger and outrage it has incited shows "You" truly are the person of the year. Not to mention its nice watching videos of hot chicks dancing on YouTube.

Good going, Time.

Firstly, i'd like to thank my beautiful wife who always believed me and told me to hold my head up high during the rough times. Secondly, i'd like to thank my pet cat, Zoe, who personally said that "I always had it in me to be person of the year." To all the others who were behind me and kept my act together to reach this triumphant moment in my history I say "THANK YOU."

Wow your cat talks too you, I thought it was only my cat which did that! :p

I think one or both of you may live below "ceiling cat."

Good luck with that.


I learned a lot by looking up the history of the whole "person of the year" institution. I was a little surprised to notice the number of German Chancellors who have been "man of the year." Hitler, Andenaur, Brandt more than once. Perhaps that says a lot about Germany's "realpolitik" in balancing the political poles of East and West.

It looks to me like the whole "noun of the year" thing really jumped the shark in 1960, when they named "US scientists" man of the year. I think they were basically bored with the cover, and hoping to kill of a dead horse of an editorial vehicle.

.

hey why not

we are all contributing to the world wide web daily...