|
Library of Life
|
Posted By:
Myst
Jan 18, 2005
|
I stumbled across this on a blog tonight and something about it just seems odd. I ran it through google and can't find The Library of Life mentioned anywhere except their site. Maybe it is new and I am just being suspicious, so I thought I would post it here and see if anyone knows anything about them. It's that Urgent request thingy that always gets me to wondering.....
Urgent request for help from Library of Life and The IFRC
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have been deeply touched by your blog’s coverage of the recent tragedy in Asia. The way ‘Tsunami Help India’ has helped to make the outside world aware of the plight of the affected people, is highly commendable.
I am contacting you with a request for your kind help from the Library of Life; a website (http://www.libraryoflife.org) whose aim is to compile the life stories of millions of people around the world, thereby creating the world’s first universal record of life that lasts forever. The website raises funds for the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and in this time of need they have asked us to create a living memorial to all the victims of this tragedy. This will be done through photographs, text, film, sound and scanned documents on the site.
The Library of Life, in association with the IFRC, is inviting all those whose lives have been affected by the tragedy to create a free memorial to commemorate their loved ones, or post their own experiences as a record for all future generations. We have also set up an online ‘Tsunami Book of Condolence’, which we are inviting the public to sign and express their feelings on this terrible disaster.
In order for this great humanitarian project to be successful it is essential that we have as much information and reach as many people as possible. We therefore, kindly request that you give us your assistance by contributing to the Library of Life through posting your experiences and opinions directly on our site, or allowing us to put some information from your site on our own. Furthermore, if you would be prepared to put a message on your blog about us and a link from your blog to our website, that would be wonderful. In return we will happily give you a reciprocated link from our own site to yours, as well as a complementary membership.
Please have a look at our site and contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and let me know your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Henry Hardy
http://www.libraryoflife.org
Henry Hardy
Library of Life
46 Berkeley Square
London W1J 5AT
Tel: 0207 598 4063
Fax: 0207 598 4071
Here is a link to their web site:
http://www.libraryoflife.org/Home.aspx
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 01:04 AM
So, theoretically, if I could fit a Bradbury factoid into my location so it showed on every post, Alex would never ban me?
Cool.
 |
Katherine
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 01:32 AM
Hmmmm, I don't know if that would count. Maybe you could just append a "P.S. Bradbury Bradbury Bradbury!" to all your posts?
And speaking of degenerating into wild OT-ness, has anybody out there ever read Bradbury's "The Whole Town's Sleeping"? Or the one (can't remember the title for the life of me) when it's Halloween, and this guy's wife dislikes him (or is leaving him?), so he decides to do something to really hurt her, which evidently means he kills their daughter when they're playing parlor games in the dark...
Scary stuff, yo. |
Alex
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:09 AM
Tim, every thread in this entire forum starts out with 'Hoax Forum' in its title because THAT'S THE NAME OF THIS SITE. It has nothing to do with calling the Library of Life a 'hoax forum'. |
Alex
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:18 AM
Also, I can see how if you google 'Library of Life' and see a link titled 'Hoax Forum: Library of Life' it could seem as if 'hoax forum' was referring to 'library of life'. However, this is google's fault, not mine. In the context of my page and my site, it all makes perfect sense. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 01:04 PM
Damn, Alex, there ya go using logic and common sense again...
P.S. Bradbury Bradbury Bradbury!
Ha. Katherine made me do it.
Well Kat and all the voices.
 |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 06:18 PM
Coincidentally I was just reading about "brand damaging speech". (I've suddenly developed a huge interest in law, particularly First Amendment law. *shrug*)
The original posts don't fit the criteria as I recall them, nor would it be easy to prove that it was damaging to the brand....especially as the company's rebuttal of sorts was posted and left enedited.
Sooooooo,.... WAH! |
Timothy Plank
in London
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 07:38 PM
Rod,
You are amusing, or as amusing as a half-wit lacking intellect or argumentative substance could be, that is. If the basis of your forum is to provoke thought then your argument should at least be somewhat responsive to the point.
I said it was attacked, not that it was called a Hoax. I said that by the nature of the forum name and the subsequent google reference, it would be perceived as such.
FYI: Because something is said to be currently free, in NO way implies that you will be charged at a later date. It simply means that members joining at a later date will be charged.
There's a big difference between something being implied and something being assumed. You carry on assuming, and amuse yourselves in the process.
'wondered if it might be not entirely truthful' - As I was saying, perhaps there should be cause before the assumption is simply made for no reason whatsoever. If I said I thought your mother loved taking it up the rear, would you not expect substantiation? or could I simply post it to every forum in the name of provoking thought. You cannot blatantly post defamatory statements without cause. If you have half a brain you'll get the point.
'to damage the brand would require that because of something said, the "brand" lost money. Did it not say that the site was free?' -
Because a product is distributed at no cost hardly means the brand is worthless. Hotmail is free yet was sold for $400m - And yet according to your logic, the brand could suffer no damage. Care to explain?
Go back to school, get an education, then try again. Oh, and while you're at it, turn your forum into an outlet for those wanting to spew mumbled nonsense, you're much better at it.
T. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 07:50 PM
Dude... Hey Rod, challenge him to a duel like Raoul... he insulted your Mother, bro... are you gonna take that? |
Katherine
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:14 PM
Timothy darling--
Have you ever heard of ad hominem? Attack the argument, not the person.
Love and kisses,
Katherine |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:22 PM
Yeah, Timmy- don't attack his mom's hominem, neither |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:26 PM
It's funny how some people take these comments so personally! |
Tim
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:50 PM
Hmmm. Getting personal...
My first post was clear and to the point. I did not say, nor suggest, that I was going to sue anyone, simply that a blanket statement without cause could potentially lead to legal action.
Rod's response was:
"Wah wah wah. Go join the MPAA, you litigiuos dork"
My dropping to his level was in the hope that he might better understand the point made.
Rod, there is really nothing wrong with the 'fact' that your mother 'apparently' loves it up the back door. It is the 21st century after all, let her live as she chooses.
T |
Gerry
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:05 PM
Bizarre, I think Tim might be right cause as far as I've heard, and the possibility does exist that I could be wrong, Rod's mother is a crack-whore.
If only I knew his surname, I could get some good results coming back through Google when running a search for Rod XXX.
Speaking nonsense and what seems like innocent thought provoking speech is one thing, but slanderous remarks that are damaging, whether you see this or not, become somewhat serious in a world where search engines index every word on a ranking web site.
Alex - It is your problem because you are titling these pages AND you are indexing them in search engines. As a webmaster, you choose which part of your site to index and when placing content in the public domain and allowing it to be indexed, you open yourself to the full extent of the law. If you want to have open debate and make whatever comments you wish, at the very least, block the bots with a Robots.txt file.
I am not here to fight with anyone, and I am as much for open thought as the next. In saying this, I have simply tried to get across the fact that there was no justification for what was said and that the Google result is damaging, and that, is wrong.
Tim |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:07 PM
Fellas, I got it solved... Tim agrees not to be a litigois dork and Rod's Mom lays off slamming the back door... it's all good |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:10 PM
I'd reply, but I'm still too busy crying because Tim called me names.
Okay, I'm all better now.
Apparently Tim, you feel that telling me I'm an imbecile would really wound me in some way.
Lacking intellect or argumentative substance?
How so? What I said in my first post in this thread is 100 percent correct. This is false representation on the part of the website, claiming that this will last forever. (Substance or not? You decide.)
I lack intellect, apparently, because you disagree with me, and attempting to belittle me is your idea of getting the upper hand.
Your idea of an attack was that the website in question's name is paired with the word hoax. That sure looks like you're all pissy because you think people will take it as a hoax when it's not.
Anyway, this has absolutely no bearing on what 'I' had to say, so I'm just going to forget that you're trying to cloud the subject.
If you go back and read my post, I also did not mention what I thought of the site's practices of charging. Why are you defending it to me when I never even mentioned it?
I never posted any defamatory statments, nor ones without cause. I simply pointed out the truth. How is this defamatory?
Free usage of their product does not mean that Hotmail sees no money. They also provide 'extended' email services for a charge. By YOUR logic, just because part of their service is free, it means that they never make any money. Part of the service is not the whole service.
As for the rest of the nonsense crap in your post, Tim, use your head. All you are doing is showing people the results of an inadequate personality.
And, last time I checked, just because someone disasagrees with me does NOT mean that I have to go somewhere else. If you've got a problem, tough titty. Someone already tried that tactic, didn't work.
This is in reference to the "Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 06:38 PM" post. I see that you've already posted more, but I have not yet read them, and will respond to them after I post this. |
Tim
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:25 PM
Rod,
I am not going to carry on with this because you don't have the mental dexterity to follow the argument to an intellectual end.
I will, however, point out that you have completely missed the entire point.
T
P.S. - FYI: Hotmail and Yahoo are incredibly powerful brands through the marketing leverage they have secured from the size of their user base and critical mass of traffic. Your counter-argument once again missed the point in that you tried to relate a brand's strength to the physical cost of a product. A brand can be as powerful without any money ever changing hands. The internet, television, radio etc. afford us this luxury.
P.P.S. Seriously mate, go back to school, and keep your mum off the crack. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:26 PM
Gerry, apparently, is still pissed about the last disagreement we had, and feels that by perpeuating their moronic activity, it somehow makes ME look bad. Guess again.
And, by the way, Gerry, NO results come back in my name anywhere on the net. And I've spent NUMEROUS hours looking, just to see. Having my last name would not get you any info at all. Not even my current phone number.
But yes, I agree, you probably WOULD get some good results by googling "Rod XXX".
Gerry, look up slander. Does the definition include "making truthful statements which can be easily verified"?
And, yes, Tim, a vague reference to possible future litigation, however veiled, is still a threat, just as a vague reference about mailing someone a bomb is still a threat, even though you didn't flat out state that.
If you believe so greatly in the above site, why is your name not in their database?
As for the whole 'backdoor momma' thing, want to buy some videos? |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:34 PM
"Rod,
I am not going to carry on with this because you don't have the mental dexterity to follow the argument to an intellectual end." - Tim
Translation - "Wah! I'm losing! Screw you guys, I'm going home."
'I' missed the point? Just because you babbled a bunch of stuff not relating to what I said does not mean that 'I' missed the point.
I never tried to relate the brand's strength to the price of the product. I simply pointed out your faulty usage of Hotmail as "free".
Do you stand behind all of your convinctions so strongly, Tim, that as soon as someone tells you that you are wrong, you run and hide?
And yes, Tim, the references to my "lack of intelligence" and my mother's private life truly DO show off your inadequate personality to all. |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:35 PM
I don't have a backdoor
I have some patio doors though, will they do? |
Tim
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:37 PM
Boy, you're even dumber than I originally thought!
Stay in la la land, you're safe there.
Goodbye Rod and good luck with your life. Sigh!! |
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
