Nameless ~The One Thing You Must Recall~ Download] [hack] !FREE!
Arthur, you may say, might well complain of this; but Arthur is my father over again. Though he had some differences with my father in early youth, no sooner had he taken over the Collection than he became like a pagan priest dedicated to a temple. He mixed up these Roman halfpence with the honour of the Carstairs family in the same stiff, idolatrous way as his father before him. He acted as if Roman money must be guarded by all the Roman virtues. He took no pleasures; he spent nothing on himself; he lived for the Collection. Often he would not trouble to dress for his simple meals; but pattered about among the corded brown-paper parcels (which no one else was allowed to touch) in an old brown dressing-gown. With its rope and tassel and his pale, thin, refined face, it made him look like an old ascetic monk. Every now and then, though, he would appear dressed like a decidedly fashionable gentleman; but that was only when he went up to the London sales or shops to make an addition to the Carstairs Collection.
Nameless ~The One Thing You Must Recall~ Download] [hack]
This stuff about the anti-spoiler crowd claiming to have consensus is nonsense. If you read through the archives of this page, the majority clearly supports keeping them. Now they'll say that wikipedia isn't a "majority rules" organization, but that doesn't mean that everything must be decided by the MINORITY. The pro-spoiler crowd needs to be more bold and just edit the damn guideline. --YellowTapedR 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read parts of the archived discussion and I think I understand now where people are coming from. However, I must disagree on quite a few grounds:- I've been told that I'm "stupid" for looking at a wikipedia article of a work that I don't want to be spoiled, because I shouldn't be looking at it if I don't want it to be spoiled. That's a circular argument. We could easily fix this by adding spoiler tags. Then the article would be safe to look at. Believe it or not, there is other content in a wikipedia article than spoilers.- I've been told that I shouldn't be looking at a plot summary if I don't want the plot given away. I agree completely, except that there is a difference between plot and story. As I mentioned earlier, if I ask a friend what a movie is about, they typically don't include spoilers. It is common courtesy in our culture to mention the fact that what is upcoming might include spoilers.I have legitimate reasons for wanting to read the article, and not wanting spoilers in my face:- I might want to read about it to find out if it sounds interesting to me.- I want to know information such as the author, actors, etc- As for the plot sumamry and not wanting spoilers, I probably want to know how the movie/book begins - the introductory premise, and a vague explanation of how it resolves. However, I don't want details about certain large events such as a chacter dying or something.I find the indication that users who read wikipedia articles of works they do not want spoiled are stupid to be incredibly closed-minded and offensive. I want to read the article; however, I do not want it spoiled. This is normal in our culture. Do you understand this?As for users who think that if we learn our lesson by being shocked by the spoiler in one plot summary we won't do it again, of course, I won't do it again. However, it narrows the usage of the article. It makes it accessible to less people. And it makes it unusable to those who do not want it spoiled. And users who do not want it spoiled have valid reasons for wanting to read it, as I explained above. Don't say we're stupid. Isn't it a BAD thing to make an article available to less people? -- Rediahs 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twelve years passed quickly, and in 2022 Chris operated not one but two companies. His original public relations consulting firm remained near DC, moving out to one of the nameless, ten story glass buildings lining the corridor to Dulles airport. But for global social media operations, he\u2019d positioned a separate operation in Europe. Switzerland provided lots of advantages for social media influence operators\u200A\u2014\u200Afast Internet, data protections, closeness to skilled personnel, and more secure, cloaked banking; in other words, everything someone in his line of work needed. Using three social media platforms, he\u2019d just won an election in Tanzania on an extremely low budget with his new methodology. His backers, a global mining conglomerate based in Hong Kong and Dubai seeking access to Tanzania\u2019s rare earth metals, preferred his cradle-to-grave election winning approach Chris called \u201CSocial Inception\u201D.
Starting on the 15-month before election day, some of Chris\u2019s Swiss envoys turn the tap on a BitCoin transfer to the dark web. He thinks they\u2019re in Bulgaria, or maybe it\u2019s Romania, Chris gets those places confused, but he doesn\u2019t care who does the hacking and he doesn\u2019t want to know. Plausible deniability, that\u2019s the best way to play this game. These hackers have never let him down, and they\u2019ll rifle through the hard drives and cloud folders of the opposition. Over a couple months, the hackers will return everything Chris\u2019s team needs to sink the political opposition.
In the smear campaign business, the advantage goes to the offense. It\u2019s easier to make a social media conspiracy than to dispel one. Chris must pave the way for James Jones move into political life. The Bitcoin loving hackers returned a couple months\u2019 worth of stolen information connected to Wisconsin\u2019s current Lieutenant Governor\u200A\u2014\u200Athe presumed leader for next year\u2019s governor race. They never hacked the Lieutenant Governor directly, but they did gather all the human resources files of his former company before taking office. Buried in those files was an HR complaint against the Lieutenant Governor. The claim was nothing, quickly shot down for being baseless. But that was before Chris\u2019s social media team got a hold of it.