Editing 2512: Revelation

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 13: Line 13:
 
A news channel's official social-media monitor understands this to be an actual (natural) disaster in progress and asks for permission to use the posted information in a broadcast. This could be what would have happened if John had been using Twitter in his own time, in which case his Revelation might have received this response from that time's similarly-connected reporters, perhaps not comprehending the observations to be 'prophetic visions of the future', with potentially a different level of significance altogether, rather than reports of events just happened.
 
A news channel's official social-media monitor understands this to be an actual (natural) disaster in progress and asks for permission to use the posted information in a broadcast. This could be what would have happened if John had been using Twitter in his own time, in which case his Revelation might have received this response from that time's similarly-connected reporters, perhaps not comprehending the observations to be 'prophetic visions of the future', with potentially a different level of significance altogether, rather than reports of events just happened.
  
βˆ’
If the monitor has just found some form of dislocated account (a ''very'' old message, a modern echo for proselytizing purposes or a jape of some kind) then they appear to have been drawn in, having not recognized it as historic text from the Bible.
+
If the monitor has just found some form of dislocated account (a ''very'' old message, a modern echo for proselytizing purposes or a jape of some kind) then they appear to have been drawn in, having not recognized it as historic text from the bible.
  
 
Whichever way, the response is typical of a 'foot in the door' approach probably used for any and all candidate 'breaking news' citizen-reports, identified by trawling and searching the media-feeds for newsworthy content by either reporters or an 'algorithm'. As well as trying to ask for republishing permission, as per the duty of care reporters should grant to their sources, it is couched behind a typically bland statement of concern.
 
Whichever way, the response is typical of a 'foot in the door' approach probably used for any and all candidate 'breaking news' citizen-reports, identified by trawling and searching the media-feeds for newsworthy content by either reporters or an 'algorithm'. As well as trying to ask for republishing permission, as per the duty of care reporters should grant to their sources, it is couched behind a typically bland statement of concern.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)