MS is not amused

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

User avatar
ambivalent
Forum Contributor
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

MS is not amused

Post by ambivalent »

http://www.ie7.com/

I sense a "take-down" order in the near future.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

What an insanely good (yet wonderfully dangerous) idea! That made my day.

I wonder if Microstink will get the picture?
User avatar
nickman013
Forum Regular
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Post by nickman013 »

HAHA.

Thats nuts.

Do you think that Microsoft can take that down or somthing somehow?
User avatar
neophyte
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by neophyte »

That's Awesome! Go FF!
User avatar
Buddha443556
Forum Regular
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by Buddha443556 »

Amusing. :lol:
josh
DevNet Master
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Palm beach, Florida

Post by josh »

nickman013 wrote:Do you think that Microsoft can take that down or somthing somehow?
no, they can call trademark infringement on it though, and take them to court. Funny though
d3ad1ysp0rk
Forum Donator
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: Maine, USA

Post by d3ad1ysp0rk »

If only they added a / to their img tag, and a doctype, they'd be xhtml compliant. :)

Really good though :D
User avatar
nickman013
Forum Regular
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Post by nickman013 »

jshpro2 wrote:
no, they can call trademark infringement on it though, and take them to court. Funny though
oh i see. i thought IE 7 was out a for a while though?
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Re: MS is not amused

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

ambivalent wrote:http://www.ie7.com/

I sense a "take-down" order in the near future.
I think it would be better if it was linked to Opera instead. You know the better browser. :D
User avatar
m3mn0n
PHP Evangelist
Posts: 3548
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by m3mn0n »

lol

If they went after MikeRowSoft, they will go after these guys (or this guy)....
Gambler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Gambler »

Go Firefox! Go Google! Go iPod! Go Serenity! Go groupthink! Go viral marketing! Go abuse of cyberspace!

I'm so tired of this advertising smurf. (And unless I'm missing something really big, the linked website is simply one huge banner.)

...

Besides, this actually reminds me of my Web 2.0 manifesto thread. 10 minustes after I posted a link to a certain text. HawleyJR: Bashing Other members is not allowed regardless of the topic. Text removed! Ok, I wiped that posting, and it was then garbage-collected by administartor (which in a way showed administrator's approval of the whole "do not post this" thing). Now, can someone please explain me how this thread is different? It links to a website that basically bashes IE7. It's okay to bash IE, but it's not okay to bash web 2.0?

I think someone should explain a few things here. I can understand (although, not approve) if negative threads in general are prohibited on the forum. But if there are selective topics which cannot be criticised, than it is a matter of censorship. In that case I will releave the conference from the burdain of my presence.
User avatar
nickman013
Forum Regular
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: MS is not amused

Post by nickman013 »

AKA Panama Jack wrote:
ambivalent wrote:http://www.ie7.com/

I sense a "take-down" order in the near future.
I think it would be better if it was linked to Opera instead. You know the better browser. :D
I hate Opera, I use Safari (when on mac) and Firefox(when on windows).
crackedPavement
Forum Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: portland, or

Post by crackedPavement »

Haha. Lighten up man. This thread is referencing a joke, what you are referencing is not a joke.

I know I'm new here but if you think this is such a big deal that you would seriously consider releaving (relieving) us all of from the burdain (burden) of your presence, I say go.

Happy Wednesday!

And for the record, yes it is ok to bash IE. It is also OK to bash web 2.0. Though the latter is a vague, broad term, the form is a crappy piece of software. There is a good reason for bashing IE (though i dont think of this as "bashing"). Web 2.0 is a buzzword only.

Time for Desperate Housewives? (that was a joke, not bashing)

Gambler wrote:Go Firefox! Go Google! Go iPod! Go Serenity! Go groupthink! Go viral marketing! Go abuse of cyberspace!


I think someone should explain a few things here. I can understand (although, not approve) if negative threads in general are prohibited on the forum. But if there are selective topics which cannot be criticised, than it is a matter of censorship. In that case I will releave the conference from the burdain of my presence.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Gambler wrote:Go Firefox! Go Google! Go iPod! Go Serenity! Go groupthink! Go viral marketing! Go abuse of cyberspace!

I'm so tired of this advertising smurf. (And unless I'm missing something really big, the linked website is simply one huge banner.)
Yes, it is a kind of advertising. Yes, it is viral marketing. Yes, it is something that a large number of people appreciate, enjoy, and discuss (groupthink).

Abuse of cyberspace? If you want to make that claim, you'll be a little hardpressed. Dean Edwards has a fantastic collection of scripts called IE7. In fact, its in the top three hits on Google, MSN, and Yahoo for "IE7". Worse, Microsoft even referenced his site when discussing the fixes in Internet Explorer 7, so clearly, they don't think thats an abuse of cyberspace.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion that it is.
Gambler wrote:Besides, this actually reminds me of my Web 2.0 manifesto thread. 10 minustes after I posted a link to a certain text, there was a glorious appearance of Roja, who started with his usual "shut the smurf up and start helping people" thing.
My posting is glorious? How flattering. :)

Yes, I do try to keep conversation focused on helping people for the most part. Moreover, I try to keep the conversations from turning into a flamefest. In the past, numerous users and even former moderators have taken it upon themselves to make their opinions into a crusade. As a community, we stood together and nearly eliminated these forums entirely to ensure that didn't/doesn't happen. Take note of that for context - open attacks with no context and little justification are unlikely to be permitted for long.

This isn't a site for airing personal gripes. People get *jobs* on this forum, and public attacks end up affecting people's livelihood. If you've got an issue (as it seems you do with me), take it to pm's. I'm actually really easy to chat with one on one, and at the right time (like now), I can be downright friendly - even to people I disagree with.
Gambler wrote:Ok, I wiped that posting, and it was then garbage-collected by administartor (which in a way showed administrator's approval of the whole "do not post this" thing). Now, can someone please explain me how this thread is different? It links to a website that basically bashes IE7. It's okay to bash IE, but it's not okay to bash web 2.0?
It does not in *any* way bash IE7. It simply links IE7.com to Firefox, an alternative to Internet Explorer. Not one comment has bashed IE, and neither does the url, or the original poster.

Thats substantially different from your thread, which attacked general concepts, offered no alternatives, little reasoning, and proceeded to continue that same process against the individuals stating opposing opinions.
Gambler wrote:I think someone should explain a few things here. I can understand (although, not approve) if negative threads in general are prohibited on the forum.
Negative threads aren't prohibited. Threads where people attack, show disrespect for others, and generally offer no constructive input, however, are directly against the rules. Perhaps you don't understand the difference. I will agree that disrespect is relative, but when a majority of mods think a post is disrespectful, you've probably gone too far.

If it helps clarify things at all, even *I* have gone (way) too far on occasion. I've done so with Moderators, I've done so with Guru's, and I've done so publicly and privately. We're all human, and make mistakes. To my infinite pleasure, the moderators here have had the patience to explain what an idiot I was being when it happened (if I asked), and to allow me a second chance to do good. I'm honored that they continue to express to me that I do more good than harm.
Gambler wrote:But if there are selective topics which cannot be criticised, than it is a matter of censorship. In that case I will releave the conference from the burdain of my presence.
From your comment, I presume you'd think I'd want you to leave, but thats not the case at all. When you are commenting on technical matters, you are insightful, and helpful. I certainly don't want you to leave, and I suspect others feel the same.

However, as the rules of the forum clearly state, disrespecting others, and attacking them for their opinion isn't welcome.

Put another way, if you dislike something, offer constructive alternatives instead of attacking that something.

I hope you take this as it was meant - as constructive, friendly advice. I think we are 150% beyond off-topic, but since you brought the issues up, I thought you deserved a reasonable and friendly answer.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Re: MS is not amused

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

nickman013 wrote:
AKA Panama Jack wrote:
ambivalent wrote:http://www.ie7.com/

I sense a "take-down" order in the near future.
I think it would be better if it was linked to Opera instead. You know the better browser. :D
I hate Opera, I use Safari (when on mac) and Firefox(when on windows).
Firefox might be decent if it didn't suck up memory like a wino locked in a liquor store. :D
Post Reply