MS is not amused
Moderator: General Moderators
- ambivalent
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
- nickman013
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
-
d3ad1ysp0rk
- Forum Donator
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:31 pm
- Location: Maine, USA
- nickman013
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
Re: MS is not amused
I think it would be better if it was linked to Opera instead. You know the better browser.
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.
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.
- nickman013
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Re: MS is not amused
I hate Opera, I use Safari (when on mac) and Firefox(when on windows).AKA Panama Jack wrote:I think it would be better if it was linked to Opera instead. You know the better browser.
-
crackedPavement
- Forum Newbie
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:18 pm
- Location: portland, or
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)
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.
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).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.)
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.
My posting is glorious? How flattering.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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
Re: MS is not amused
Firefox might be decent if it didn't suck up memory like a wino locked in a liquor store.nickman013 wrote:I hate Opera, I use Safari (when on mac) and Firefox(when on windows).AKA Panama Jack wrote:I think it would be better if it was linked to Opera instead. You know the better browser.