Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <8y%mh.56468$qO4.4356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> wjbell <wjbell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > Dawn of the Microzealots
>> >
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> > | We "Real" Diggers had heard about groups offering a "service" to get
>> > | your Digg to the front page.
>> > | Why not? It makes perfect sense!
>> > |
>> > | We know Microsoft has a fucking MINT of money, and they have a Massive
>> > | 5 year investment in Vista, not mention all the DRM and proprietary
>> > | dominance that it?s success would firmly put in place.
>> > |
>> > | The biggest threat is the truth about Vista getting out.
>> > | I may not be able to find a smoking gun, or paper trail, but I know
>> > | when some if "fixing" an otherwise democratic process.
>> > `----
>> >
>> > http://www.phueque.com/wordpress/2007/01/02/dawn-of-the-microzealots/
>> >
>> > naio21. Have a look at the profile.
>> >
>> > For months the guy has been systematically modding hundreds of my comments
>> > because I occasionally criticise Microsoft. Then, all my comments were
>> > modded down by this user, regardless of the nature of the comments. He also
>> > personally attacked me, using vile language... many times in fact.
>>
>> Since when is your whining about users bothering you on another site [News]?
>>
>> I especially like this comment:
>>
>> > For months the guy has been systematically modding hundreds of my
>> > comments because I occasionally criticise Microsoft.
>>
>> Occasionally?!
>
> If you actually examine Digg, what you'll find is that some critical
> comments are voted down, and some are voted up. If you compare them,
> the thing that tends to be the determining factor is whether it is
> worthless or worthwhile criticism.
>
> For example, the blogger cited above (if I've correctly figured out his
> Digg user name), was voted down in one thread for a comment that started
> by calling someone else "a fucking liar" and "completely full of shit",
> and for another comment that talks about "The Vista sellouts in the
> RIAA/MPAA/Homeland Security/ and M$". Compare to comments that actually
> discuss the bad points of Vista DRM--many of those were voted up with
> scores in the 20's or 30's.
>
> There was also a comment from Roy in that Digg thread. It simply
> contained two quotes from off-topic articles, with links. It was voted
> down: -21.
>
> Roy could learn something if he'd study the response to his own Digg
> comments. The ones where he just posts quotes and links that are weakly
> related, if at all, to the story, maybe get one or two votes up at best,
> and often go down. The few where he actually *contributes* something
> get many votes (for example, in the story on Gentoo for PS3, Roy posted
> a link to a forum thread with pictures, and left off the usual
> anti-Microsoft non-sequiturs that are in most of his posts...that got
> voted up +9).
>
Yeah, it seems digg's working like it suppose to... Roys problem now is
that he's become accountable for his posts, vs here where there's not
much one can do but filter. And I think digg users see his bullshit a
mile away.
--
wjbell
Peter K abandon his firewall lie:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e6eaf7e09552e5e2?hl=en
Jim R failing to address the issue after being asked:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5ad37ca14a2d7224?hl=en
And of course, Roy Culley -- COLAs loyal hall monitor:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=cola+stats&hl=en&as_uauthors=roy+culley
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/578bb2221ad0453c?hl=en
|
|
