Univoters are being tracked
-
:( sorry, forgot the Joke icon, it was meant to be a joke :( I know this is a private site and Chris is free to do what ever he sees fit to run the site ;)
Yusuf
Yusuf wrote:
sorry, forgot the Joke icon, it was meant to be a joke
I thought that might be the case. But by setting up my post, we've dealt with the issue before the kidlets all start screaming for real. So really you were performing a public service.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Yusuf wrote:
beware Big Brother is watching.....
It's Chris's website. We are guests - non-paying ones at that. He can run it any which way he wants and if we don't like it, we can vote with our feet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It's Chris's website. We are guests - non-paying ones at that. He can run it any which way he wants
Yep, and anyone who doesn't agree with the way he runs the site, can just move along.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=1645&msg=2657975 From my point of view the really good news is that the system is implemented for articles as well as forums. I've always figured that having a couple of univoters follow you around in here just proved you had an opinion. But it's a different story for articles. (The two articles of Ilion's I've read, I have rated as 5.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The two articles of Ilion's I've read, I have rated as 5
I haven't yet read them; I'll do so when sober, but even the freaking automatic univoting of anyone's posts, despite being interesting even to a minority, I find despicable. I deliberately ignore the scripted censorship 'solution', because sometimes I either agree with the doos, or at least find an interesting read in what he links to; not often, though, in what he says himself. Jon Qwelane, fellow Christian and Homo[phobe], would send the 'Ill' packing, despite their common ground, because JQ is in touch with all of us. Jon has repeatedly demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief. Ill'ness can never, due to his culturally imposed handicap on reasoning, understand even the most basic first principle of freedom.
-
Yusuf wrote:
sorry, forgot the Joke icon, it was meant to be a joke
I thought that might be the case. But by setting up my post, we've dealt with the issue before the kidlets all start screaming for real. So really you were performing a public service.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But by setting up my post, we've dealt with the issue before the kidlets all start screaming for real.
So *YOU* are allowed to refer to generic "kidlets," but *I* am not allowed to refer to generic "kiddies." :laugh: You're always such a hypocritical ass, aren't you?
-
Oakman wrote:
The two articles of Ilion's I've read, I have rated as 5
I haven't yet read them; I'll do so when sober, but even the freaking automatic univoting of anyone's posts, despite being interesting even to a minority, I find despicable. I deliberately ignore the scripted censorship 'solution', because sometimes I either agree with the doos, or at least find an interesting read in what he links to; not often, though, in what he says himself. Jon Qwelane, fellow Christian and Homo[phobe], would send the 'Ill' packing, despite their common ground, because JQ is in touch with all of us. Jon has repeatedly demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief. Ill'ness can never, due to his culturally imposed handicap on reasoning, understand even the most basic first principle of freedom.
Brady Kelly wrote:
I haven't yet read them; I'll do so when sober, but even the freaking automatic univoting of anyone's posts, despite being interesting even to a minority, I find despicable.
Yes it is.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Jon Qwelane, fellow Christian and Homo[phobe], would send the 'Ill' packing, despite their common ground, because JQ is in touch with all of us. Jon has repeatedly demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief. Ill'ness can never, due to his culturally imposed handicap on reasoning, understand even the most basic first principle of freedom.
And you're an ignorant ass: 1) I'm not a "Homo[phobe]" (which is really a meaningless term, its intended function is to deny others the right to their opinions) 2) Oakman has never "demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief." That he's able to limit his behavior to the SandBox is commendable, as far as it goes; better would be that he stop being a hypocrite (and a "troll") in the SandBox. 3) You *clearly* don't understand reasoning ... nor probably culture, nor "cultural handicaps."
modified on Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:38 AM
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
I haven't yet read them; I'll do so when sober, but even the freaking automatic univoting of anyone's posts, despite being interesting even to a minority, I find despicable.
Yes it is.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Jon Qwelane, fellow Christian and Homo[phobe], would send the 'Ill' packing, despite their common ground, because JQ is in touch with all of us. Jon has repeatedly demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief. Ill'ness can never, due to his culturally imposed handicap on reasoning, understand even the most basic first principle of freedom.
And you're an ignorant ass: 1) I'm not a "Homo[phobe]" (which is really a meaningless term, its intended function is to deny others the right to their opinions) 2) Oakman has never "demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief." That he's able to limit his behavior to the SandBox is commendable, as far as it goes; better would be that he stop being a hypocrite (and a "troll") in the SandBox. 3) You *clearly* don't understand reasoning ... nor probably culture, nor "cultural handicaps."
modified on Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:38 AM
Ilíon wrote:
- I'm not a "Homo[phobe]" (which is really a meaningless term, its intended function is to deny others the right to their opinions)
No, its intended function is to label people's opinions: Homophobe - having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture
-
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=1645&msg=2657975 From my point of view the really good news is that the system is implemented for articles as well as forums. I've always figured that having a couple of univoters follow you around in here just proved you had an opinion. But it's a different story for articles. (The two articles of Ilion's I've read, I have rated as 5.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
ironically most of the univoters re those who usually get pissed when noone give a damn to them. Then they come out and try lame attempts to prove themselves intellectuals. Anyway, I love them.*Muwah*
-
Yusuf wrote:
beware Big Brother is watching.....
It's Chris's website. We are guests - non-paying ones at that. He can run it any which way he wants and if we don't like it, we can vote with our feet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
We are guests
Like you guys are guests in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? :rolleyes:
-
Oakman wrote:
We are guests
Like you guys are guests in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? :rolleyes:
-
Oakman wrote:
We are guests
Like you guys are guests in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? :rolleyes:
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
I haven't yet read them; I'll do so when sober, but even the freaking automatic univoting of anyone's posts, despite being interesting even to a minority, I find despicable.
Yes it is.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Jon Qwelane, fellow Christian and Homo[phobe], would send the 'Ill' packing, despite their common ground, because JQ is in touch with all of us. Jon has repeatedly demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief. Ill'ness can never, due to his culturally imposed handicap on reasoning, understand even the most basic first principle of freedom.
And you're an ignorant ass: 1) I'm not a "Homo[phobe]" (which is really a meaningless term, its intended function is to deny others the right to their opinions) 2) Oakman has never "demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief." That he's able to limit his behavior to the SandBox is commendable, as far as it goes; better would be that he stop being a hypocrite (and a "troll") in the SandBox. 3) You *clearly* don't understand reasoning ... nor probably culture, nor "cultural handicaps."
modified on Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:38 AM
Ilíon wrote:
- Oakman has never "demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief." That he's able to limit his behavior to the SandBox is commendable, as far as it goes; better would be that he stop being a hypocrite (and a "troll") in the SandBox.
I was refering to Jon Qwelane. :doh:
-
Oakman wrote:
But by setting up my post, we've dealt with the issue before the kidlets all start screaming for real.
So *YOU* are allowed to refer to generic "kidlets," but *I* am not allowed to refer to generic "kiddies." :laugh: You're always such a hypocritical ass, aren't you?
-
Oakman wrote:
We are guests
Like you guys are guests in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? :rolleyes:
-
Ilíon wrote:
- I'm not a "Homo[phobe]" (which is really a meaningless term, its intended function is to deny others the right to their opinions)
No, its intended function is to label people's opinions: Homophobe - having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Homophobe - having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture
Doesn't that dictionary have a picture of Troy Hailey as part of the definition?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Like you guys are guests in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan
And Pakistan we just bought and paid for.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
and we are eagerly waiting for your arrival. How else one could make America suffer more and mroe and more. Your future generations would be begging here and there paying the Price of what their ancestors(Bush et all) have done.
-
what's your point? wait wait.. are you saying it's because of Islam or it's just you live somwhere where there is no shit around? let me know before you throw your crap up.
-
Ilíon wrote:
- Oakman has never "demonstrated a genuine belief in freedom of belief, as well as the freedom to speak for and against his, or anyone else's belief." That he's able to limit his behavior to the SandBox is commendable, as far as it goes; better would be that he stop being a hypocrite (and a "troll") in the SandBox.
I was refering to Jon Qwelane. :doh: