Techcrunch? Valleywag? My rationale is that they're divisive. Those that fall on the side of favouring their style of journalism will probably go to their sites daily anyways. Those of us that can't get far enough away from their content would very much appreciate not having to see their headlines clutter this site.
I'm talking about his attitude. He contributes nothing because he turns minor points ("hey, you don't have to do a startup; you could just start your own small business" -- OK, and today is Friday) into huge shitstorms by using inflamatory language.
David likes to be a contrarian. That's not altogether bad, but a contrarian who prides himself on his arrogance(1) -- that's poison.
"Arrogant is usually something you hurl at somebody as an insult," Hansson said. "But when I actually looked it up — having an aggravated sense of one's own importance or abilities' — I thought, sure."
He may be arrogant, I don't mind. His points are not minor; the choice whether to grow organically or try to make it big on steroids (funding) is a very important one.
I saw almost all of your comments recently have been dedicated to dhh. Most have been heavily downmodded. It's obvious the community here likes what dhh says, why not just ignore him if you don't like him? Hey, I do that with pbs.org, valleywag and Matt Maroon without the need for any software! The point of such software is in arguing what to put in the defaults.
Since someone wanted an easy way to edit the list of blacklisted sites, I added a little UI to it.
Check out the newer one here:
http://www.andrewfarmer.name/2008/04/hn-blacklist-now-with-u...
Techcrunch? Valleywag? My rationale is that they're divisive. Those that fall on the side of favouring their style of journalism will probably go to their sites daily anyways. Those of us that can't get far enough away from their content would very much appreciate not having to see their headlines clutter this site.
Too much actual news in Techcrunch, and it's not really a very divisive site.
Valleywag we can do without, I think.
And please, someone add 37signals to that list. Really, those guys are contributing nothing positive to the conversation.
What are you talking about? DHH and 37signals provide a lot to the conversation, including differing points of view.
If having a different opinion means "contributing nothing positive" then we've fallen a long, long way.
Edit: fixed grammar.
I'm talking about his attitude. He contributes nothing because he turns minor points ("hey, you don't have to do a startup; you could just start your own small business" -- OK, and today is Friday) into huge shitstorms by using inflamatory language.
David likes to be a contrarian. That's not altogether bad, but a contrarian who prides himself on his arrogance(1) -- that's poison.
(1) http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-03/mf_signals
"Arrogant is usually something you hurl at somebody as an insult," Hansson said. "But when I actually looked it up — having an aggravated sense of one's own importance or abilities' — I thought, sure."
Other data points:
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/eugevon/130610241/
- http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/why_is_37signals_so_1.html
- http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/04/16/dhh-translation
He may be arrogant, I don't mind. His points are not minor; the choice whether to grow organically or try to make it big on steroids (funding) is a very important one.
I saw almost all of your comments recently have been dedicated to dhh. Most have been heavily downmodded. It's obvious the community here likes what dhh says, why not just ignore him if you don't like him? Hey, I do that with pbs.org, valleywag and Matt Maroon without the need for any software! The point of such software is in arguing what to put in the defaults.
I'd suggest blacklisting my site. I don't want to have to deal with any of you guys flaming me in my comments. :D
I don't think the guys will flame you; sounds kinda girly to complain about this.
kirubakaran, why did you delete your comment? Sibling of the parent of this comment.
Ummm I just thought (for no particular reason) that my comment was kind of silly. It got a +1 and then a -1. If you liked it, thanks :-)
This is what I had said: ":-) If we act like kids, you should probably mod_redirect us to disney.com"
_sounds kinda girly to complain about this._
yes, that's a good point, because anything females do is bad.
yeah it's sexist. beats me why it actually got 2 upvotes, and didn't go negative. people here suck i guess.
i only posted it because someone posted ageism and i wanted to see what would get more downvotes (i thought sexism would, lol). major fail...
BTW I'm not sure that sarcasm is a good way to deal with sexism. Why be semi-subtle? Can't you confront it head on?
gilesbowkett.blogspot.com!