´óÏó´«Ã½

Seen

Comments

1. At 10:32 AM on 10 Apr 2007, wrote:

   That may be true of other blogs, but this is a Frog, and we're all so well behaved :-)

2. At 10:35 AM on 10 Apr 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   But what has Kathy Sierra been blogging about?? I hate it when a news piece mentions in passing what could be quite a salient fact (and I haven't got time to search for it !)
   

3. At 10:42 AM on 10 Apr 2007, Dick Hobbs wrote:

   Well of course it could be me, but I find the use of the word "blogosphere" unacceptable and offensive, so I could not get to the bottom of the story.

   One of the attractions of the PM blog is that virtually all of the participants write in clear, accurate English. Even the Scottish ones.

   Dick

4. At 11:56 AM on 10 Apr 2007, wrote:

   Well, Dick (3): Of all the , **** ****-, I never thought I would say this to a fellow frogger but **** ****!

   (Bet that gives the pixies a qualm or two.)

   McFifi

   ;o)

5. At 12:19 PM on 10 Apr 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

   Witchiwoman (2):

   From what I can gather, she was blogging about web-page creation and design and how that should be user-focussed.

   Yep, that's right. Web page design. Just how inflammatory can some people be?

   When I first heard about this I wasn't surprised, as anonymous comments designed to get a response ("flaming" or "trolling") are quite common. The thing is, usually they come from pseudo-macho teenage boys who get a kick from that kind of peurile behaviour. Apparently the threats and foul language in this case were coming from adults who were in some cases prominent technology bloggers and really should have know better.
   

6. At 12:51 PM on 10 Apr 2007, admin annie wrote:

   Well Fifi, I couldn't have put it better myself. Hear Hear!

7. At 01:25 PM on 10 Apr 2007, wrote:

   "You don't have to insult people to be frank."

   What do you have to do to be Eric?

8. At 01:41 PM on 10 Apr 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   SSC -
   Thanks for that! I thought it was something quite sordid/offensive but thats astounding.

9. At 02:21 PM on 10 Apr 2007, Chris C wrote:

   PM strapline suggestion:

   " ... with Eddie Mair - the thinking crumpet's man"

10. At 05:31 PM on 10 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Seen it, yep. Your point is? Be nice to you? But we are!

11. At 05:49 PM on 10 Apr 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Anyway, the frog is, it sometimes seems, over-modded. And we all have to register our email addresses, though I accept, of course, that that's no defence against trolls and other abusive behaviour.

    I hope and think that froggers aren't like that.

    Of course, the best way to treat trolls is to ignore them.

12. At 06:37 PM on 10 Apr 2007, admin annie wrote:

    I suspect Dick thought he was being funny which is fine. Perhaps if he had used an exclamation mark we would have realised.

13. At 09:42 PM on 10 Apr 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Oh, if you thought I thought Dick was flaming, I didn't, admin annie. Maybe phrased my post clumsily.

    This whole "I'm joking", "I'm being ironic" thing is the reason for winky smiley things being useful.
    

14. At 01:40 AM on 11 Apr 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Oh, have I been naughty? (not again, I hera the sigh).

    Posted ages ago. But since there's been nothing since 1837, I suspect it's a bloggage.

    Which is odd, since that was 170 years ago.

15. At 09:01 AM on 11 Apr 2007, Belinda wrote:

    Frances O (14): That happens to be my birth year as well.

16. At 11:09 AM on 11 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Flaming Dick? Sounds painful!

    I thought he was joking -- and I thought your 11 was in response to the opening topic, Frances.

17. At 12:57 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    I wonder why my attempt at posting here the other day didn't show up? Does it just need a push or was it moderated due to the reference to "Flaming Dick". If the latter then the moderators evidently have a confusing sense of what can/can't be written. Where is the line guys? The line keeps moving for goodness sake!!

18. At 01:26 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Oh, I see it was the former.