« Sharing content between blogs in ecto | Main | Dear somewhat confused people... »

Tim O'Reilly has lost his mind, and is taking others with him on the trip

Okay, look, Kathy Sierra got attacked, and (for her), it was pretty traumatic. But of course, whenever you have "teh draaaamaaah" and the blogger lynch mob out lookin' for a neck to fit a rope, (oh, and the irony of the blogger lynch mob? When one of the images that disturbed Kathy so much was...her neck in a rope? If it was any richer, it would have frosting), eventually, they're going to need to fulfill the "WE MUST DO SOMETHING" impulse. After all, why have the rope if you aren't going to use it.

So now Tim O'Reilly has the answer: The Blogger Nice People Patrol. Wait, I'm sorry, the "Blogger's Code of Conduct". I have to say that there's a word this brings up. Feces. Specifically, the kind that Madmartigan steps in during the Tir Asleen fight in Willow. It's troll feces, because it's just a bunch of shit designed to start trouble. It's a movement that is specifically designed to create a special group of self-satisfied, smug, condescending dingalings looking down their noses saying, Our sites have the 'civility enforced' badge, yours does not. Obviously, you are a lesser person than we are. Stop, yes it is. There are a limited number of reasons people form groups and movements, and the only impulse this one is satisfying is the need to be better than everyone else.

What's that? Oh yes, I said badges. There are two. One for "civility enforced", one for "anything goes". Yep. That's right. It is as stupid as it sounds. Gee, wonder which one I'd qualify for. Oh right, neither. I dislike badges and other such artificial labeling and groupthink. It's inane, it's stupid, and it's wrong.

First, from a geek POV, this will solve nothing. Not a goddamned thing. The blogs that have managed to pride themselves on civility will stay that way. Not because there's a new sheriff in town, but because they've always been that way, or 'naturally', via the desires of the authors and primary readers/commenters. The ones that are more rough and tumble will stay that way. The ones that are somewhere in between will stay that way. Why? Because Tim O'Reilly ain't changin' shit, nor is the rest of his politeness patrol.

Secondly, and I say this from the heart, Tim, stay outta my fuckin' blog. When even Le Scoble is looking askance at you, that's a sign man. Luckily, unlike Scoble, this paragraph from his post:

I do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this program. Tim O’Reilly is a guy who really can affect one’s career online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some pressure just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy.

doesn't apply to me. If someone's going to read or not read my ramblings and babblings because of what Tim Fuckin' O'Reilly thinks of this blog, or because of what anyone but that person themselves thinks of this blog, then my message to that person is, in all sincerity:
Don't read this site. Don't subscribe to this feed. This is not the place for you. If you are uncomfortable making up your own mind, or deciding what to do without another person's input, this is not going to be a terribly friendly place.
While I don't particularly care about how many people read this, I don't want people here who need to be part of a group. I dislike groups with any organization beyond where we're going to get our next beer, even the ones I belong to, which are damned few.

The world has figured out we can't legislate morality. So now we're trying to "legislate" civility. How is this any less stupid? How are a bunch of fucking badges and boilerplate going to create magic happy zones on the Intarweb? They won't. This is like some stupid Dilbertian "Commitment to Quality" movement, only without the free coffee mugs. Hell, you want to see how lame this gets, read the draft of the code. The whole thing is at odds with itself. For example, the preamble:

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.

I think they should be more honest here. They should say "...helps create a culture that those of us who want a more 'civil' internet can handle. We wish to guide personal expression in the direction we have chosen for our "civilweb" and will actively work to discourage those who don't live up to our standards of behavior."

Oh, you think they won't start up a blacklist? They already have a badge and the boilerplate on the draft site. "Anything goes" is going to quickly become the label for the Undesireables. I'd be worried if I gave a tinker's damn, and if I thought that this attempt at behavior control would work. Morons.

But then, this site is pretty much a paean to the destruction of code the first:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]

Isn't that just fucking precious? we will not post unacceptable content Well, I guess this post won't qualify for the Good Person badge. Gee, I'm so sad.

Of course, to belong to this, you have to hire a lawyer. Either that, or Tim has to admit that no, you can't define, as a layman, what is libelous. Secondly, knowingly false? You mean like every work of fiction ever written? Hmm, better revamp that one. Ad-hominem? But what if someone's being an unreasonable panic-driven dingaling. Like Tim is with this line of shite? Don't people have an obligation to say "Tim, you're being a dingaling and managing by panic."

If something infringes upon a trademark or copyright, again, how does a layperson know this? What is this, some kind of new blogging WPA for law school grads? Violates an obligation of confidentiality? What, I have to verify NDAs and shit now too? Gah, it's just stupid verbage, the kind that you get when people decide "We have to do something."

What that really means is "I'm afraid, and need a large group of people thinking just like me so I'm not alone in a big scary world anymore, and we should make sure we're superior to everyone else." Grow a friggin' spine and some fortitude, and do it yourself. What, you couldn't make your web site what you wanted it to be until Sir Tim and his klien table gave you some ethics? Are you that weak? But the best part is the "We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice." line. Holy fuck, they're going to tell you how to behave, then change the rules at will. How fucking precious is that? It's like living with permanent bipolar PMS! WHEEEEEEE!

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

But I do tell people they're being fucking stupid in person. Really. Not constantly, but yeah, I do. I'm not that different from the slice you see on this site, it's a part of me. It's not all of me, but it's a part of me. I see number two as being a lot of fun for people like me, and ultimately worth about what the other "number two" is worth, only without the fertilizer potential.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
So then why the PolitenessMan lynch mob Tim? Why not just do this anyway, the way it's already been working for years? Why do we need to codify everything?

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

I love how in one paragraph, we go from offensive to threats. But then, I suppose to Tim, there's no difference between a threat on civility and a threat against a person. Hold on boys, put that middle finger away, Sheriff Tim's here. Of course, I love the "...and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we'll cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat." Taken with Le Scoble's comment about Tim's level of influence in the "blogosphere", why I think this entire code is a threat to people who disagree with Tim. Do what Tim wants or Tim blacklists you. Oh he doesn't say it, but really, you think Tim's a-gonna deal with people not falling in line and wearing his badge? Right. Secondly, so I write something you find offensive. Don't fucking read it again. Don't tell your friends. Just ignore it. Shit, that's what we tell our kids. Why can't we live by that? See, here's the problem: This is a powerless code. It's not able to enforce shit. It's just going to create another silo on the intarweb and kill off communications with "outsiders". It's just people "doing SOMETHING". Good job Tim. Maybe I need to find a technical publisher who isn't bent on telling me what is good and bad. I'm not so comfortable with giving your company money anymore.
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.
Maybe Tim should read some of his own books on how email works these days before he types stupid shit like that. How the fuck are you going to verify an email address, and if you do, so what? How are you going to definitely tie that email address to the person making the comment? You can't, not really. Secondly, Tim? If let you them use an alias instead of their real name? That's an anonymous comment. Jesus, someone stop letting Tim watch the 700 Club, it's killing his mind.
6. We ignore the trolls.

We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.
But what if the pig is speaking the truth, just not in the genteel way you require? What if the pig is right? Do you ignore truth because it's not all sunshine and lollipops?

Seems like an odd concept for someone in Tim's position.

We also decided we needed an "anything goes" badge for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are entering a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go something like this:

This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered. Participate in this site at your own risk.

Um...Fuck You. Yes, that's right, Fuck You and your blacklisting bullshit too. Lame blacklisting bullshit. Dude, there's only two reasons to put badges like this on blogs. The first is to identify the blogs you want people to go to, the second is to identify the blogs you want people to avoid so they'll either behave "appropriately" or they'll be ignored and die.

Oh sure, you cloak it in nice language. "Free-for-all zone". Free-for-all zone my ass, Tim, stop being a chicken here, and label it honestly: Undesirable. This site is not playing by the rules of the Blogger Code of Conduct, and as such, is an undesirable site. You should avoid it at all costs, and only visit "approved" sites that are playing by our rules.

Sure, it's a bit harsh, but at least it's up front about things. Unlike Tim's "free-for-all" badge.

This is just panic. Tim and the others got a reminder that the world is not good nor bad, and in the end, doesn't give a fuck about you or your self-esteem, and they're trying to repair their shattered worldview. Unfortunately, they're trying to do it all over everyone who don't allow others to be the source of their self-esteem. Life isn't fair, and no, you aren't unique at all. In fact, on a cosmic scale, we're all pretty insignificant. If you can't accept that truth, then badge away, but don't be surprised when nothing changes.

Shit, who am I kidding, of course they'll be surprised when reality doesn't change to suit their desires. If they weren't, then we wouldn't have this badge bullshit in the first place.

Technorati Tags: Blogsphere = Stupid, Politeness Patrol, TEH STOOPUD, WTF?

Posted by John C. Welch at 07:45 | Permalink

Comments

Well-put, Mr. W. Sadly, there will be groups who subscribe wholesale to the Good Blogkeeping Badge, if only to trumpet their own righteousness. No shortage of those in a world where Sturgeon's Law prevails.

Posted by: Moeskido | April 9, 2007 9:24 AM

Sorry to repeat-comment, but it just occurred to me that this proposal by O'Reilly is almost exactly the sort of headline-grabbing "legislation" that a typically tech-ignorant U.S. Senator might come up with. A sanctimonious response to a cultural ill that won't respond to band-aid solutions.

Posted by: Moeskido | April 9, 2007 9:40 AM

Been done.

Tacitus and some other bloggers (both left and right) tried something like this a year ago. I think they gave up after six months. It was called blogintegrity.org. There's some stuff still in google's cache. Here's them defending against critiques raised at the time:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:PoI1uY5OgmYJ:onlineintegrity.org/%3Fp%3D6+tacitus+armando+civility+blogging&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=safari

Some time with the wayback machine should pay off.

Posted by: Pike | April 9, 2007 11:31 AM

Yeah, I'm remembering that now. I completely blew it off at the time. It was lame then, and it's living up to that goal now.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 9, 2007 11:41 AM

haha. This post made my day

Posted by: Master william | April 9, 2007 1:52 PM

John, change "paen" to "paean". :-)

Posted by: Suman Chakrabarti | April 9, 2007 5:36 PM

How to kill web 2.0 by the men who 'invented' web 2.0

They need to fuck off to China

Posted by: Stefan | April 9, 2007 10:15 PM

I agree.

The reason Chris Locke and I decided to (no matter how angry he was at me, and how many horns I imagined he had) get together was because neither of us wanted to see people using what happened to *me* as an opportunity to exploit.

I had no idea I'd become the overnight poster child of Blog Civility, and I've had NO part of any of the conversations about this, or any other "effort" that's been launched because of my post and the subsequent meltdown. As much as I appreciate that Tim's trying to do something, and as much as I really DO wish everyone could just... sing kumbayah and be nice...nothing can make that happen. And it wouldn't have made a difference in my case.

The only advice I've been given that seems do-able (although not by me) is to "grow a pair". I'd been taking my bi-monthly hits and trolls and regular slams by Shelley, etc. so I thought I was becoming pretty hardened. But I couldn't imagine things would turn so horrific, no matter HOW much I annoyed people.

[p.s. your taking on Shelley in Roberts's comment thread has been one of the few things in the last few days that's brought a genuine smile to my face ; )

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | April 9, 2007 10:35 PM

I think it's...well, look, I don't know you at all okay, so take this with that large grain of NaCl...but I say some pretty controversial shit here. I'm not particularly nice about it either if i don't feel the need to be. While people are willing to get into it with me, there's a sense of "No, John will rip your face off and spit in your major sinuses should you go too far". I'm not sure how accurate that is, since it's something others have told me. I'm acerbic, but i'm not casually violent. However, if it keeps the dingdongs away, coolio.

But from what i can tell, you're a happy sort. Well, normally. Not that I'm unhappy...hmm...let's say that I'll hazard that your normal outlook and manner is less acerbic and cynical than mine. There are a lot of people out there who see that and think "easy pickin's". I doubt that's changed. I don't think you need to grow a pair in the figurative sense, but I think that maybe you need to be more comfortable with the root concept that humans are, at the end of the day, not that far removed from a pack of wild baboons, and there are those who are always looking for the weaker members to bully.

I think your general mannerisms and personality made you come across as a target. I hate to use the saying "it wasn't personal", but *prior* to "the post", it probably wasn't. Someone needed a target, and after they got done with Maryam, it was your turn in the barrel. I will agree that it is difficult to deal with personal attacks and threats being "not personal", but having seen this kind of thing before, it was less "Let's get Kathy Sierra the person" and more "Let's fuck with a blogger".

It quickly GOT personal as time wore on, and the drama escalated, but, there is an excellent chance that initially you were just...um...lucky?

I never found you particularly annoying, FWIW, but then, I'm not into blogging as a thing. I don't particularly care about this blog beyond it being a medium for my ravings. I think, one time, I got a couple of bucks out of it. So really, you, (as a blog) were kind of in the sidelobe noise for me. What happened to you, as far as the threats go, was totally fucked up. I'm not going to say you reacted right or wrong. You reacted as you were capable of reacting, it's all anyone does. Would it have been the way I would have reacted? No, but I'm not you. I would have reacted *differently*, not *better*.

Then again, when I see evidence that someone is really spending that much time thinking about me, I take it as flattery. However, I've got a real warped worldview.

[p.s. your taking on Shelley in Roberts's comment thread has been one of the few things in the last few days that's brought a genuine smile to my face ; )

Glad you're enjoying it ;-) Shelley's smart, but she needs to stop believing her press, and tell her ego to go outside to play hide and go fuck itself. It must be hard to be the only right person on the planet.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 9, 2007 11:21 PM

Finally, a post of yours I can agree with. You could have stopped well before going through the points though - the rant got a little repetitious. Still wish you didn't enjoy expressing yourself with vulgarity, but that's a futile wish and neither here nor there anyways. I suppose it's rather appropriate in the context of this particular subject.

I'm sure you'll find my comments constructive and helpful as always. :)

Posted by: Step | April 10, 2007 2:58 PM

Sorry Tim, but however well-intentioned your idea, the moment you threatened Fake Steve (http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/04/oreilly-dear-fsj-youre-busted-arsehole.html) you not only lost your moral high ground, but you forever lost a customer (to whit):

"Dear FSJ,
Big fan of your blog and think your [sic] truly funny most of the time. But you're missing the point on the blogger code of conduct. Nobody is forced to abide by the code. It is a simple idea. Bloggers who follow the guidelines will get an icon identifying themselves as following certain principles. It's not at all about censorship or restricting speech. It's about preventing people we care about from being hurt. That's all. We'd love it, in fact, if you would join up.

Your blog is pretty influential and you could do the world a lot of good. This would, however, mean you'd have to take down those copyrighted photos you just put up. And not make fun of women. (No great loss, Jobso, because those items really weren't that funny anyway.) So think about. Join the movement. For now, though, we're going to have to put your blog on our "black list" and pressure Technorati, Google and others to block your site. We will also be putting pressure on Wired to cancel its sponsorship. Okay? Nothing personal. But we're serious about being fair and keeping the Internet safe. Namaste."

I love how you were able to say (I'm assuming with a straight face),

"It's not at all about censorship or restricting speech. It's about preventing people we care about from being hurt." and then not a few sentences later, you say,

"Join the movement. For now, though, we're going to have to put your blog on our 'black list' and pressure Technorati, Google and others to block your site. We will also be putting pressure on Wired to cancel its sponsorship. Okay? Nothing personal."

Funny, but that smacks mildly of censorship. "Join or Die" I beleive is the message you are trying to send?? And whether you may agree with it or not, you are fucking with a man's LIVLIHOOD. But to be fair, perhaps I'm just confused on the DEFINITION of censorship, let's check shall we?:

cen·sor·ship
Function: noun
: the institution, system, or practice of censoring

Okay, let's delve a little deeper...

cen·sor
–noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.

Hmmm... we're getting warmer but we are not quite there yet... let's switch from dictionary to thesaurus:

Main Entry: censor
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: forbid
Synonyms: abridge, ban, black out*, blacklist, bleach, bleep*, blue-pencil*, bowdlerize, clean up, conceal, control, cork*, criticize, cut, decontaminate, delete, edit, examine, excise, expurgate, exscind, inspect, launder*, narrow, oversee, purge, purify, refuse transmission, repress, restrain, restrict, review, revile, sanitize, scissor out*, squelch, sterilize, strike out, supervise communications, suppress, withhold

HEY! There's our friend BLACKLIST in there! Let's see what that means, since you brought it up!

black·list
–noun 1. a list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.: His record as an anarchist put him on the government's blacklist.
2. a list privately exchanged among employers, containing the names of persons to be barred from employment because of untrustworthiness or for holding opinions considered undesirable.
3. a list drawn up by a labor union, containing the names of employers to be boycotted for unfair labor practices.
–verb (used with object) 4. to put (a person, group, company, etc.) on a blacklist.

Hmm. Sounds quite a lot like what you SAID you WEREN'T trying to do, but IS what you ACTUALLY THREATENED to do. And if you look closely there is an operative word in item #2: "opinions." Hmm, let's have a look-see at that word, because it seems VAGUELY IMPORTANT:

o·pin·ion
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Funny, but the last time I checked my Code of Hammurabi Decoder Ring, as long as you are not violating the law, (e.g. by threatening people (oh wait, didn't you threaten to blacklist Fake Steve for not falling in line with your Neo-fascist/Rhenquist wet-dream?) or by commiting libel) your written words are protected in this country.

Such as PARODY:
(par·o·dy
n. pl. par·o·dies
A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature. The genre of literature comprising such works.)

or yes, even MOCKERY:
(mock·er·y
–noun, plural -er·ies.
1. ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2. a derisive, imitative action or speech.
3. a subject or occasion of derision.
4. an imitation, esp. of a ridiculous or unsatisfactory kind.
5. a mocking pretense; travesty: a mockery of justice.
6. something absurdly or offensively inadequate or unfitting.
7. showing your contempt by derision
8. a composition that imitates or misrepresents somebody's style, usually in a humorous way
9. humorous or satirical mimicry)

Let's face it Tim, DEEDS hurt more than WORDS, and YOUR deeds attempt to do me greater harm than any blogger's WORDS could. YOU are the greater threat, because you are doing your evil under the guise of "protecting the poor defenseless mommy-bloggers." If you can't handle public scrutiny or ridicule, then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE. Tabloid publishers make MILLIONS every year printing stories that inflame and hurt peoples feelings, and when they truly do something wrong, the afflicted lawyer-up, and take the offender to court. Your proposed shame and blackmail tactics seek to subvert/take the law into your own hands to serve your own personal agenda, and its patently WRONG.

I'm not saying you are a lying, two-faced hypocrite or anything... no, wait, *I AM* saying you are a lying, two-faced hypocrite. I seem to recall the Nazis (and the Bush Administration) were/(are) pretty big on censorship, book burning, scare-tactics, and playing upon the fears of the populace to move their agenda, and effect thier machinations. We saw how that turned out. Ironic really that a book publisher, someone allegedly interested in the free and unfettered dissemination of information, would be the one to spearhead a movement to censor people he does not agree with. We're not talking threats here, we're talking hurt feelings. Boo-freaking-hoo. Life is hard and if you can't take some hurt feelings then you need to check out. Nobody ever promised anyone that your feelings would or could not get hurt. Christ, hurt feelings are the proof-of-purchase for LIFE. Suck it up, and deal with it princess. As Denis Leary once said, "life sucks, wear a helmet."

What I want to know is this, Tim, 1)Who appointed YOU the savior of everyone's feelings on the Internet, and 2)who exactly is going to determine who can say what to WHOM? Last time I checked they hadn't actually BURNED the Bill of Rights, so TECHNICALLY it is still in force, but with people like you doing their level-best to continue its demise it may not be there much longer. In this climate of government and corporate fearmongering, we ALL need to be doing our best to PRESERVE our rights, not actively foster their usurpation. Think about it.

So, having said all that I will, as they say, "speak with my wallet", (or is that "put my money where my mouth is") and consequently, I can no longer in good faith give one more dime of my money to someone who is actively trying to FURTHER erode the already besieged and beleagured Bill of Rights. I will NEVER buy another item published by your company EVER again. Too bad really because your company's books are quite useful, but I will adapt and survive despite this. We all have to make sacrifices, no? Its bad enough the goverment is actively TAKING our rights, now you want us to passivly GIVE THEM UP, to the likes of you no less.

You are a thug, no better than those you seek to "protect" us all from. Using a position of power to enforce your narrow-minded worldview and morality upon a world that neither wants nor needs it. And I'll wager a guess that somehow down the road it will turn out that somehow you were abe to make a buck off this too. Time will tell, I suppose.

In a way, I hope you do make a buck of this homespun witch hunt. Because you lost me as a customer FOREVER. And you'll have to make up that revenue stream elsewhere. And I'll be sure to tell EVERYONE I KNOW what a liar and manipulator you really are. Hope it was worth it. The world should be outraged by your antics. I know I am.

Namaste.
++

Posted by: Outraged | April 10, 2007 4:54 PM

The other points have been well covered, so I'll just comment on the code's proposed restriction on the use of copyright items. Since the Web is World Wide, does that mean that anything that's copyrighted in even just one country with Internet access can't be posted, even if it's in the public domain everywhere else? And how are we bloggers supposed to know?

Posted by: Private Beach | April 11, 2007 5:33 AM

That's the problem with the whole thing, isn't it. There's no way to create specific items in such a code, but without them, it's so general as to be naught but an empty nod to "we have to do SOMETHING"

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 11, 2007 10:13 AM

Badges are always so effective at doing what?

Good Houskeeping Seal of Approval--useless crap...
UL- Underwriter Labratories Badge--the laptop burst into flames...crap
BBBOnLine seal--are you serious crap...?
USDA/FDA stamp--watch your pet maybe die crap
CNET editors choice = Dell / Vista crap...
Union Label--AFL/CIO/Teamsters local 666 commie overpriced/poor quality crap
Surgeon Generals Warning--crap... cough, cough crap
Microsoft Gold Certified---triple "OMG I can't stop laughing" crap...
Rosie O'Donnell "helping America's kids"--huge delusional we blew up our own buildings crap--alright I am off the topic now.

They are all soooo effective. Riiiiight.

Everytime I see some site with a lame ass web badge, animated gif, seal of approval, top site garbage designed in 1995 claiming this or that you know for damn sure it is a steaming pile of shite. I love those badges, because they remind me I don't want to be there.

Now the thought police have come up with another trick--a bloggers "I will protect you in the sandbox cry babbies" badge. Oooooo--that will work.

Boo-freaking-hoo crap.

Posted by: Jack | April 11, 2007 12:57 PM

Well, if you want to create a silly-assed blacklist, badges are remarkably good at that. But yeah, you pretty much called it.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 11, 2007 5:01 PM

Everytime I see some site with a lame ass web badge, animated gif, seal of approval, top site garbage designed in 1995 claiming this or that you know for damn sure it is a steaming pile of shite. I love those badges, because they remind me I don't want to be there.

What about HTML, CSS and Javascript validation badges?

Posted by: Arden | April 12, 2007 4:49 AM

Very good site. Thanks.
http://audrey-tautou.myance.org/audrey-poil-tautou.html audrey poil tautou

Posted by: audrey poil tautou | July 6, 2007 12:08 PM

If this message was not interested for you, sorry; please delete it. [url=][/url]

Posted by: Known | December 22, 2007 1:19 AM

Nice site. Thanks. [url=][/url]

Posted by: Known | December 22, 2007 1:20 AM