dfeed

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v6hu2dsheav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:23:17 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message
>> news:jcan2h$1s6e$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>>> It's no different from sticking "Drink Mountin Dew!" up on there.
>>>
>>> It is very different. We're _using_ Twitter, not just advertising it.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you're using it, but by doing so you're also pulling in twit's
>> branding, which amounts to an endorsement.
>
> And so does every other web site on the planet.

They really shouldn't. Anything that's potentially applicable to more or 
less any site/page belongs as an option in the browser (even if as a 
add-on).

>  I don't see how this is a  problem.
>
> If you don't like it, ignore it.
>
> And I think you'd be better off with Netscape Navigator.  I don't remember 
> it ever showing any twitter feeds.
>

Neither does the primary one I'm using, as I've already said.

Also, I find it interesting that after I explicitly said I didn't need any 
"d00d ur browser iz teh old!" crusaders, I get three such responses in under 
3 hours (although at least one of them looked like it may have been 
tongue-in-cheek...?). Apperently I'm not allowed to choose my own browser? 
Or maybe I'm just not allowed to mention which one I'm using?

Fuck, how dare I have *any* problem with anything that's popular. Imagine 
the *nerve* of that asshole Nick who stubburnly *refuses* to be thrilled 
with twitter!! After all it's new and popular! Let's stone that goddamn 
old-fasionioned motherfucker for not being the good little corporate 
trend-whore he's expected to be!!