Entries from December 2007 ↓
December 31st, 2007 — Atlas Shrugs, Boycott Islam, CAIR, Foehammer's Anvil, Islam, Michael Savage, censorship, counterjihad, litigation jihad
This is no ordinary lawsuit.
 |
Boycott
Islam
Shut Off
Terror
Funding
|
You may recall that CAIR recently launched a boycott against companies that advertise on Michael Savage’s radio show.
CAIR’s aim was to force him off the air for having exposed jihadist activity in the US and elsewhere.
Some of us have organized a counter-boycott – against those companies that have caved to CAIR’s bullying demands by withdrawing their sponsorship from Savage’s show. Together with Foehammer’s Anvil and Atlas Shrugs, 1389 Blog has been publicizing this counter-boycott against CAIR.
Here is the list of companies and products
(updates are in progress).
Savage also filed suit against CAIR for copyright violation.
But now, Michael Savage is taking the battle further into enemy territory.
Michael Savage deserves a medal.
While big, ginormous media talking heads like Bill O’Reilly and CNN et al continue to give CAIR respect and a platform to spout their treasonous garbage in attempt to spread the death cult of Islam, Savage is fighting the enemy in our midst and revealing them to be what they truly are – he Islamic enemy within.
And I don’t care if you like Savage or not, on this we are one and must all get behind it. He is righteous in this and deserves our full support.
CAIR uses the legal system to beat truth tellers into submission. We must respond in kind. Let’s use the discovery phase to get to the bottom of CAIR’s nefarious dealings. This is an opportunity. It is time we lifted up the rock ….SAVAGE!
Michael Savage lawsuit links CAIR to 9/11 plot – (WND hat tip wolf)
Talker amends lawsuit against organizer of Muslim boycott to include RICO charges
WASHINGTON – It’s no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.
The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system."
The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.
The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.
Also see:
December 30th, 2007 — PSA, U.S. law, airlines and aviation, tech industry, tech tips, travel, video
New U.S. TSA rules take effect New Year’s Day 2008
In a nutshell: You will no longer be able to pack spare batteries in checked baggage, but, within limits, you will be allowed to pack spare batteries in carry-on baggage. Most lithium batteries for consumer electronic devices such as laptops and video cameras will meet the restrictions. But large, professional-grade batteries may exceed the limits; if you have any doubts, call the manufacturer before you pack your devices for travel.
By Gary Krakow, TheStreet.com – 12/29/2007 10:34 AM EST
If you’re one of the millions of airline travelers who carry spare lithium laptop, cell phone and camera batteries with you, listen up: The government has some new rules which go into effect on New Year’s Day.
Fortunately, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is not worried about the batteries installed in your devices, be it an iPhone or laptop. Those are safe to bring along with you on the plane in your carry-on bag.
But the TSA is worried about loose, spare batteries. These are batteries with uncovered electrical contacts, which, if touched by other metal objects could cause an explosion and fire during a flight. So, the agency wants to make sure that any spare lithium batteries you take with you on your flight meet its new standards.
Effective January 1, 2008, the following rules apply to the spare lithium batteries you carry with you in case the battery in a device runs low:
-
Spare batteries are the batteries you carry separately from the devices they power. When batteries are installed in a device, they are not considered spare batteries.
-
You may not pack a spare lithium battery in your checked baggage
-
You may bring spare lithium batteries with you in carry-on baggage – see our spare battery tips and how-to sections to find out how to pack spare batteries safely!
-
Even though we recommend carrying your devices with you in carry-on baggage as well, if you must bring one in checked baggage, you may check it with the batteries installed.
The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of “equivalent lithium content.” 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:
-
Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.
-
You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below.
-
For a lithium metal battery, whether installed in a device or carried as a spare, the limit on lithium content is 2 grams of lithium metal per battery.
-
Almost all consumer-type lithium metal batteries are below 2 grams of lithium metal. But if you are unsure, contact the manufacturer!
December 30th, 2007 — Europe, Gates of Vienna, Mark Steyn, blogging, counterjihad, enemy propaganda, flame war, leftist-jihadist convergence, littlegreenfootballs, political correctness, politics, terrorism, trolls
LittleGreenFootballs has been infiltrated
Bottehond 25 december 2007
For some weeks a controversy rages between the counter-jihadis of Little Green Footballs and a number of Islam-critical top bloggers. Your reporter went into the battle zone of this controversy to discover a sinister plot, and the explanation why this matter went completely out of control.
On first glance the issue seems to be whether or not some European parties are fascist or not, notably Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna. Both parties sent representatives to the anti-Islam conference in Brussels, where nearly all relevant players were present. This was not what LGF liked, being tipped off by Swedish anti-fascists.
But further investigation proved there is more going on. The debate went completely out of control: old alliances and long lasting friendships might very well be permanently damaged. How did this come to be?
Because of the Brussels Conference LGF boss Charles Johnson received messages from Europe about the assumed neo-Nazi secret agenda of Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna. Johnson obviously was flabbergasted. Understandable, because, as many posters said: “If it can be proven that European anti-Islam organizations are allied to fascists, many Americans will step aside from supporting the Euro anti-Islam organizations. An old problem was reborn again. Who doesn’t remember the messages collected by Blokwatch (and partly fabricated by them) about the roots of Flemish nationalism, who, as is commonly known, en masse choose to support the Nazis during WW2, in the hope of gaining independence after the war. Blokwatch also collected a lot of material about contacts between Vlaams Blok and questionable neo-Nazi organisation and persons. A similar file was collected about Sverigedemokraterna. The Swedes had some members in their ranks who maintained similar contacts with questionable clubs and persons.
In the following weeks many bloggers pointed Johnson to the fact that most of the “evidence” was razor thin, could be easily countered and was often manipulated. Then something important happened. Every reasonable man with sufficient understanding of politics will understand the vulnerable position of the international anti-Islam movement, and will know he has to work carefully and with restriction. Not so on LGF. Every critical remark about the “evidence” or suggestion of making things up were tarred as fascists or VB apologists. Even the most reasonable posters were scolded and suspected. Johnson was not capable of keeping the situation under control. Far from it: he was tempted by a herd of Lizards (which is how the posters on LGF call themselves) to estrange himself even more from such reputable bloggers as Fjordman, the folks of Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.
In the ongoing debate a Norwegian antifascist, Øyvind Strømmen, showed up. He wrote the book “Eurofascism”. Several times Charles Johnson published parts of this book, all of them accusations aimed at Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna. Of course, all of this was simply more of the same. In my opinion, it was a major error of Charles Johnson to quote from this book. Not just because the material was mainly irrelevant; to the contrary. Such accusations should always be taken seriously. But because he refused to call for a time-out or discuss matters with the (at that time) friends and allied bloggers, Johnson hanged himself with his, or better phrased, this evidence. That evidence became quickly irrelevant; matters had gone too far already. Apparently Charles Johnson had released the genie out of the bottle and had no idea how to get it back again. He had few options but to keep walking the path he made himself.
Now the smoke has cleared, mainly because Johnson’s opponents had the wisdom not to overreact we can make up the balance sheet. Those who followed the debates have seen the resentful tone that many Lizards used. LGF is known as very much pro-Israel, which really is a point to their benefit. It’s no surprise many Shoah survivors or descendants from them are amongst the Lizards, and they turned themselves away from the Euro movement. Add to this the deep suspicion many Americans hold about Europe, and European history, and we have the explanations for this debate that went completely out of control. At least, that is what a superficial observer will think.
However, to quote Daniël Belinfante: “there is more going on”. Let’s have a closer look at this gentleman Mr. Øyvind Strømmen. Who is he? A small investigation showed that Mr. Strømmen is member of this club: [listed at ECPR: European Consortium for Political Research]. When we read this list carefully, we find the name and founder of Blokwatch, the “anti-fascist” blog that began the accusations of fascism against Vlaams Belang. This is Bart Spruyt. You will find his name on this list.
But there is more: Mr. Spruyt, a friend of Øyvind Strømmen, did much to internationalize the ‘anti-fascist’ jihad by founding disreputable anarchistic-like clubs such as AFA Netherlands. These chappies are internationally organized. Scandinavia abounds with these little progressive clubs. Perhaps you recall the attempted murder on four SIOE members in Copenhagen, recently? Yes, friends of our friends Spruyt and Strømmen. Those of you who would bear the stench can open a cesspit of extreme left Inquisition. And be surprised of the way these little hysteric clubs work intimately together, internationally.
What are the conclusions of this little investigation? The obvious, of course. LGF has been infiltrated by left wing fanatics, who respect nobody and nothing to achieve their goals. Those who tar everybody fascist who resists, for example, the Islamization of Europe. We are talking here about delusional fanatics who are so utterly convinced of being right (compare them the Baader Meinhof gang) they don’t worry about one victim more or less. They actually became what they fought: merciless fascists. Their current champion: Øyvind Strømmen. The man shows off with his many ‘investigations’, but got his ‘investigation’ directly from Bart Spruyt. I do not doubt this applies to his ‘investigations’ about Sverigedemokraterna as well.
Please draw your own conclusions by reading his own forum. A very weak debater, drawing up smokescreen after smokescreen. All questions that might compromise him will remain unanswered. However, his strategy is clear enough: he wants to uncover the Islam-watchers as fascist fanatics, or at least as their helpers. Practically ALL Islam critics (Bat Ye ‘Or, Oriana, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Fjordman, you just name anyone) have been criticized by him. There can be no doubt at all: Øyvind Strømmen thinks Islamization is a hoax, and Islam critics are mentally ill or (his preference) fascists. And this is supposed to be the source of Johnson? An infamy!
Did Strømmen enter the debate alone? Of course not. I found so much hatred in the ongoing debate that my conclusion is that Charles Johnson not only has a very questionable advisor, but also that the Lizards have been infiltrated. Check it out for yourself. Observe the responses from the Lizards: foaming at the mouth as they blast their ‘fascist’ mantra to your postings. Amongst them are a lot of Europeans who will claim not to be left wing orientated. But also a bunch of Lizards who feed Charles Johnson with a deluge of evidence. Evidence collected for many years by the Strømmens and Spruyts of the world. There is a little bit of good news to report as well. Charles Johnson has put some distance between himself and Strømmen. He repeatedly said that he doesn’t agree with everything Strømmen said or stands for. Hardly possible, as Charles keeps the photo of Oriana prominently on his website. Hopefully he will realize one cannot have it both ways. I called on LGF for a debate. Face to face, for communication of such and important matter by mail will not do. The raid on LGF by Euro extremists makes it crystal clear that we cannot afford to. Only reason can heal the breach. Therefore I suggest we all take responsibility for our own action and take it from there.
The only question remaining is: will Øyvind Strømmen hang Charles Johnson’s scalp on his AFA belt, or will Charles Johnson see reason, and organize a mediation?
Also see:
Technorati : Gates of Vienna, MSM corruption, activism, blogging, corruption, counterterrorism, flame war, fraud, littlegreenfootballs, political correctness
Del.icio.us : Gates of Vienna, MSM corruption, activism, blogging, corruption, counterterrorism, flame war, fraud, littlegreenfootballs, political correctness
Ice Rocket : Gates of Vienna, MSM corruption, activism, blogging, corruption, counterterrorism, flame war, fraud, littlegreenfootballs, political correctness
Powered by Zoundry
December 27th, 2007 — Israel, Nazism, Serbia, anti-Semitism, blogging, comment policy, flame war, forums, hate, smiley, spam, trolls, wikis
To our readers, and other bloggers and admins:
As we all know, some people in the world are angry and destructive, and many of those are on the Internet. These angry people exert a negative effect on anyone who has the misfortune to encounter them, even if it is only a feeling of fatigue and disgust. Some angry and destructive persons are genuinely dangerous.
The Internet is a tool that can be used for good or ill. The team at 1389 Blog is working hard to do some good: to use the Internet to confront and curb jihadism and expansionist Islam, and to provide knowledge and tools to others who are working to accomplish the same goals. We will never allow anyone to abuse the comments on this blog for the purpose of undermining this effort.
False accusations, mudslinging, and editorial discretion
We have grown especially weary and disgusted with haters who use blogs, comments, forums, Wikis, social news sites, or email to circulate false allegations against others – whether it be public figures, other bloggers, entire groups of people, or whomever else they hate. Despite claims of “fairness” and “impartiality,” disinformation has been planted throughout Wikipedia and other social media, where it becomes fuel for flame wars, mudslinging, and propaganda.
Typically, one or more responders will put in hours or days of unpaid effort to refute those accusations, but then, the malicious accuser simply goes elsewhere and starts the same process all over again.
We have other things to do besides responding to the same falsehoods again and again. If these miscreants can’t win the argument on facts and logic, they hope to win by shouting us down and wasting our time.
Yes – these haters have the right to post what they want – on their own blogs – and to face whatever consequences accrue. When haters commit libel, their victims may sue. When haters incite violence against the persons or groups that they hate, they have passed the boundaries of protected political speech, and we will do what we can to shut them down.
No one has the right to take advantage of other people’s blogs and websites to spew false accusations, obscenities, and bile in front of the readership that reputable bloggers and admins have worked so hard to earn. No one has the right to spam the comments or forum threads on someone else’s website for the purpose of interfering with that website or harassing its owners and participants.
Excluding malicious comments is not censorship – it is vital editorial discretion. No blog or forum administrator – or for that matter, no publisher or media producer – can, or should, publicize every response that comes in. Bigoted ranting, name-calling, bullying and threats, spam, obscenity, incoherent rambles, libel and slander, and ad hominem attacks, attract a lynch-mob mentality, drive away decent readers and participants, and expose the website or organization to repercussions, legal or otherwise. And the endlessly misused argumentum ad Nazium, a/k/a reductio ad Hitlerum, is a signal to readers that the argument has worn itself out, and that intelligent life has departed from that venue.
Oh, and by the way…
If you want to argue with us, you’d better be loaded for bear. We expect to see verifiable evidence and valid logic, presented in a clear and civil manner. Just for starters:
- Calling us liars, racists, Nazis, or whatever else is evidence only of your incivility. Accusing us of being “racists” or “Holocaust deniers” or “fascists” merely because we do not accept your accusations against Jews, Israelis, Serbs, European conservatives, white Americans, or whomever it is you happen to hate, doesn’t cut it either.
- Hearsay, rumors, innuendo, or unconfirmed urban legends, or something you thought you heard from a “friend of a friend,” does not make for sufficient evidence to back up an allegation.
- Articles in Wikipedia are acceptable only for noncontroversial matters, such as technical background, computer and Internet history, and definitions of words and phrases (as shown here in the previous item). But when it comes to controversial political, religious, or historical issues, Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to vandalism, flame wars, and spin, and we generally cannot accept it as evidence. (See our Reference Material resource page, and Byzantine Sacred Art: Wikipedia, the Source of Disinformation, for more on Wikipedia spin jobs.)
- For that matter, we roundly condemn Wikipedia’s self-righteous pretense of enforcing a neutral point of view. It is senseless to make a virtue out of amorality! When we write or blog, we do our best to gather and publish the whole truth and nothing but. There is no neutral ground between right and wrong, between good and evil, between truth and error. There is no room for diluting the truth by presenting falsehood alongside it, in an effort to appear “fair and balanced.” The devil has too many spokesmen already, and too many spokeswomen too!
- Making patronizing remarks, such as claiming that you “pity” us, is nothing more than mudslinging disguised behind a false sense of moral superiority, and it will get your remarks flushed into the spam bucket without a second thought.
- If you, or any of your sources have a vested interest in the issue that could affect credibility, we expect you to disclose it.
- Just because you saw something in the mainstream media does not automatically mean it is true. Many stories, photos, and videos have appeared in the mainstream media and have later been shown to be planted by untrustworthy sources, staged, mislabeled, Photoshopped, or otherwise falsified. Check it first!
In particular, we will not post comments that contain racist or bigoted ranting, especially the anti-Semitic ranting and the Serb-bashing that seems to be plaguing the blogosphere these days. We don’t care how many times you have seen or heard the same piece of Serb-bashing or Jew-bashing or Israel-bashing in the blogosphere or even in the mainstream media. As we have just pointed out, this does NOT make it true, nor does it give you any right to repeat it here.
What’s a blogger or admin to do?
1389 Blog posts a comments policy and we enforce it consistently. Anyone with a modicum of common sense should already be aware of what is acceptable on this and most other blogs. But if you have any doubts, read it before you send us email or comment on this, or any other, post on this blog.
We encourage people to post comments or use the Contact Us form in our blog to expose injustice or other wrongdoing. We have no objection to leveling verifiable accusations against public officials or other culpable individuals, organizations, or governments. We have no objection to polemics or to strong opinions. We encourage readers to engage in vigorous debate and to point out any factual errors that we or other commenters might make. We also encourage readers to investigate and report suspicious incidents and criminal or terrorist activity, and to keep us up to date with that information. But if the accusations cannot be substantiated, the communication in question will be either refuted or deleted.
It is up to us, as bloggers and admins, to maintain civility in our part of the blogosphere. If we fail to make this effort, the better part (in both senses of the word) of our audience will leave. I suggest that it is time for each of us to set up and enforce our comment policies to stop that from happening. And when it comes to dealing with haters, I suggest that we take care neither to let malicious commenters spew their bile until everyone else gives up and lets the haters have the last word, nor to allow false accusations to stand unanswered in any of our comment or forum threads.
Also see:
Technorati : Israel, Nazism, Serbia, anti-Semitism, blogging, comment policy, forum, hate, incivility, injustice, spam, troll, wikis
December 27th, 2007 — Blogger.com, Digg, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Pownce, Slashdot, StumbleUpon, Technorati, Wordpress, blog censorship, blogging, censorware, comment policy, search engine, smiley, social bookmarking, social media, spam, trolls, video, writing
|
|
(For rolling updates,
please scroll down)
|
 |
Visit These
Web 2.0
Links!
|
These articles show you how to make Web 2.0 work for you!
- By Tamar Weinberg:
-
- By Lorelle on WordPress:
-
- About StumbleUpon:
- About Twitter:
- Other Goodies:
(Posted on 1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech and Fort Hard Knox)
Technorati : Blogger.com, Digg, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Pownce, Propeller, Reddit, Slashdot, StumbleUpon, Technorati, Twitter, Web 2.0, WordPress, blog censorship, blogging, censorware, comment policy, comment spam, hate, links to articles, search, search engine, social bookmarking, social media, social network, social news, spam, troll, video, writing
Del.icio.us : Blogger.com, Digg, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Pownce, Propeller, Reddit, Slashdot, StumbleUpon, Technorati, Twitter, Web 2.0, WordPress, blog censorship, blogging, censorware, comment policy, comment spam, hate, links to articles, search, search engine, social bookmarking, social media, social network, social news, spam, troll, video, writing
Ice Rocket : Blogger.com, Digg, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Pownce, Propeller, Reddit, Slashdot, StumbleUpon, Technorati, Twitter, Web 2.0, WordPress, blog censorship, blogging, censorware, comment policy, comment spam, hate, links to articles, search, search engine, social bookmarking, social media, social network, social news, spam, troll, video, writing
Powered by Zoundry
December 27th, 2007 — Christianity, Islam, Orthodox Christianity, Saudi Arabia, Sharia, sex offenses, women's issues
Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:39pm EST
By Andrew Hammond
RIYADH (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has pardoned the victim of a gang-rape whose sentencing to 200 lashes caused an international outcry, officials said on Monday.
Pardoning a rape victim?
Is there not something inherently wrong in the world view that gave rise to this situation?
A tremendous moral distortion is inherent in Islam.
We saw it also in the recent plight of the British woman in Sudan. Angry mobs had been demanding that she be put to death for having allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear “Mohammed” (h/t TexasFred).
The answer? Confront, challenge, and refute Islam at every turn.
Shari’a law – inherent in the Koran and in Islamic tradition – demands that those who renounce Islam are to be killed. The same penalty applies to those who preach Christianity to Muslims.
Given that reality, I must point out that we can scarcely expect people to abandon Islam unless we offer them a better alternative. Nonetheless, evil must be renounced. Early Christians faced the same penalty in the days of the Roman Empire, and we face it again today in many parts of the world. We must be prepared to explain, both to ourselves and to Muslims, why embracing Christianity is worth the risk.
(H/T: CZ the day)
For comparison:
King James Version: John 8:1-11
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: Lev. 20.10 · Deut. 22.22-24 but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Further explanation…
Bishop St. Nikolai Velimirovich shows how Church tradition sheds some more light upon the meaning of this story.
December 26th, 2007 — Jeff Dunham, humor, video
(Posted on 1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech and Fort Hard Knox)
More Jeff Dunham
Technorati : dogs, energy, environmentalists, humor, vehicles, video
Del.icio.us : dogs, energy, environmentalists, humor, vehicles, video
Ice Rocket : dogs, energy, environmentalists, humor, vehicles, video
Powered by Zoundry
December 26th, 2007 — Digg, censorship, spam, tech industry
Things keep changing at Digg…
…and generally not for the better. Digg always seems to be adding new features, tweaking existing features, and removing old features that people liked. For instance, Digg took away both the user rankings and the data field that, for a time, allowed people to figure out who had buried some of the stories… (We know…that was NOT a feature – that was a BUG!) As far as we are concerned, those examples show how Digg merely tries to cover up problems instead of addressing its users’ biggest complaints – sluggish performance, unresponsive tech support, accusations of bias and lack of transparency, and, of course, the infamous Bury Brigade.
This past fall, Digg put in some major changes to its user interface that were obviously intended to help it compete with StumbleUpon and other social news sites. Prominent Digg user Tamar Weinberg liked Digg’s new features, but as we pointed out, the changes failed to provide the hoped-for boom in viewership. There were some irritating glitches; for instance, the new “Shout All” feature bedeviled current and former users with email spam, until Digg belatedly decided to set some limits.
What is the first thing to do when one is stuck at the bottom of a hole?
Hmmm, if your company name is Digg, that’s a tough one! Digg’s owners recently hired an investment banking firm to find a buyer for Digg. We thought that, after Digg had already alienated much of its user base, it was a bit late to be putting it up for sale. But it gets worse. According to Tamar Weinberg, as soon as Digg went up for sale, its customer support all but disappeared. They keep shooting themselves in the foot, saying “Ouch!” – and pulling the trigger again…
Rumors are flying!
On Christmas Day 2007, Mashable reported a rumor that Digg may be buying Spanish-language site Meneame, and “build-your-own-Digg” service CoRank. But later the same day, Mashable denied that Digg is the buyer for CoRank and Meneame – and they are wondering who is. This should be interesting!
More about Digg:
Posted to 1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech and Fort Hard Knox.
Technorati : Bury Brigade, Digg, Web 2.0, censorship, social news, spam, tech industry, tech support
Del.icio.us : Bury Brigade, Digg, Web 2.0, censorship, social news, spam, tech industry, tech support
Ice Rocket : Bury Brigade, Digg, Web 2.0, censorship, social news, spam, tech industry, tech support
Powered by Zoundry
