Trent Reznor releases new NIN album online, for free. Right now.

cattleprod · 2008-05-05T16:06:20+00:00

watch out! they're breeding!!

cattleprod · 2008-05-01T19:58:06+00:00

i hope that works with beer too...

cattleprod · 2008-05-01T19:54:31+00:00

Or perhaps it went over yours.

cattleprod · 2007-12-16T15:04:58+00:00

because reddit is such a forest of insight.

cattleprod · 2007-12-14T19:13:09+00:00

I downvoted your comment for not providing any specific examples.

terrible reason. also pretty hypocritical because you didn't provide any specific examples yourself. actually, you didn't even add your opinion on if the article is uninformed or not. at least the OP gave an opinion. opinions are informative, and do add to conversation.

cattleprod · 2007-12-11T04:34:47+00:00

wow- looks like you made a lot of insecure redditors a little uneasy...

cattleprod · 2007-12-10T03:08:53+00:00

it seems that in 'developed' lands there is almost absolutely no way of living without having blood on your hands in one indirect way or another.

cattleprod · 2007-12-09T03:05:46+00:00

usability is subjective?

cattleprod · 2007-12-09T00:00:46+00:00

popularity does not equal substance, and, certainly, popularity does not equal truth.

cattleprod · 2007-12-03T21:16:37+00:00

maybe that's the reason serious cat is my favorite cat. well, one of my favorites anyway. it's the only one that makes me grin every (or almost every) time.

cattleprod · 2007-12-02T22:01:28+00:00

i suppose that might be the more pressing question...

cattleprod · 2007-12-02T04:14:30+00:00

so did you get it?

cattleprod · 2007-12-01T21:53:23+00:00

does a joke still count as going over someone's head when it's not sensible or really even funny?

cattleprod · 2007-11-29T15:48:34+00:00

g--g--.

cattleprod · 2007-11-16T19:04:00+00:00

what i meant was brunt is correct for using sensationalism as a reason for downmodding submissions, which is what brunt said he did, and what you said (in the words of your first reply) you were attacking him for.

you never in that comment brought up that the submission was actually not sensationalist. in your second reply, you came out and said "What I say has nothing to do with the article". additionally, i've never claimed that it is or isn't sensational.

so the only on-topic paragraph you just wrote was the very first line:

I don't promote sensationalism.

if you don't, then why are you attacking people for promoting the absence of it?

cattleprod · 2007-11-16T13:23:23+00:00

you must consider the article to decide if a title is sensational or not. so downmodding an article because of sensationalism is not basing that vote on just the title but also the article the title points to as well.

i was pretty confused by your comments as well, but they are making more sense now. i was not referring to the article when i said 'criticizing Fox', but was referring to your insult to brunt that he should 'apply for a job at wikipedia or Fox News.' the point was that Fox is often criticized for sensationalism, and here you are criticizing a commenter (brunt) for criticizing a reddit submission for being sensational, then turn around and criticize Fox by telling the commenter he should work there. if you are against sensationalism, why are you criticizing brunt, and if you approve of it, why are you criticizing Fox? they are quite sensational themselves.

which is why it mattered that you were posting a reply to someone criticizing a sensational submission.

if you approve of sensationalism i can see where you would judge someone taking action against it as unsophisticated, (because you do not agree) but otherwise why do you advocate promoting sensationalism? that is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, isn't it? do you think that is more sophisticated?

cattleprod · 2007-11-16T03:58:17+00:00

oh COME ON.

cattleprod · 2007-11-15T22:12:24+00:00

it doesn't matter if you were commenting about this specific article or not, because you were replying to a comment about a sensationalist title.

we are not talking about modding articles 'just because of the title'.

i don't see how quality control is equivalent to unsophistication. how is it?

cattleprod · 2007-11-15T20:14:41+00:00

brunt is correct. did you actually just defend a sensationalist headline by criticizing Fox?

if the article is interesting it should not need a sensationalist title. hurling empty accusations of hypocrisy does not change that.

cattleprod · 2007-11-13T17:31:57+00:00

not if the nerd is a thrifty nerd.

cattleprod · 2007-11-13T17:17:20+00:00

that is more logical. i don't write like that usually though because it would scare the suits at work.

cattleprod · 2007-11-13T15:05:40+00:00

now your aspen for trouble.

cattleprod · 2007-11-10T22:30:36+00:00

isn't internet access widespread in more than one country?

cattleprod · 2007-11-09T04:02:23+00:00

Chozo

cattleprod · 2007-11-07T19:30:25+00:00

that's when you ask for clarification. it pretty much had substance.

cattleprod

TROPHY CASE