This counter-jab could use some work--it has two big weak spots:
* service running smoothly -- This part of the comparison makes it seem like LiveJournal has been running smoothly, but it hasn't lately. It doesn't help that the links script itself has been giving people lag while browsing when they try to click on links, and thus decreases the smoothness of running for some people. So, maybe focus away from running smoothly, and more on the availability of capital and paid staff to solve the hard problems that come from actually having a large userbase--that's something DW can't match right now. It helps that the link script is relatively easy for a viewer to escape.
* organize "donation drives" -- The airquotes here make it seem like donation drive is the dubious terminology used by Dreamwidth, but DW used the term "fundraiser" and is talking about encouraging people to buy services (or points that can be converted to paid services), which are technically not donations. In order to bolster up this portion, you need to put the "run fundraisers" in the airquotes, maybe something more like: "run fundraisers" that are in practice nothing more than desperate donation drives for mere solvency. This has the nice double whammy of not only painting DW in an unstable light, but also implying their paid services don't have any actual value.
Amazing that DW looking to make any money to run their operation makes you think of them as "unstable" but when LJ takes steps like it has been taking as discussed in this thread to basically "force" money out of our journals you have no problem with that. That doesn't look desperate or anything. Right. OK. Also, I (anti-aol) was on a great server compared to the free users and and still I experienced anything but smooth service over the last four years, so, lots of downtime - I get emailed reports from RoyalPingdom on when anti-aol goes down and I have 5 reports from last week alone - down 5 times, about 10-15 minutes each time. In ONE day alone. And yeah, I know, pics or it didn't happen? For real. Pics, if you like, because it did happen. But thanks for sharing!
I, however, can and want to only spend so much on one type of online activity, so I really prefer link hijacking and ads for freeloading users (i.e. ways that don't reach into my pocket).
See, that's exactly why I don't care if LJ hijacks your free journals or not, as I stated myself in an earlier comment. Serves you right for not wanting to help support LJ. They have got to make money somehow. And they have every right to.
Free users overwhelmingly have this "you owe us the stars moon and sun" attitude and in all honesty, I like seeing it punished accordingly. Maybe I'm a bit of a sadist in that sense, but I supported the site all along and I'm not sorry I did. I'm only sorry to see that LJ fucked me in spite of that. Free users? Whatever.
Now, getting back to your nasty little diatribe about DW, you're playing a little fast and loose with the facts, don'tcha think? No link to this "fundraiser" you're talking about, so I'm supposed to just take your word for it that....what? I don't even know what you're talking about! And in all honestly, I don't care, since it seems almost certain to me that you have whatever facts there are all wrong.
You're taking it all out of context, dear little sunflower. DW ran low in the war chest only because they had to stop accepting PayPal payments months ago over some nanny group that went to war with them over them supposedly hosting porn on the site. I think the exact accusation was child porn. It was unfounded, if I recall correctly, but either way, PayPal didn't want to hear that. They made a bunch of demands that DW only host kiddy-safe content so DW politely (extreme paraphrase warning) told them, more or less, to blow off. In the meantime, DW had no payment processing system, so they went *several months* unable to collect payments from any users at all, except by cash or check. Are you happy now? Jesus Christ.
Here's what ladysunflow (my dear little sunflower!) wrote this time seconds before deleting it, like the little coward (he/she?) is:
Subject: Re: READ. I have read that, blinsided little marie. I'm not sure however if you've read the two first sentences I quoted in the comment above. Let me quote again: We'd already been running in the red from month to month, and the past few months have seen some additional expenses over and above the usual.
Kisses to you and your DW holy grail.
Get this through your pretty and quite useless little head, sun, 'cause I know you're still reading these comments:
The post you linked me to was written months *after* the post I linked you to. Here, since you seem to need a little help on the date-processing end:
Now here's the post I linked you to in response: http://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/16590.html written JANUARY 15 2010. Do I have to draw you a freaking diagram to prove to you how the one relates to the other, or are you going to (finally) concede the point?
Also, if you are going to keep replying to me, then deleting your replies before anyone else can see them, I'm afraid I will be forced to both reprint and screen cap them in my replies to you, so watch yourself.
And since you like to delete your comments after you write them so much I think now I'll keep doing it to you. The only difference is I'll keep republishing my comments before I delete them again because I'm not a coward like you are. Thanks for turning me onto this little game, it's actually quite fun!
Re: Deleting your comments right after you post them like the little coward you aremarahmarieApril 19 2010, 19:21:45 UTC
Here's what ladysunflow (my dear little sunflower!) wrote this time seconds before deleting it, like the little coward (he/she?) is:
Subject: Re: READ. I have read that, blinsided little marie. I'm not sure however if you've read the two first sentences I quoted in the comment above. Let me quote again: We'd already been running in the red from month to month, and the past few months have seen some additional expenses over and above the usual.
Kisses to you and your DW holy grail.
Get this through your pretty and quite useless little head, sun, 'cause I know you're still reading these comments:
The post you linked me to was written months *after* the post I linked you to. Here, since you seem to need a little help on the date-processing end:
Now here's the post I linked you to in response: http://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/16590.html written JANUARY 15 2010. Do I have to draw you a freaking diagram to prove to you how the one relates to the other, or are you going to (finally) concede the point?
Also, if you are going to keep replying to me, then deleting your replies before anyone else can see them, I'm afraid I will be forced to both reprint and screen cap them in my replies to you, so watch yourself.
And since you like to delete your comments after you write them so much I think now I'll keep doing it to you. The only difference is I'll keep republishing my comments before I delete them again because I'm not a coward like you are. Thanks for turning me onto this little game, it's actually quite fun!
I'm not the one who thought it was so serious that I deleted all her comments (assuming this was a "she/her"). She was. Damned if I know why she did that.
On running smoothly "lately"? Indeed not...anti_aolApril 19 2010, 03:49:52 UTC
Try years. It's never, ever run "smooothly" that I can recall, if by "smoothly" one means 99.8% or 99.9% or better uptime, with no sudden outages. And slow? Oh dear lord, like molasses on a winter day...and the crap they've been pulling this year alone, like when they deleted *all* of our tags on *all* of our journals at once without telling anybody and I had to take like a week to re-write every tag into every post *by hand* a few months ago (I finished re-writing tag links just before the first iteration of this link redirecting stuff started, so it was all for nothing, since I moved my content right after that, anyway)?
Some crap about how the + signs in the tag URLs weren't semantic enough, and wouldn't pass W3C spec. Jeez. But tell us first? Give us a heads-up? Nope. Too much trouble. Believe me, no matter where I had moved my blogs to, even just to my own hard drive, I would not miss this crap, no matter what. I was trying to be patient because I did like it here but enough's enough, I suppose.
* service running smoothly -- This part of the comparison makes it seem like LiveJournal has been running smoothly, but it hasn't lately. It doesn't help that the links script itself has been giving people lag while browsing when they try to click on links, and thus decreases the smoothness of running for some people. So, maybe focus away from running smoothly, and more on the availability of capital and paid staff to solve the hard problems that come from actually having a large userbase--that's something DW can't match right now. It helps that the link script is relatively easy for a viewer to escape.
* organize "donation drives" -- The airquotes here make it seem like donation drive is the dubious terminology used by Dreamwidth, but DW used the term "fundraiser" and is talking about encouraging people to buy services (or points that can be converted to paid services), which are technically not donations. In order to bolster up this portion, you need to put the "run fundraisers" in the airquotes, maybe something more like: "run fundraisers" that are in practice nothing more than desperate donation drives for mere solvency. This has the nice double whammy of not only painting DW in an unstable light, but also implying their paid services don't have any actual value.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
See, that's exactly why I don't care if LJ hijacks your free journals or not, as I stated myself in an earlier comment. Serves you right for not wanting to help support LJ. They have got to make money somehow. And they have every right to.
Free users overwhelmingly have this "you owe us the stars moon and sun" attitude and in all honesty, I like seeing it punished accordingly. Maybe I'm a bit of a sadist in that sense, but I supported the site all along and I'm not sorry I did. I'm only sorry to see that LJ fucked me in spite of that. Free users? Whatever.
Now, getting back to your nasty little diatribe about DW, you're playing a little fast and loose with the facts, don'tcha think? No link to this "fundraiser" you're talking about, so I'm supposed to just take your word for it that....what? I don't even know what you're talking about! And in all honestly, I don't care, since it seems almost certain to me that you have whatever facts there are all wrong.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I cannot stand people twisting facts out of context. There is nothing worse than that except out-and-out lying, and you are pushing it.
Reply
Subject: Re: READ.
I have read that, blinsided little marie. I'm not sure however if you've read the two first sentences I quoted in the comment above. Let me quote again: We'd already been running in the red from month to month, and the past few months have seen some additional expenses over and above the usual.
Kisses to you and your DW holy grail.
Get this through your pretty and quite useless little head, sun, 'cause I know you're still reading these comments:
The post you linked me to was written months *after* the post I linked you to. Here, since you seem to need a little help on the date-processing end:
You linked me to: http://dw-biz.dreamwidth.org/3346.html written 3-23-2010, just look at the date along the top of the page, it's not hard to find, OK?
Now here's the post I linked you to in response:
http://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/16590.html written JANUARY 15 2010. Do I have to draw you a freaking diagram to prove to you how the one relates to the other, or are you going to (finally) concede the point?
Also, if you are going to keep replying to me, then deleting your replies before anyone else can see them, I'm afraid I will be forced to both reprint and screen cap them in my replies to you, so watch yourself.
And since you like to delete your comments after you write them so much I think now I'll keep doing it to you. The only difference is I'll keep republishing my comments before I delete them again because I'm not a coward like you are. Thanks for turning me onto this little game, it's actually quite fun!
Reply
Subject: Re: READ.
I have read that, blinsided little marie. I'm not sure however if you've read the two first sentences I quoted in the comment above. Let me quote again: We'd already been running in the red from month to month, and the past few months have seen some additional expenses over and above the usual.
Kisses to you and your DW holy grail.
Get this through your pretty and quite useless little head, sun, 'cause I know you're still reading these comments:
The post you linked me to was written months *after* the post I linked you to. Here, since you seem to need a little help on the date-processing end:
You linked me to: http://dw-biz.dreamwidth.org/3346.html written 3-23-2010, just look at the date along the top of the page, it's not hard to find, OK?
Now here's the post I linked you to in response:
http://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/16590.html written JANUARY 15 2010. Do I have to draw you a freaking diagram to prove to you how the one relates to the other, or are you going to (finally) concede the point?
Also, if you are going to keep replying to me, then deleting your replies before anyone else can see them, I'm afraid I will be forced to both reprint and screen cap them in my replies to you, so watch yourself.
And since you like to delete your comments after you write them so much I think now I'll keep doing it to you. The only difference is I'll keep republishing my comments before I delete them again because I'm not a coward like you are. Thanks for turning me onto this little game, it's actually quite fun!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Some crap about how the + signs in the tag URLs weren't semantic enough, and wouldn't pass W3C spec. Jeez. But tell us first? Give us a heads-up? Nope. Too much trouble. Believe me, no matter where I had moved my blogs to, even just to my own hard drive, I would not miss this crap, no matter what. I was trying to be patient because I did like it here but enough's enough, I suppose.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment