IntenseDebate - damjanov

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Where telco's could go · 0 replies · +1 points

They aren't pre-moderated. Comment engine is IntenseDebate, which runs all comments through it's filters. For some reason, it had doubts as to whether or not you are a real person.

Are you real?

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Where telco's could go · 0 replies · +1 points

Agreed - no doubt they are trying to attach as much functionality as they can into the devices, but there are some things a mobile will never be able to do. It will never be a microwave for example. Or a toaster. =P (not that I'm saying I want my toast net-enabled, thought it would be cool if my to-do list could be toasted into my bread every morning).

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Best Browser Notice Ever · 0 replies · +1 points

And hopefully HTML5 can bring an end to the overuse of Flash.

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - On Westfield's Gift Card · 0 replies · +1 points

Exactly!

A lot of people are saying "pfft, it's just a status update and disappears after an hour" and similar, but the point here is, this is a campaign that breaches the terms that were put in place. If ALL advertisers now started taking this approach on Facebook, it would start turning into exactly what MySpace was 2-3 years ago.

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - On Newspapers · 0 replies · +1 points

Very true, newspaper quality is quite detailed, and blogs are often not of the same quality, but I guess the point I was trying to get to is newspapers aren't competing just with Blogs, they're competing with most of the internet. At least, that's what I was trying to get across. Might not have come through entirely =P

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Politics · 0 replies · +1 points

Nobody missed your point dude, we all got it, the very first time you said it. It's my point you seem to have missed continually as you shift your argument from relevance to choice to my tax bracket to how much 'fun' you're having arguing all this.

At this point, I'm resorting to saying "nevermind Paulie", and lets forget about it.

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Politics · 0 replies · +1 points

Nope, was most certainly looking at your lengthy, over-capitalised, hilarious comment.

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Politics · 0 replies · +1 points

So, the short answer is "No Damian, it is impossible for me to admit that I was wrong in an argument, EVER".

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Politics · 0 replies · +1 points

As I stated above in the post, "extraodinarily difficult at the least" to be totally unaffected by government whatsoever, but if somehow you manage to be, sure, it would be irrelevant. Although I seriously challenge you to find anybody who is _totally_ unaffected by government in any way.

But, hypotheticals aside, in Paulie's case, he's quite affected. He catches public transport, pays a mortgage, pays tax, is employed in financial services, uses medicare, pays HECS, has a passport, travels overseas. There are MANY touch-points to eliminate his "irrelevant" argument (which is after all, the whole point here). Would you not agree?

16 years ago @ aslkjalkjsd - Politics · 0 replies · +1 points

Oh god.

Seriously, you've entirely shifted your argument. We weren't arguing _choice_ at any stage. We were talking about RELEVANCE (and your total misunderstanding of the word irrelevant).

YOU stated that if you agree with current party/policy/people, you should vote for them, if you don't, you should vote against them, and if "irrelevant" you shouldn't vote. The fact is, that regardless of the parties, or people, it IS relevant to you.

THAT was the point (which you conveniently decided to move away from).

I just wish for once you might be able to say "Sorry, I might have been wrong".

I agree, that you're opinion of having the choice to vote or not has valid points, but surely, you must agree that voting is absolutely relevant, whether you're interested in the parties or not.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with damjanov

People I'm following

damjanov