What is Digg?90 Comments
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+73Oh! For a minute I thought it was about convincing my wife why I need to sit in the LazyBoy watching TV all day.
- dfsiii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51You can hear the server quietly sobbing in the corner. Not even http://www.duggmirror.com could save it.
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Wife: Oh why don't you just STFU, CSI's on.
Ryan: *look of dejection* - pacstax54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Google Cache
http://72.14.209.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fnaeblis.cx%2Farticles%2F2004%2F12%2F12%2Frest-to-my-wife&btnG=Search - RevoltPuppy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Please teach me how to "jesus my dumb."
Seriously, my dumb needs jesusing. - exobyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23It might help if you explain to digg what REST is first.
Forgive my ignorance. - cyberwiz01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I dont GET it.
- dogred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Ah...so REST is an Internal Server Error...how does that help us? ;)
- nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Wife: How does it work?
Ryan: The web?
Wife: Yeah.
Ryan: oh, you see, it's a bunch of tubes... - slundal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I was secretly hoping for the mother of all laziness excuse as well.
- jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18explain to your ISP why they suck and should host your site for free
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I don't think she will understand "500 - Internal Server Error"
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Poetic.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Sorry for this BIG post, but here's the conversation from google cache:
----------
How I Explained REST to My Wife
Wife: Who is Roy Fielding?
Ryan: Some guy. He's smart.
Wife: Oh? What did he do?
Ryan: He helped write the first web servers and then did a ton of research explaining why the web works the way it does. His name is on the specification for the protocol that is used to get pages from servers to your browser.
Wife: How does it work?
Ryan: The web?
Wife: Yeah.
Ryan: Hmm. Well, it's all pretty amazing really. And the funny thing is that it's all very undervalued. The protocol I was talking about, HTTP, it's capable of all sorts of neat stuff that people ignore for some reason.
Wife: You mean http like the beginning of what I type into the browser?
Ryan: Yeah. That first part tells the browser what protocol to use. That stuff you type in there is one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of computing.
Wife: Why?
Ryan: Because it is capable of describing the location of something anywhere in the world from anywhere in the world. It's the foundation of the web. You can think of it like GPS coordinates for knowledge and information.
Wife: For web pages?
Ryan: For anything really. That guy, Roy Fielding, he talks a lot about what those things point to in that research I was talking about. The web is built on an architectural style called REST. REST provides a definition of a resource, which is what those things point to.
Wife: A web page is a resource?
Ryan: Kind of. A web page is a representation of a resource. Resources are just concepts. URLs--those things that you type into the browser...
Wife: I know what a URL is..
Ryan: Oh, right. Those tell the browser that there's a concept somewhere. A browser can then go ask for a specific representation of the concept. Specifically, the browser asks for the web page representation of the concept.
Wife: What other kinds of representations are there?
Ryan: Actually, representations is one of these things that doesn't get used a lot. In most cases, a resource has only a single representation. But we're hoping that representations will be used more in the future because there's a bunch of new formats popping up all over the place.
Wife: Like what?
Ryan: Hmm. Well, there's this concept that people are calling Web Services. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people but the basic concept is that machines could use the web just like people do.
Wife: Is this another robot thing?
Ryan: No, not really. I don't mean that machines will be sitting down at the desk and browsing the web. But computers can use those same protocols to send messages back and forth to each other. We've been doing that for a long time but none of the techniques we use today work well when you need to be able to talk to all of the machines in the entire world.
Wife: Why not?
Ryan: Because they weren't designed to be used like that. When Fielding and his buddies started building the web, being able to talk to any machine anywhere in the world was a primary concern. Most of the techniques we use at work to get computers to talk to each other didn't have those requirements. You just needed to talk to a small group of machines.
Wife: And now you need to talk to all the machines?
Ryan: Yes - and more. We need to be able to talk to all machines about all the stuff that's on all the other machines. So we need some way of having one machine tell another machine about a resource that might be on yet another machine.
Wife: What?
Ryan: Let's say you're talking to your sister and she wants to borrow the sweeper or something. But you don't have it - your Mom has it. So you tell your sister to get it from your Mom instead. This happens all the time in real life and it happens all the time when machines start talking too.
Wife: So how do the machines tell each other where things are?
Ryan: The URL, of course. If everything that machines need to talk about has a corresponding URL, you've created the machine equivalent of a noun. That you and I and the rest of the world have agreed on talking about nouns in a certain way is pretty important, eh?
Wife: Yeah.
Ryan: Machines don't have a universal noun - that's why they suck. Every programming language, database, or other kind of system has a different way of talking about nouns. That's why the URL is so important. It let's all of these systems tell each other about each other's nouns.
Wife: But when I'm looking at a web page, I don't think of it like that.
Ryan: Nobody does. Except Fielding and handful of other people. That's why machines still suck.
Wife: What about verbs and pronouns and adjectives?
Ryan: Funny you asked because that's another big aspect of REST. Well, verbs are anyway.
Wife: I was just joking.
Ryan: It was a funny joke but it's actually not a joke at all. Verbs are important. There's a powerful concept in programming and CS theory called polymorphism. That's a geeky way of saying that different nouns can have the same verb applied to them.
Wife: I don't get it.
Ryan: Well.. Look at the coffee table. What are the nouns? Cup, tray, newspaper, remote. Now, what are some things you can do to all of these things?
Wife: I don't get it...
Ryan: You can get them, right? You can pick them up. You can knock them over. You can burn them. You can apply those same exact verbs to any of the objects sitting there.
Wife: Okay... so?
Ryan: Well, that's important. What if instead of me being able to say to you, "get the cup," and "get the newspaper," and "get the remote"; what if instead we needed to come up with different verbs for each of the nouns? I couldn't use the word "get" universally, but instead had to think up a new word for each verb/noun combination.
Wife: Wow! That's weird.
Ryan: Yes, it is. Our brains are somehow smart enough to know that the same verbs can be applied to many different nouns. Some verbs are more specific than others and apply only to a small set of nouns. For instance, I can't drive a cup and I can't drink a car. But some verbs are almost universal like GET, PUT, and DELETE.
Wife: You can't DELETE a cup.
Ryan: Well, okay, but you can throw it away. That was another joke, right?
Wife: Yeah.
Ryan: So anyway, HTTP--this protocol Fielding and his friends created--is all about applying verbs to nouns. For instance, when you go to a web page, the browser does an HTTP GET on the URL you type in and back comes a web page.
Web pages usually have images, right? Those are separate resources. The web page just specifies the URLs to the images and the browser goes and does more HTTP GETs on them until all the resources are obtained and the web page is displayed. But the important thing here is that very different kinds of nouns can be treated the same. Whether the noun is an image, text, video, an mp3, a slideshow, whatever. I can GET all of those things the same way given a URL.
Wife: Sounds like GET is a pretty important verb.
Ryan: It is. Especially when you're using a web browser because browsers pretty much just GET stuff. They don't do a lot of other types of interaction with resources. This is a problem because it has led many people to assume that HTTP is just for GETing. But HTTP is actually a general purpose protocol for applying verbs to nouns.
Wife: Cool. But I still don't see how this changes anything. What kinds of nouns and verbs do you want?
Ryan: Well the nouns are there but not in the right format.
Think about when you're browsing around amazon.com looking for things to buy me for Christmas. Imagine each of the products as being nouns. Now, if they were available in a representation that a machine could understand, you could do a lot of neat things.
Wife: Why can't a machine understand a normal web page?
Ryan: Because web pages are designed to be understood by people. A machine doesn't care about layout and styling. Machines basically just need the data. Ideally, every URL would have a human readable and a machine readable representation. When a machine GETs the resource, it will ask for the machine readable one. When a browser GETs a resource for a human, it will ask for the human readable one.
Wife: So people would have to make machine formats for all their pages?
Ryan: If it were valuable.
Look, we've been talking about this with a lot of abstraction. How about we take a real example. You're a teacher - at school I bet you have a big computer system, or three or four computer systems more likely, that let you manage students: what classes they're in, what grades they're getting, emergency contacts, information about the books you teach out of, etc. If the systems are web-based, then there's probably a URL for each of the nouns involved here: student, teacher, class, book, room, etc. Right now, getting the URL through the browser gives you a web page. If there were a machine readable representation for each URL, then it would be trivial to latch new tools onto the system because all of that information would be consumable in a standard way. It would also make it quite a bit easier for each of the systems to talk to each other. Or, you could build a state or country-wide system that was able to talk to each of the individual school systems to collect testing scores. The possibilities are endless.
Each of the systems would get information from each other using a simple HTTP GET. If one system needs to add something to another system, it would use an HTTP POST. If a system wants to update something in another system, it uses an HTTP PUT. The only thing left to figure out is what the data should look like.
Wife: So this is what you and all the computer people are working on now? Deciding what the data should look like?
Ryan: Sadly, no. Instead, the large majority are busy writing layers of complex specifications for doing this stuff in a different way that isn't nearly as useful or eloquent. Nouns aren't universal and verbs aren't polymorphic. We're throwing out decades of real field usage and proven technique and starting over with something that looks a lot like other systems that have failed in the past. We're using HTTP but only because it helps us talk to our network and security people less. We're trading simplicity for flashy tools and wizards.
Wife: Why?
Ryan: I have no idea.
Wife: Why don't you say something?
Ryan: Maybe I will. - xero9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Ahh, the good old "Computer Since" field. I knew I should have gone to school for that instead of Computer Science :)
- JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13How I *really* Explained REST to My Wife
Wife: Who is Roy Fielding?
JavertHolmes: Some guy. He's smart.
Wife: Oh? What did he do?
JavertHolmes: He helped write the first web servers and then did a ton of research explaining why the web works the way it does. His name is on the specification for the protocol that is used to get pages from servers to your browser.
Wife: Can I borrow your credit card?
JavertHolmes: What about the web?
Wife: Yeah. I need your credit card to buy some stuff online. Tell me how that works while I'm buying some stuff. It'll be like hands-on learning!
JavertHolmes: Hmm. Well, it's all pretty amazing really. And the funny thing is that it's all very undervalued. The protocol I was talking about, HTTP--
Wife: Sorry to interrupt. Do you think we should get the Kitchenaid blender? Anyway, you were saying? You mean http like the beginning of what I type into the browser?
JavertHolmes: Yeah. That first part tells the browser what protocol to use. That stuff you type in there is one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of... Wait. Why is that blender $500?!
Wife: Why not?
JavertHolmes: What could a blender possibly do to justify it costing $500?!
Wife: Well it's not just a blender, it's a show piece.
JavertHolmes: This is the most expensive explanation of REST I've ever given. Most people just fall asleep by this point but you... you tricked me! I won't be distracted any longer. Clear out that shopping cart NOW.
Wife: No. We need a blender and this will be the blender we get. Hmm, doesn't this shopping cart also use the REST concept?
JavertHolmes: No, I won't buy that -- well, yes it does! For example, if you were to click "Submit" like this it would render a change in state from where we were previously to-- I HATE YOU. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Apparently, at no point did his wife think to ask ' What does REST stand for?'
- Portwineboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I think you meant...
"Jesus, you're dumb." - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Next his wife explains to him why his lack of stimulating conversation is leading her to sleep with his brother.
- geuisteses, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Why does this seem like another of these "lets explain a complicated subject in the form of a 2 way conversation, with lots of metaphors to everyday situations to make the reader 'get it', only if I really talked to my wife this way she would get pissed because I'm talking to her like she's a moron." Yeah... because REST is like deleting my coffee cup on the table. I'm gonna try this on my grandma and see if she gets it.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Jesus your dumb."
You, though, are a master of grammar. - ideagirl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is lame. These "My wife is pretty but kind of dumb" stories to explain concepts are old. How about just explaining it instead of putting the wife in the position of looking like a dimwit?
- the_d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10*slow clap*
- protocolor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5that was the most pretentious crap i've read in a long time. he totally portrays his wife like a curious 3 year old, and he's the keymaster of knowledge. and gozer.
- ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree - this explanation isn't so much simplified and concise as it is obtuse and condescending. Add to that the fact that it was extremely boring to read and over-analogized concepts to the point where they really no longer related to the subject at hand.
Sorry, buried. - Jubii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@pacstax54
Those of us who clicked that link now know why the server is down.... Suicide.
Soooo booorrrinnnggg... - sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Metaphors are an efficient way of explaining a concept to someone with out getting into a lot of technical detail and back history. If you can relate two concepts one is usually more inclined to understand this new concept if they properly understand the concept they allready know.
- PiratePanties, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"People need to get off the sexist *****. Yes, sexism does exist but this is not one such case."
We'll "get off of it" when it doesn't exist anymore. The fact of the matter is that there is STILL the stereotype of women being "technologically impaired" no matter how hard anyone denies it and how much women try to dispell the stereotype. Even "innocent" articles like this can still sting when your trying hard to get out from under that.
Being a woman in tech, I just get sick of seeing this *****, and I live with it every day. But in this day and age you have to take the good with the bad until things change. The good being those men who are respectful and treat us like we are an equal in the field (which there are many - I'm certainly not slamming ALL men here), and the bad being the misogynistic mouth-breathers who think we can't program our VCR. - btipling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Awwww how sweet, the knowing husband instructs his wide eyed wife. How ***** annoyingly paternalistic. ***** off with this *****.
- RevoltPuppy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Okay, okay, you know grammar.
Now learn how to use the [reply] link. - tallonx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://kodai.mine.nu/smart.html
i Uploaded it to my server if it isn't working for you guys :O
Clicky if the urge comes over you. - Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I didnt even have the attention span to read all that, and im a web developer, who is currently at work and should be working.
- honds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well... I'm a computer scientist and I must say that bored the hell out of me. If I tried to explain that to my girlfriend in that way she would be asleep halfway through... and shes an electromechanical engineer... she's used to listening to boring stuff.
[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST is a fun read. Much less boring. - mturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transfer
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Closed-minded Diggers, prepare to hit the red "thumbs down" box on your right."
I read that far and dugg it down, and then stopped reading. - drathen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where are you firefox 2
- nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3by the talk, it's probably copied from the IM (while both were on the same room)
- goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 Bury? On the contrary. You have a well informed, and well worded comment that I happen to disagree with. I respect that. +Digg.
My disagreement with you: You seem to be arguing that by increasing the availability of machine readable content the only people who would benefit are DRM apologists, and a few web-start-up mash-up companies. Is that correct?
If so than I must disagree. For instance I'm working on a Bayesian filter application that will work as a 'front end' for Digg, using the as yet unreleased Digg API. This only works because Digg releases their data in an easily machine readable format (XML). If they didn't I could not innovate in this way, and although the XML representation is useless to humans, and most web browsers the application that I'm building with that data will not be useless. Hopefully. :)
Where I disagree with the author: He implies that modern developers are reinventing the wheel and blocking innovation by not providing a machine readable version of the data. Umm... What's XML then? RSS? XHTML?
In fact, the most succesful startups of the last 5 years have all been the ones with the most 'open', machine readable data. - khrome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Everyone is getting out from under something... I agree; sexism is bad. Just like being reactionary and impressing past experience on an innocent person's actions.
there's nothing for you to get out from under, other than your own interactions with others or in defense of someone close to you. General flailing in no specific direction just makes you sound hysterical. When someone says something sexist, bite thier head off, you have every right to. But when you start thinking you have a right to jump to conclusions based on your perception of how others have been treated, that's when people will start having problems with your ideas. It sounds like you need to have it out with someone in your own office. The way to destroy a stereotype is to blow it out of the water and rub everyone's nose in it, not whining and throwing around insults you never pin down to anyone in particular.
Life's too short to get your pirate gear in a bunch. - Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Holmes
Thats the last straw! Let's start a masculanist campaign!
and you know what's crazy? Masculanism isn't even in the dictionary. Maybe that says something? - JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Luckily men are portrayed as great people in mass media.
For example, how well we can dress, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." (How well would a show called "Tech Guy for the Straight Woman" go over?)
What "great" parents we can be (The majority of family sitcoms on TV)
How we care about nothing but screwing (The majority of non-family sitcoms on TV, every deodorant ad on TV)
How we know nothing about cooking or daily chores (Every convenience food ad on TV, where the man proclaims "Wow, this was easy!" While sitting in front of the microwave) - decades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This is a very interesting article". That is a statement. A very bold statement. A very misjudged statement...
- CrackHappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*golf clap*
You managed to make up a new word, and most likely spelled it correctly if it were an actual word!
indiscrepancies... NICE - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this guy's wife is long suffering to put up with such a geeky explanation, but also cool for showing such interest.
And we all know Tim Berners Lee invented the web (he's British, of course) - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Asbestos suit on."
You're going to need it.
"Closed-minded Diggers, prepare to hit the red "thumbs down" box on your right. This comment contains non-conforming opinions, and non-conforming opinions cannot be tolerated on Digg. It is time they were stamped out entirely. I would like to see -20 if possible."
Ah, this would be the old reverse-psychology technique of prominently expecting disapproval in an attempt to shame people out of it?
"The author of the piece seems to be calling for all web pages to have a "machine readable" counterpart. This would somehow allow "web services" (which are hardly "services" IMNSHO) to take advantage of them and present the "data" more "appropriately" (AKA in corporate-approved form)."
*****, despite all your hand-wavy speech marks for emphasis. Making data available in machine readable format is opening up the web dramatically, rather than forcing it into corporate-approved form. In fact, you have this so backwards I can hardly comprehend how you came up with this. A vanilla website is NOT the epitome of freedom, it is exactly the thing you hate - data in corporate form. A corporation has complete control over the look and feel and content of its website.
"This arrogant mindset is most prominently represented among certain members of the computer science set. It presumes that true "AI" is possible, when that remains questionable at best. It is trying to push people toward obsolescence. They call their opponents "Luddites" when in fact one qualifies for their ire if one sheepishly voices a bit of skepticism of their "great" technology."
It's got nothing to do with AI, it's to do with compatibility. Where are you dragging this up from, some sort of random buzzword generator? What next, grey goo?
"The worldwide web is as dominant on the Internet as it is because it works for human beings in whatever they seek to accomplish. An example of this is Digg.com. In the long run, the goal of putting most or all of recorded public human knowledge on the WWW remains a viable possibility that would be incredibly beneficial to humanity and the planet."
Yes, and does digg.com provide an API? RSS feed? Are html links "machine readable"? Why yes, yes they are. What was your point again?
"There is no "noun" or "verb" usage as the author of this piece describes."
Yes, there are. For instance, all the examples given in the article. You're going to have to do better than that - when one side provides examples and explains themselves, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" and expect people to agree with you.
"That is the rhetoric of the condescending elite who would transform the brilliantly chaotic muddle of human culture into a dreadful, stale, machine-readable monolith."
Yes, the web has turned into a dreadfully dull and monotonous dirge since the arrival of rss, mashups, AJAX, that sort of thing. I much preferred it when the average site had entirely static content and a load of "under construction" animated gifs. Do you have a myspace page? You'd love it there, I think.
"This is the same incredible level of arrogance as in the Vietnam War when then-Defense Secretary Robert Strange McNamara tried to "quantify" the deeply complex human affair known as war into a series of "kill ratios." You cannot quantify human affairs, whether it is war, art, culture, or science. The worldwide web is built around a recognition of that simple, indelible, true idea. Web services are built upon the artificial and false notion that human thought can be treated as numbers."
No, no, no. This is what, on Earth, we call a non sequitur. Nobody is treating human thought as numbers; we are providing a particular representation of that thought in a common format. For pity's sake, do you swear at books for treating noble human thoughts as words? Do you vandalise art galleries for treating human thought as colours and textures? No? Then why throw your rattle out of the pram when a website marks it up with a few XML tags? More to the point, why is human thought acceptable when marked up with html and presented via a browser, but degraded and diminished when marked up by XML and displayed in a widget?
"Web services exploit the "human readable" content converted into data and turn it into someone else's manageable commodifiable property which will in turn fill the coffers of a few well-connected venture capitalists. The profits of the few in this case are gained through the destruction of an invaluable human resource, the WWW."
Any evidence at all for this, or are you just making it up as you go along now? Give 3 specific examples of "the few" profiting in a destructive manner via the use of web services. I'm especially curious as to how web services can be killing the web, when the web is in fact actually a web service itself.
"Web services, including RSS, have some limited uses, but they present a danger if they became dominant on the Internet, pushing aside the WWW."
See above. The WWW IS a web service - one that returns html.
"Whereas currently all content on the worldwide web is publicly accessible through industry standard markup languages, hypertext, and freely available web browsers, data available in web services can be placed in DRM'd file formats with DRM'd software readers with corporate-approved uses. As it surely will be."
You realise that web services are built on exactly the same platform as the WWW, and that web services actually use industry standard markup languages? You do realise that DRM'd file formats can be served just as easily over the WWW? And once again, you do realise that the WWW IS a web service?
"The platitude that all data locked up behind web services could also be made available on web pages is unrealistic. The pressure to "manage information" felt by governments, corporations, and other organizations through web services would overwhelm any altruistic desire an aware few may have to make the same information usefully available to the public on the worldwide web."
How do you "lock up" data in a web service? The point of a web service is that it's a method for accessing the data. Sure, access can be restricted, but then that applies to the WWW too - surely you aren't going to tell me that you've never seen a password-protected site, or that you think company intranets are available to anyone that wants to look?
"In the end, for those of us who care about information remaining free and accessible, it is critical to support the worldwide web and oppose too much use of web services. "
Repeat after me: The World Wide Web is a web service.
"Fortunately, the Mozilla Project has reinvigorated the WWW, web applications are maturing thanks to AJAX, and other positive developments continue to roll in for the WWW."
Finally, I think I thrash a kernel of something out of all this chaff. Do you know what the X in AJAX stands for? Yes, XML - a machine-readable format. Machine-readable does not aoutmatically equate to closed-format binary and DRM. It simply means data in an understood format and distinct from superfluous formatting or presentation code. A web page can be simply XML transformed by XSLT.
"Again, web services are not inherently deplorable. It would be deplorable to follow the advice of the "web services" triumphalist set, however, because it would mean the undermining and eventual destruction of the worldwide web.
I believe the worldwide web will overcome these and other challenges, and has a very bright future. It is certainly not guaranteed, however. It will take a continued committment and a public awareness of the importance of the WWW to continue to triumph over challenges such as web services."
WWW. Is. A. Web service.
I think the fundamental problem here is that, at a very basic level, you have absolutely no idea what a web service is. Which is tremendously amusing given that you've just written hundreds of words of drivel on the subject. - PiratePanties, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow - I really need to start checking back on comments - I rarely do, and then I catch crap from someone like khrome and don't have a chance to respond. So although I'm sure no one will read this because it is old news, I still really need to say something here.
@khrome:
"General flailing in no specific direction just makes you sound hysterical"
First off, I was very specific. I was talking about the article. I'm sorry you had trouble grasping that. And I'm not even going to go into the hysteria comment, that was unnecessary and I will just end up saying things that are not nice and unproductive. It was uncalled for.
"It sounds like you need to have it out with someone in your own office."
I own my own business. My version of having it out is to refuse service to some jerk client who thinks women can't perform my job as well as men.
"...not whining and throwing around insults you never pin down to anyone in particular"
I insulted no one, and took great pains to recognize that not everyone behaves like this, unlike you who refered to MY opinions as hysterical and whining. And thanks for proving a point. A woman with a strong opinion you don't like is accused of whining.
The short of the matter is I had an opinion and expressed it very specifically and fairly - I did my best to not make the mistake of lumping everyone into the sexist pig catagory because it's just not true. You are accusing me of jumping to conclusions, when it is yourself that is assuming too much, and responding to things I never even said.
I will gladly have a civil conversation with someone - I enjoy debates. But don't come at me with unwarranted accusations. Come back when you have something productive to offer and to be responded to.
Oh, and you don't get to tell me when I can and when I can't get my "pirate gear in a bunch", but thanks for playing. - jalvear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why don't you just leave your wife alone. She doesn't want to hear about REST. Why bore her and us with this?
- Hush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Women are soft and they smell good.
Don't ***** bore the ***** out of them, it doesn't benefit you in any way. They aren't impressed by it. They are sitting there wondering what the ***** bad things they did to deserve being with you.
A tip from me to the author. - Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google search it
apparently a lot of people think thats a word
now dictionary.com it
it's just not.
crazy.
BTW. go run RC3 its great. spell check is nice. - jrob00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought Al Gore invented this stuff... :)
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is