What is Digg?56 Comments
- PatrickFisher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+106I have to ask what the president has to do with this...
- xyzunit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34don't forget precendent**
- webtickle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Sorry for the misspelling. Next time I will double check before I submit a story.
- coolian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23>> It took me at least 10 seconds to figure out that you've misspelled "subpoenaed"
Idiot. - Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Wow, diggamer, you may want to get that checked out. Your brain, I mean. That's b-r-a-i-n, it's the thing inside your head.
- dono169, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@submitter: "could set a president for who is liable"
president is not precedent. though bush has clearly tried to set some interesting precedents, you cannot use his position and the word 'precedent' as interchangeable. - mrbiiggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://www.shoemoney.com/2006/02/01/henry-warren-quick-connect/#comment-1118
appears to be the comment in question... i think. - spaghetticode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7spellings boy.. spellings!!
- stox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Consult with a lawyer first, but I think you can demand that they come to Omaha to do a deposition. You are not required to answer to the convenience of the person entering the subpoena. You are merely required to make an adequate attempt to answer their questions. A subpoena can ask for anything, you don't necessarily have to do it. Do have your lawyer with you at the deposition, though, and have the other party pay for it. You don't surrender your rights just because you are answering a subpoena.
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Jeremy is one of the foremost authorities on monetizing websites through pay per click services and affiliate programs. What he says carries weight in the SEO world, and his site(s) are heavily trafficked (so much so that they get themselves into Technorati's Top 100). The case is moreso about principle and precedent than anything, and will be closely watched by the likes of Matt Cutts, Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, and the rest of the SEO bigwigs.
- lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For everyone complaining to the poster about "president", it's not that he didn't use the spellcheck, it's the fact that he didn't check the results of the spellcheck. He probably wrote "precident" without checking that the correction was the same word he was trying to use. The 2nd suggested word in the spell check is "president". Just needs to be more careful next time, or as he said already further up the page:
"Webtickle: Sorry for the misspelling. Next time I will double check before I submit a story." - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4anyone have a link to what started the whole thing?
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5From the very tiny amounts of information available on the blog, it looks like one commenter slandered another commenter and he is just being called to testify as a witness. I don't think this is any kind of new case nor will set any kind of precedent.
- mikelowery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The most hilarious thing is this guy has pics of him with huge 6 figure a month checks yet they are going to keep him all day for 20$ for this subpoena
- compuwarescc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yea... where was that un-blurring article we had on digg a month or so ago...
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Everything in that comment appears to be easy enough to prove in court. Either the staff page was changed or it wasn't. Either the new kid was hiding links on the page or he wasn't. Either the Bradstreet report was correct or it wasn't. Easy stuff. The rest, the comment poster appears to have covered with "appears to be" and "IMO"(in my opinion). Those will not likely be covered by slander, as they aren't stated as fact.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and for those of you who are concerned about spelling and grammar, and need a new profile pic
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/39728852/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and in reply to the original comment...
http://www.shoemoney.com/gallery/v/misc/adsensecheck.jpg.html
I need to get a blog... and become interesting. - anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From that article:
"I wrote them a check and ***paid full upfront*** 3,000.00 for the site to be done."
Um... - sdcarter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ok, please explain to me how someone becomes a "Top 100 Blogger?" There are so many people who care about what this guy says, sites he visits, and youtube clips he watches that companies pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars to advertise on his site?
I'm sorry, but unless you're doing actual journalism or posting the development of some personal project I just don't see how what he's doing is any different from me prowling around Digg and posting Myspace bulletins about funny/interesting articles I find. - expert01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"It took me at least 10 seconds to figure out that you've misspelled "subpoenaed" "
No need to bury the guy, people tend to snap after reaching their quota of people who can't spell right. - neodon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Spell check would not catch it, dumbass.
DUMBASS! - Spamiclese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You know the world is becoming a ***** up place when you can't even flame people online without fear of retribution.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, a blogger I could understand but a TOP 100 blogger??? No way
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is what happened to Yahoo discuss /messageboards
http://uk.builder.com/0,39026540,39336679,00.htm
they closed it down last year
http://news.yahoo.com/page/messageboards;_ylt=At7nvy2MzZl4ioGGkYWy7RdH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE- - richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Everything he does generates revenue. Including court appearances.
- keeblah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i can see it now, first slander then if you bash the ever living crap out of a company they can come after you and sue you completely out of existence. Yeeehaw cowboyt this here's gonna be a bumpy ride..
i think they should let these 2 internet individuals settle this like men, take it out in the parking lot and the first one to cry loses..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unless it's a subpoena for testimony before a grand jury. I had one of those in a federal wiretapping situation, and you can NOT have a lawyer present during your testimony/deposition.
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, that is getting quite annoying. :
- mochaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not lawyer but what I remember from biz law course I took in college is that the only way out of slander case is truth. Sorry to trivialize it, I don't remember the landmark cases, but nytimies was involved.
for now you can learn a little bit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
@webtickle
homonyms are not detectable by spell checkers yet, for now the dictionary is your best friend. - Shockerusa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That check for $20 was just for the time it took him to open the letter!
- lamestory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyone else find it odd that every piece of garbage webtickle submits gets to the front page - even incoherent ones like this?
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. Turns out spelling does matter.
- squegie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder how things would go if some computer (or guy with darts) was given a list of all citizens eligible for the presidency and the computer (or dart guy) picked one out randomly and that person was offered the job of President of the United States.
Granted, the person we pick might not have a firm grasp of economics, foreign policy, or how health care works, but that hasn't stopped anyone else from becoming President. - weedian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$20 Farking RIGHT!
lol - Harboggles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Precedent?
- CaptainSpeaking, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3So, what's next?
A lawsuit for your thoughts. - CanoeBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0...yeah aren't red thumbs good enough?
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yeah... how does one "set a President"? I suppose it's easier than the old election system...
- JeffLebowski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1precedent! hehehe
who's paying for the travel costs, if any? - mweflen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i hope this isn't how presidents get set in the future. the last few president settings have been bad enough...
- greekgoat91, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5isn't it precedent
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Holy Effing *****!
Can one more person make a pseudo-witty comment in regard to a misspelling?
...please - plasmoske, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1his blurred the bank check !!!!!
should black it out :o - richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+156 Diggs and no front page? Must be getting buried like a bastard
Looks like freaking Text Banner in the cloud view - khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Digg me down at will, but I wish people would learn how to spell. Precedent... not President... It's that damned simple. Quit learning by ear, please. Hooked on Phonics does not work accurately.
^^^
To annoy Canoebuilder - bigdave914, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Mo' Money, Mo' Problems.....
- pepperjam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3no kidding - this thing is going to the Supreme Court. Shoemoney versus Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1YO homey it's played out yo...
I kiiiiiiiiiiiiiidd
It's all in jest, so it's less of an annoyance
and more like a warm apple pie. = )
(unless it contains trans fats/hydrogenated oils cause that *****'s poison yo!) - icon7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@PatrickFisher
I think he meant to say precedent, and not president.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precedent -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 