|
Free stuff! |
|
rich (22:12 3/11/2005) andypoole (22:12 3/11/2005) ad (22:30 3/11/2005) diodesign (08:58 4/11/2005) monkeyson2 (10:34 4/11/2005) :drool: (20:02 4/11/2005) pnaulls (01:13 5/11/2005) ad (15:17 5/11/2005)
|
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #93988, posted by rich at 22:12, 3/11/2005 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Pah, we add proper forum-like smileys, html and link support to the comment system... and no-one comments! ;) |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #93989, posted by andypoole at 22:12, 3/11/2005, in reply to message #93988 |
Posts: 5558
|
Aww, never mind. I'm sure someone will comment sometime soon :p |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #93990, posted by ad at 22:30, 3/11/2005, in reply to message #93989 |
Posts: 3262
|
Nice to see Drobe using us as their news source, and then failing to credit Peter's blog because they didn't realise that is where we got it from. Peter commented such on their site, but they hid his comment. |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #93991, posted by diodesign at 08:58, 4/11/2005, in reply to message #93990 |
The Opposition
Posts: 269
|
Oh no, the scary comment moderation system on Drobe strikes again ;) There was no point in linking to Peter's blog because all the useful info you needed was on the riscos.info website. The source of the news was riscos.info. Also, when you say "they hid" Peter's comment, what you actually mean is 11 readers modded the comment down, one voted neutral and one voted up. If you want to portray Drobe as some kind of Murdochesque outlet, then go ahead :) |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #93992, posted by monkeyson2 at 10:34, 4/11/2005, in reply to message #93991 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
"If you want to portray Drobe as some kind of Murdochesque outlet, then go ahead" *waits for story about Chris Williams hitting Ross Kemp* |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
:drool: |
Message #93993, posted by :drool: at 20:02, 4/11/2005, in reply to message #93992 |
Member
Posts: 1
|
:drool: |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #93994, posted by pnaulls at 01:13, 5/11/2005, in reply to message #93993 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
It may be true in this case that there was no extra information, but the specific source of the _news_ announcement was http://riscos.blog.com/, not riscos.info, which just contains the source itself and information. Refering to the proper source of news remains important - we've already seen a number of instances of confusion because drobe.co.uk failed to do precisely that; for instance in the case of the original note that it was going to be made available. I can refer to other cases where drobe was not linked to properly and other more widely read sites reported, well, rubbish. Of course, if drobe readers decide they don't want to know about the original source of the news, then it's their loss, and not much I can do. |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #93995, posted by ad at 15:17, 5/11/2005, in reply to message #93994 |
Posts: 3262
|
:drool:, or should I say Andrew Weston. Not quite sure what you were trying to do there, but if it's not working correctly, please do post in feedback forum. |
|
[ Log in to reply ] |
|
|