Viewing profile — deramisan

I have already conceded that the article could have cited better sources, but my point remains: you could have as well. You implied that the article author did not know as much as …

Hahahah awesome. So you basically criticized the article for doing something it didn't do (make misguided claims), then in the same breath you yourself made misguided claims. This …

Let's just keep this simple:' 1) We know Kevin Rose isn't a man of principle - he sides with corporations to save his skin, then the mob if he risks losing his followers (see: Digg…

There is nothing in the article 'claiming' that Pownce advertisements use note context - the article fully discloses (check the headline for crying out loud) that there are concern…

It bugs me that downmodded comments trash karma - political disagreements often get downmodded not because they aren't valid, but because someone disagrees fundamentally. That does…

True true

Certainly doesn't matter as much as we like to think

That's a good one - but upon testing it does produce a lot of domains quickly that are similar, using only a few of the list of keywords in some cases. Still worth my upvote tho.

No one has posted to it for a year, nor can post to it from what I can tell. Why keep it? Some people think it is unecessarily polarizing.

From the name, you can expect that Conservapedia will be biased - but implying that the cops were investigating Wikipedia is too much.

According to my PR calculator you have PR 1 :/

Good stuff since Google is updating PageRank to the public soon

Sound strange? Well it is, but it's also legit (you can check their PR).

Be sure to check out the Romlet on the sidebar of the site that is linked to - though that's just one version (the other can be seen in preview format on Romlet.com)