71–80 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think we need TC-like original content. That wouldn't be a step in the right direction.
not original content per se, but breaking of new stories. Before other sites. There's been a small amount of those before, but could always use more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so who is the new techcrunch?
We are. Hacker News is the top spot for getting news relevant to startups.
- Doesn't have original content
- Isn't that focused on startups anymore
- Tends to focus on the nerdy extreme of the startup spectrum
- Doesn't have nearly as broad an audience
This makes me think about that TechCrunchee getting spit on the face... I'd now like to get the spitter's side of the story.
TechCrunch is awful, but there's no excuse for the spit in the face incident. I don't give a damn what lousy, fabricated article TechCrunch might have published to precipitate that. It's disgusting and totally uncalled for.
that's silly. I swallowed some water but there was a fly in the water somehow, it was wriggling, so I reflexively spat and your face just happened to be there. that's just one of many great excuses for spitting in somebody's face.
more seriously, there might or might not be any excuse for it, but if you thought it was anything but a matter of time, that's unrealistic. the appropriate response is just blogging that they're full of shit, but inappropriate responses still fit in an overall system of cause and effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TechCrunch is awful, but there's no excuse for the spit in the face incident. I don't give a damn what lousy, fabricated article TechCrunch might have published to precipitate that. It's disgusting and totally uncalled for.
TechCrunch is awful, but there's no excuse for the spit in the face incident. that's silly. I swallowed some water but there was a fly in the water somehow, it was wriggling, so I reflexively spat and your face just happened to be there. that's just one of many great excuses for spitting in somebody's face. more seriously, there might or might not be any excuse for it, but if you thought it was anything but a matter…
If people didn't like Techcrunch, they wouldn't go to the site. If Techcrunch was irrelevant, they wouldn't generate massive leads for pet projects that people create. There was an article a week or so ago about how people were complaining every time Techcrunch posted a story about some Twitter application. The author of the article wrote back in protest basically saying, "well if you don't like the articles, don't c…
these points are both true, but they don't alter the fact that Techcrunch is also full of shit.
I really want to see what Techcrunch says. While this is terribly unprofessional, Techcruch had it coming to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually do this, and editors always want to change it. I never realized it was an English thing.
I have the same problem, I just don't approve of 'style' when it comes to writing. There are lots of personal style and it does amazing, but there are company style guides and printing houses all have different ones. I have a serious problem using '...' in writing unless it's from the person's mouth. I always learnt if someone says something directly to you then use '...' and if it comes indirect you use "..." so all…
I have the same problem, I just don't approve of 'style'
No kidding, comma splicer!
There are lots of personal style
That's certainly one of them!
and it does amazing
It sure does!
but there are company style guides and printing houses all have different ones.
Just transpose the earlier comma to before the and, and you're all good!
I think I'll stop here. Can't help but feel trolled...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see why you got down voted. That was my first thought when I read it. I reread it 5 or 6 times until I decided that I must be missing something. TechCrunch = a corporation A corporation = a legal person Singular, not plural!
I can't see why you got down voted. Probably because his comment isn't interesting, isn't relevant, and doesn't contribute to discussion. There are all kinds of true but uninteresting comments one can make, but making them shouldn't be encouraged. Edit: I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but actively discouraging uninteresting comments is what keeps the signal:noise ratio high here.