"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v6hu2dsheav7ka@localhost.localdomain... > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:23:17 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: > >> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message >> news:jcan2h$1s6e$1...@digitalmars.com... >>> >>>> It's no different from sticking "Drink Mountin Dew!" up on there. >>> >>> It is very different. We're _using_ Twitter, not just advertising it. >>> >> >> Yes, you're using it, but by doing so you're also pulling in twit's >> branding, which amounts to an endorsement. > > And so does every other web site on the planet.
They really shouldn't. Anything that's potentially applicable to more or less any site/page belongs as an option in the browser (even if as a add-on). > I don't see how this is a problem. > > If you don't like it, ignore it. > > And I think you'd be better off with Netscape Navigator. I don't remember > it ever showing any twitter feeds. > Neither does the primary one I'm using, as I've already said. Also, I find it interesting that after I explicitly said I didn't need any "d00d ur browser iz teh old!" crusaders, I get three such responses in under 3 hours (although at least one of them looked like it may have been tongue-in-cheek...?). Apperently I'm not allowed to choose my own browser? Or maybe I'm just not allowed to mention which one I'm using? Fuck, how dare I have *any* problem with anything that's popular. Imagine the *nerve* of that asshole Nick who stubburnly *refuses* to be thrilled with twitter!! After all it's new and popular! Let's stone that goddamn old-fasionioned motherfucker for not being the good little corporate trend-whore he's expected to be!!