Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Chuckit · Jan 28, 2006, 01:37 AM

Er…this from the guy who wanted to boycott Adobe because they wouldn't give his church free software? Isn't that a bit of a double standard?

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 28, 2006, 02:43 AM

Why are the religious nuts also always the most Pro-USA?

I mean they guy at MacUpdate pretty much wants to live in denial and not think about all the lucky people to going god while fighting a war.

Kr0nos · Jan 28, 2006, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Why are the religious nuts also always the most Pro-USA?

Because religious fundamentalism and nationalism go hand in hand. Always have, always will.

/OT

That guy from MacUpdate is obviously an idiot, but there is little he can do to prevent software from being downloaded somewhere else. I would also have to say that MU is currently the best software related site for the mac, and until someone comes out with a better one, I'll stick with them.

Should there be a similar or better offer in the future though, I'm switching in a heartbeat.

Maflynn · Jan 28, 2006, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by SeSawaya

Offensive? So truth is Offensive? Get your head out of the sand (or wherever it is)

No that'st not my point. We as Americans should now the true cost of this war, but there's a large difference in reading the aweful news and watching in a ghoulish manner the numbers tick up.

Mike

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Why are the religious nuts also always the most Pro-USA?

Probably why the anti-religious nuts like yourself are always so anti-USA.

Think about it for a minute before you respond and put your proverbial foot in your mouth like you are so famous for.

If this was another site, like say versiontracker. And they refused to post a religious based widget, and a Christian complained, all of you that are bitching now, would be supporting him.

This thread is as transparent as the morning dew.

And I got a good chuckle out of it.

Thanks.

Spliffdaddy · Jan 28, 2006, 01:39 PM

*smackdown*

chris v · Jan 28, 2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Probably why the anti-religious nuts like yourself are always so anti-USA.

All generalizations are always incorrect.

Yes, including that one.

Kr0nos · Jan 28, 2006, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Why are the religious nuts also always the most Pro-USA?

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by chris v

All generalizations are always incorrect.

Yes, including that one.

I was making a point about generalizations. I am glad you got it.

I didn't really consider my post so much of a smack-down.

Now, Kron's post of Osama, that was a smack down.

chris v · Jan 28, 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was making a point about generalizations. I am glad you got it.

I didn't really consider my post so much of a smack-down.

Now, Kron's post of Osama, that was a smack down.

Heh. Indeed. Nuts are nuts, whatever the religion.

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by chris v

Heh. Indeed. Nuts are nuts, whatever the religion.

The religious doesn't have a monopoly on nutters.

SWG is a good example of that.

chris v · Jan 28, 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

The religious doesn't have a monopoly on nutters.

I know good, honest Christians, Musilims, Buhddists, and athiests. I have also met nutcases in all the same categories. Humanity is such a stew of conflictiing ideologies and varying states of mental competence that it utterly defies categorization.

I sure do wish we'd stop wishing each other ill over the differences.

subego · Jan 28, 2006, 02:26 PM

If you support the war, have the common decency to acknowledge the consequences. It really is the absolute least you can do.

Of course, if you actually are too much of a pussy to handle a little "propaganda" but don't mind sending kids into the .50-calibre meat grinder, then by all means, continue on with your bad self.

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by subego

If you support the war, have the common decency to acknowledge the consequences. It really is the absolute least you can do.

There is acknowledging the consequences, And then there is using the deaths of soldiers to further ones political zealous desires. Said widgets fall under the second one. Not the first.

Of course, if you actually are too much of a pussy to handle a little "propaganda" but don't mind sending kids into the .50-calibre meat grinder, then by all means, continue on with your bad self.

Did you just call him a "pussy' for not posting them on his site?

Tell me you didn't.

CharlesS · Jan 28, 2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by subego

If you support the war, have the common decency to acknowledge the consequences. It really is the absolute least you can do.

Has anyone in this thread even mentioned that they are supporting the war? I thought this was just a discussion about whether MacUpdate is obligated to post a "daily death counter on your dashboard" widget or not. I don't support the war, but I still think that widget is in bad taste. Am I allowed to have that opinion without supporting the war?

jesusbristow · Jan 28, 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I thought this was just a discussion about whether MacUpdate is obligated to post a "daily death counter on your dashboard" widget or not.

That's not the topic, but close.

The topic is if MacUpdate should make it clear to readers-- and developers-- that it regularly censors submissions with a political bias.

subego · Jan 28, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

There is acknowledging the consequences, And then there is using the deaths of soldiers to further ones political zealous desires. Said widgets fall under the second one. Not the first.

Gee. That sounds mightily subjective.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Did you just call him a "pussy' for not posting them on his site?

Tell me you didn't.

I prefer to let people determine if they are pussies for themselves.

Not that they ever do.

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by jesusbristow

That's not the topic, but close.

The topic is if MacUpdate should make it clear to readers-- and developers-- that it regularly censors submissions with a political bias.

AGAIN, who said it was about POLITICAL.

Charles just deems it distasteful. As do I.

baw · Jan 28, 2006, 03:14 PM

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Gee. That sounds mightily subjective.

Not subjective at all. These widgets have a political agenda.

I prefer to let people determine if they are pussies for themselves.

Not that they ever do.

This has nothing about "being pussies" Unless you are still in Jr High.

And if that is the case, I apologize.

Not for what I said, but for you still being in Jr High.

baw · Jan 28, 2006, 03:15 PM

Oh, and MacUpdate has no obligation to put this widget on its website. Case closed.

subego · Jan 28, 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

These widgets have a political agenda.

Brilliant, 'effing brilliant.

Can I make this my sig?

ThinkInsane · Jan 28, 2006, 04:01 PM

So, is macupdate required to list every stupid widget that gets submitted, or only the stupid widgets that support our own personal political agenda?

Personally, I would be a lot happier if companies/businesses would keep their views on politics, religion, and sexuality to themselves. One sure way to lose my business is to preach. Keep it neutral, and I'm a happy customer.

porieux · 07:06 PM

Who the hell uses M*******e anyway? It's just a lame VersionTracker rippoff...

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 04:12 PM

Most mac users I know use it.

Versiontracker was good till they got really greedy.

The reason MU exists is BECAUSE of people were looking for an alternative.

I know I was .

porieux · Jan 28, 2006, 04:16 PM

VersionTracker works fine and I pay them nothing.

Maybe most Mac users you know are dumb.

Kevin · Jan 28, 2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by porieux

VersionTracker works fine and I pay them nothing.

Maybe most Mac users you know are dumb.

Ah more Jr High antics.

The fact is, MU wouldn't exist if there wasn't dis-satisfied VT users.

I quit using VT when they started making you click through too many pages just to download something. And kept redirecting "direct links" to get more page hits.

RAILhead · Jan 28, 2006, 09:22 PM

You people sure are sensitive, ya know?

FireWire · Jan 29, 2006, 07:42 AM

Wow! Things quickly escalate here!

I'd like to add my point of view, as an outsider. I don't even know where to start... First of all, I think these widgets should have been allowed to stay. Not because they could be useful or because they don't meet the Lame® criteria, but because they show information, data. They don't interpret the data, they don't take any side, don't call arguments "For" or "Against", "Good" or "Bad" : they simply present factual information.

It could be the government displaying the deaths caused by the second-hand smoke, the MADD the number of pedestrian killed by drunk drivers or Greenpeace showing the progression of the rain forest destruction; it doesn't matter what interpretation the viewer make of these numbers: as far as everyone is concerned, they simply show data that is available elsewhere publicly.

As for the people that are saying "MacUpdate (or sometimes MacNN) doesn't have to publish everthing, free speech doesn't apply here, it's private, they do what they want, etc", I'd like to ask : exactly where is the boundary between a situation unacceptable in a "real" place and an acceptable one on a website or forum. Why is it wrong for a pub owner to ban Indian people (for example) but it's okay for a webmaster to refuse to host certain content otherwise socially acceptable? In both cases, he (the owner) doesn't like the other party but in one case he cannot say "I don't want you here", but in the second case he can get away with "It's my site, I do what I want"..

m a d r a · Jan 29, 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

It's good that they are not adding junk widgets to their database. The service loses usefulness when it is overwhelmed with junk software.

yeah! - i cannae remember ever seeing a completely pointless widget or script kiddie's ego boosting but utterly worthless app listed on MU!

Kevin · Jan 29, 2006, 12:23 PM

Again, it was simply bad taste.

Not many apps there listed that are bad taste now is there?

(badly written apps, and GUIs don't count)

Heck, they even let you download DopeWars!

I am sure that goes against their religious and political beliefs too.

But it's still there.'

And what about this game?

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/16319

BushPanic 1.0.1

The year is 2004. John Kerry, tied in a dead heat with the sitting president, decides to attempt the impossible: get rid of the problem by throwing money at it. With the Heinz family fortune at his disposal, Kerry must fight back wave after wave of descending Bushites by throwing money (and occasionally other stuff) at them to make them go away.

Besides money, Kerry has a few additional items he can throw, each of which affects only a certain type of Bushites. Experiment with the brain, heart, and bottle of rum to most effectively take out the bad more...

I would say if it was political, they wouldn't have posted this one either.

End of thread.

m a d r a · Jan 29, 2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

...End of thread...

not anymore

Kevin · Jan 29, 2006, 12:50 PM

Oh sure it can go on.

But those saying it's because of POLITICAL reasons or MORAL reasons don't have much ground to stand on at the moment.

CharlesS · Jan 29, 2006, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by FireWire

As for the people that are saying "MacUpdate (or sometimes MacNN) doesn't have to publish everthing, free speech doesn't apply here, it's private, they do what they want, etc", I'd like to ask : exactly where is the boundary between a situation unacceptable in a "real" place and an acceptable one on a website or forum. Why is it wrong for a pub owner to ban Indian people (for example) but it's okay for a webmaster to refuse to host certain content otherwise socially acceptable?

Uh, because not letting someone in because they are Indian would be racist and illegal, and not posting content you don't want on your web site isn't?

Chuckit · Jan 29, 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Uh, because not letting someone in because they are Indian would be racist and illegal, and not posting content you don't want on your web site isn't?

But that just begs the question. Is it wrong because it's illegal, or is it illegal because it's wrong?

Kevin · Jan 29, 2006, 05:31 PM

Macliberals just needs to do it's homework a bit before sticking their foot in their mouth.

It's not political or moral. As I pointed out things the owners would be against that WERE posted there.

It was simply a judgement on taste.

It's not MU's fault said widget authors have bad taste.

moonmonkey · Jan 29, 2006, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

Simply because I have the right of free speech does not mean that I can go to a concert and be angry at the lead vocalist for not willingly handing me his mic in the middle of their set.

You can do this.

CharlesS · Jan 29, 2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

But that just begs the question. Is it wrong because it's illegal, or is it illegal because it's wrong?

I said that it is racist and illegal. Racist is why it's wrong; illegal is another good reason not to do it. Deciding not to post just any old crap on your web site is obviously neither of those two things.

Kevin · Jan 29, 2006, 07:21 PM

What does the topic have **** now instead of Macupate?

alphamatrix · Jan 29, 2006, 07:32 PM

If you look at porieux's post above you see that Nick has edited his post, and it uses the censored M*******e version.

Chuckit · Jan 29, 2006, 07:33 PM

Still no clear reason why.

Mastrap · 08:25 PM

M*******e can do whatever the hell they like. I've stopped using them after the last display of idiocy. If enough people feel the way I do then they will either go out of business or change their ways. If I am in the minority then they will continue to prosper and I will have to use alternative services. Market forces and all that.

CharlesS · Jan 29, 2006, 08:18 PM

What the hell? Why is "MacUpdate" now in the swearing filter?!

subego · Jan 29, 2006, 08:23 PM

So you can't say M*******e?

WTF?

Ahh. The irony.

CharlesS · Jan 29, 2006, 08:24 PM

Well, I can say "MacUpdate", but you can't...

baw · Jan 29, 2006, 08:32 PM

Forbidden!

baw · Jan 29, 2006, 08:34 PM

Wth just happened! I submitted a new thread and it tacked on a reply to this thread instead. The database is *******

CharlesS · Jan 29, 2006, 08:37 PM

The database is MacUpdate. I think this forum is the most MacUpdateing piece of MacUpdate I've ever seen. MacUpdate you, forum!

TETENAL · Jan 29, 2006, 08:41 PM

M*******e is an evil word. Don't go to www.m*******e.com. M*******e is nice.

CharlesS · Jan 29, 2006, 08:48 PM

You know, on a serious note, this is going to seriously screw up about half of all links to downloadable software that anyone has ever posted in this forum.