zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. zepole+(OP)[view] [source] 2009-03-01 13:25:36
http://tinyurl.com/22q5z9
replies(2): >>CalmQu+8 >>cool-R+l
2. CalmQu+8[view] [source] 2009-03-01 13:44:52
>>zepole+(OP)
Which ?may? lead to a site "whose name we dare not speak?... which loads only if "http://www." is removed from it... and then displays message:

"Down until 4/19/08 due to bandwidth limitations!

Want to advertise?"

This entire discussion is feeling very surreal - with innuendos about poison-named domains that ban one's account. I do like the idea of openness about banning policies. Why force people to stumble around in the dark and then be punished when they step in the dog piles?

[Or is there a concern about legal concerns if one "vilifies" a site by pronouncing it banned?]

replies(1): >>dhotso+f
◧◩
3. dhotso+f[view] [source] [discussion] 2009-03-01 13:55:38
>>CalmQu+8
I can't see the site, but it looks like some kind of dumb meme:

http://images.google.com.au/images?q=internet%20serious%20bu...

4. cool-R+l[view] [source] 2009-03-01 14:02:31
>>zepole+(OP)
I don't understand the joke. Can someone please explain?
replies(2): >>gasull+Z >>rms+O5
◧◩
5. gasull+Z[view] [source] [discussion] 2009-03-01 15:24:39
>>cool-R+l
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=THE%20INTERNE...

It's an Internet meme.

◧◩
6. rms+O5[view] [source] [discussion] 2009-03-01 21:39:04
>>cool-R+l
That particular site had the Rickroll video and a nasty series of infinite javascript popups. So yes, I was Rickroll'd by Paul Graham, and it crashed my browser.
[go to top]