mork's dashboard

Thank you for pointing this out lucid. I never did read the fine print but assumed the terms you mention were included. What you have here is a perfect example of how the services they provide are by no means free. – mork, on April 21, 2008 10:39

I think your avatar is ironically hilarious considering your post – mork, on April 21, 2008 01:56

Sarcasm is tough to do textually

P.S. I don't even get spam dude.

hopefully no-one considers this to be an invitation or challenge.

Lucid I am surprised by your tone in the dialogue above.

I do not fully comprehend the workings of the internet and that is why I err on the side of caution when dealing with matters of privacy on-line. One need only refer to the skyrocketing statistics regarding identity theft to understand that it is not only celebrities who should be concerned about privacy issues.

When I first heard the concept of another site, 'facebook', I was astonished by how willing people were to share personal information openly online. Recently I read an article of the intrusive terms of the user-agreement of facebook and realized I had made the right choice by avoiding that site and others like it altogether. I realize millions of people disagree with me, and I am totally ok with that and wouldn't discourage anyone from using that site if they so desire.

You seem to feel indebted to the owners and operators of hubdub. I think you can put your mind at ease because they need us more than we need them. I hope to see them excel and succeed with what I think is a great concept being put into action. Any user who uses the comment boards tastefully and develops questions is doing more than is expected of them to help the administrators. What this site NEEDS is USERS. I think most USERS don't NEED hubdub

I appreciate the fine work the administrators have done as do you and I believe most if not all users do.

I have never completed a survey on-line regarding my detailed information as thorough as the hubdub survey. Over the last few months hubdub has provided me with the impression of trustworthiness, (call me naive) and due to my appreciation for the value I have for this site I chose to provide them with my very personal details. To suggest that anyone should feel obligated to provide them with these details is misleading. To suggest that we owe them for bandwidth is absurd.

If the administrators expressed that they felt the way you do regarding their entitlement to this information, I most surely would not have contributed.

You can use my monkey avatar $$Free

I agree Steph. Unfortunately it is exactly what I anticipated and the reason I accepted humiliating myself campaigning. Thankfully the perpetrator did not try and find a handful of people with similar disregard for hubdub to rock the vote.

In the future I hope hubdub admin can make decisions more promptly.

The Spitzer Question is another example of something that got way out of hand because of the reluctance to make a decision. I suspect if the Spitzer Q went to a vote it would have had another majority vote result supporting one option, and it wouldn't have been the outcome that actually did resulted with that Question. – mork, on April 10, 2008 17:39

Since my previous post here I have been doing some Googling and have come to a different conclusion due to this news article from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOn...

Two excerpts:

-"We're treating it as if it were an incident of vandalism," Army spokesman Paul Boyce said at the Pentagon.

-Homeland Security Department said there was no sign of an immediate threat to the United States from the incident and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism.

I cannot find any article stating that the US government has changed their opinion on this matter.

We would be false to conclude that this was a terrorist attack when the victim of the attack clearly says otherwise.

I now conclude that this question should be allowed to continue as it is.

After the ridicule he has recieved I suspect he would have left anyhow. I couldn't bear look at that creepy profile pic anylonger. Closing his account sends a strong statement that cheating will not be tolerated on hubdub. Simply watch cricket questions if you want to see if he is still participating since I think it is the only thing he knows anything about. – mork, on April 09, 2008 15:28

I regret not making this question more specific when I made it. This was one of the first questions I created upon joining the hubdub community and have since recognized how extremely important it is to be as specific as possible when posing questions.

I was hesitant to pose this question because it brinks on the 'death pool' theme. Please allow me to explain why I made it.

Upon watching a news report that pollsters believed another terrorist attack would bolster John McCain's position, I wanted to pose a question on hubdub to somehow tie in with that information. I enjoy making questions that inform hubdub users of news items but had difficulty figuring out a question to serve this purpose so I decided to pose the question as it is and use the background slot to inform of the link with McCain pollsters. I felt the simplicity of the question would appeal to the predictors and thus have the most potential to be viewed by the user base.

When posing this question I did understand that terrorism is not easily defined and some could argue that it happens very frequently but I considered the settlement detail: "as reported by a major news source" to make the outcome easily definable because I can only think of a handful of incidents in history where media reported that America has had an incident of terrorism.

The incident in New York with the suspected cyclist may be the worst case scenario in terms of settling this question because of it's relatively minor nature and because the perpetrator was never caught. I did not anticipate this.
When this incident occurred it did not qualify as a 'terrorist attack' in terms of the spirit of the question because I do not think it has had any impact on John McCain's ratings. Although it does not qualify according to 'spirit' of the question I think it does qualify as a terrorist attack.

As the question is worded I feel that it must be settled as yes. In the future if someone were to ask "how many terrorist attacks occurred on US soil in 2008?", this incident would be considered as one.

I hope this helps settle this matter soon.

Regards;
rnork

Thank You Nigel, your associates, and everyone who participated in helping resolve this.

This is a good day for hubdub.

I wonder if Satyaki is now campaigning to other users who have no qualms of embarrassing hubdub as he has. I almost want to support destry and boycott this vote however I am giving hubdub this last opportunity to get it right....If you can't beat em join em....If Satyaki is not disciplined appropriately after this, my next a.k.a. will be here to game the site. I will use another site to help predict the news. I suggest facebook to anyone who is interested in social networking. I have avoided it for a reason. I pray that I have not been sucked into a social networking site under the pretense of something that could be truly interesting...predicting the news.

Please note that any attempts to stop Satyaki from doing this so far have been entirely futile, as proven here:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will__...

Thank you for the prompt response.

Nigel, your example of 20 collected votes concerns me that you do not intend on drawing upon the opinion of the user base but rather upon the opinions of the few who are aware of what has gone here and anyone else who know how to open an email account or ten.

Secondly, you make reference to people who support leniency. I don't see that. One can easily see upon researching this matter that the members are aware of this situation almost unanimously support strong action.