Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 3

Please read my earlier post "Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 2, the Tangent" for background information on where these quotes came from and what the heck is going on.

September 18, 2007 1:49 PM
First of all you haven't "debunked" anything on my page.
A quick note about debating. That kind of statement should be put at the END of a response and not the beginning, and only then if you've demonstrated your claim. It's a bit premature to insist your oppenent didn't debunk anything before you've even replied.
None of my pages have comment sections because my pages are not blogs but all the testimonials are from real emails that is a fact. Go to any companies site and see how many critical comments you will find on their site. That is absolutely ludicrous. There are plenty of fanboy rants about my page online, none of them factually correct or debunk anything but they are "critical".
If Andrew's going to compare his web site to that of a corporate marketing site, what company would he say he represents? Microsoft? Opera?

I'm afraid I didn't express my concerns about the lack of critical comments very clearly. I was thinking in terms of a scientific paper. A scientist writing a research paper is expected to anticipate and address the objections that may be raised regarding his conclusions. For example, Alfred Kinsey was one of the most outspoken critics of his own work. Many people have criticized his use of prison populations for his research and pointed out how that could skew his results. Kinsey himself had stated those very concerns in his original research, and outlined several methods for modifying the research population to better represent the population at large.

Andrew K makes no attempt to outline where he may or may not be wrong or explore likely objections to his conclusions. Even when confronted with proof of Drive by IE exploits, he flat out denies they exist. All criticism or debate attempts are written off as "Firefox fanboyism."
The author of the whyfirefoxisblocked is Danny Carlton not me.
I stand corrected. I can admit when I am wrong.
Nanobot is a flat out liar who is mad because I caught him redirecting visitors coming from my site to different pages.
I'd like more details on how this happened. Was there a forum post of some kind that Nanobot controlled but Andrew K linked to? Did Nanobot hack Andrew K's site, and if so why Andrew contact the police? Inquiring minds want to know, this could be a THRILLING story!
I never spammed my page to Digg I posted it anytime a new version was released which had updated and new information.
Actually, posting the same link to Digg multiple times IS Spamming Digg. You're only supposed to submit it once. Digg has a number of tactics to prevent the same link from being submitted multiple times. The submission interface even discourages the submission of articles similar to those already in Digg.

By his own admission, Andrew K spammed digg, he just chooses not to call it Spamming.
I also never used any of those names.
What the heck, I'll take Andrew's word on that.
Of course there were complaints from the fanboys who did not want anyone to read the truth about Firefox!
I'm torn. Making a crack about paranoia and conspiracy theories feels like a low blow, but he's set himself up for such an accusation time and time again. Perhaps Andrew K is just paranoid with persecution delusions and firefoxmyths.com is just a cry for help. I can't take these censorship claims seriously. He makes wild claims of persecution but then used an example like accounts being deleted form digg.com, when he's already admitted to behavior that the digg submission interface actively discourages.

I checked out the Digg.com Terms of Service and found the following:
By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services:
7. to submit stories or comments linking to affiliate programs, multi-level marketing schemes, sites/blogs repurposing existing stories (source hops), or off-topic content;
9. with the intention of artificially inflating or altering the 'digg count', blog count, comments, or any other Digg service, including by way of creating separate user accounts for the purpose of artificially altering Digg's services; giving or receiving money or other remuneration in exchange for votes; or participating in any other organized effort that in any way artificially alters the results of Digg's services.
Submitting the same URL multiple times sounds an awful lot like "repurposing existing stories" to me. If any of the accusations about Andrew K using multiple logins to Digg the same story are true, then he'd be guilty of item 9 above as well.
There are no lies on my page and all quotes in the fanboy quotes section are and were intended as satire.
It's lines like this that make me suspect the "Andrew K" who posted the comment is a fake, or that the firefox myths page is itself nothing more than an elaborate bit of trolling. Caught editing quotes to completely change their meaning, Andrew clumsily claims the entire section is somehow satire, even though there's nothing within the content of the page to imply it's satire. It's similar to a child being caught in the act of stealing a toy from a sibling only to respond with "But I was just borrowing it!"
The Techspot link is about as informative as the Iraqi propaganda minister. Only the fanboy quotes were satire NOT the testimonials.
Again, the clumsy defense that the edited comments are "Satire." I also notice that Andrew K makes no attempt to deny the claims made on the Techspot link. He merely brushes off his borderline slanderous editing of comments as "Satire." The only way that claim would wash is if the entire Firefox Myths site is satire.
I will never give any voice to people who can't read and comprehend facts and sources and flat out lie.
You mean like including only the bolded portion of the following quotes on your web site?
"I'm not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called "Firefox Myths" entered my radar recently, I was very interested." - Tre
Actual comment - "I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested. Then sadly disappointed. Rather than a balanced analysis of some of the folklore surrounding Firefox, it is merely a stream of weak arguments against imaginary “myths” supported by misquoting or deliberate misreading of sources. I’m not even going to reference the page".

"It's an interesting read..." - Robert A. (Mac User)
Actual comment - "Someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame (obviously not worth 15 minutes) decided to post some Firefox Myths. It’s an interesting read, though has a few oddball statements, that really don’t make sense".

"The sources & data are convincing..." - Ryan J. (Editor note - this should start "...the sources")
Actual comment - "Even though the sources & data are convincing, I see nothing pro-Firefox there - notice no links about IE's insecuity I wonder why."

Oh right, I forgot, that kind of creative editing is somehow considered "Satire."
There was obviously a deliberate intent by the Digg administration to keep my page from being posted on Digg.com. This was brought to my attention by various people who attempted to have it submitted and then had the post removed, their account deleted and their IP address blocked. I link to one such testimonial. Conspiracy? I have no idea but deliberate? You bet.
By his own admission, Andrew K was submitting the site multiple times, which clearly violates the repurposing existing stories (source hops) prohibition in the Terms of Service.

Of course, the only way to really debunk the censorship claim would be to, for example, find a collection of anti-firefox links in digg.com

I'll start with a juvenile hunt for the phrase "Firefox sucks" on digg.com. The following are from the first two pages of results. Given the ease with which anti-Firefox articles can be found on Digg, one has to wonder what could POSSIBLY be so special about Andrew K's "Firefox Myths" page that he would be deliberately blocked when all of the links below are allowed in. SOme of the links below are very well written and ended up with triple digit digg numbers.

Occam's Razor leads me to suspect the Terms of Service violations documented above are a more likely explanation than an organized front posed by Digg admins to suppress one page.

the Firefox Sucks Organization - Digg users are firefox fanboys ?
It seems like someone decided to open a "Firefox Sucks" organization, more than that - they are mentioning Digg users as Firefox fan boys. Actually the whole blog is dedicated to sole purpose of stopping the Firefox browser from spreading. Blog owners are inviting other people to join them in this battle. Weird joke ? Or is it a real intention ?

IE7 vs Firefox 2: The Memory Usage Showdown

lifehacker.com — "After running Internet Explorer 7 for a full day now and throwing just as many tabs at it as the 'fox, its RAM suck-uppage consistently stayed less than HALF of Firefox's."More… (Tech Industry News)

Firefox sux?
Check out this page with Internet Explorer and then with Firefox, and marvel at the difference. Looks like Firefox sucks after all. The page uses IE filters and VML which FF doesn't understand.

the Firefox Sucks Organization - Digg users are firefox fanboys ?
It seems like someone decided to open a "Firefox Sucks" organization, more than that - they are mentioning Digg users as Firefox fan boys. Actually the whole blog is dedicated to sole purpose of stopping the Firefox browser from spreading. Blog owners are inviting other people to join them in this battle. Weird joke ? Or is it a real intention ?

Firefox 2.0 hijacks Feedburner rss links
I've just noticed this and it sucks.. I liked the ability to add a RSS feed to my online read (netvibes) via any feedburner link.. to me this looks very intentional.

Opera 9: First impressions of a Firefox user
I decided to try out Opera after reading a Firefox-bashing site (link at the bottom). I’ll admit to being sucked in by the whole “Take back the web” propaganda. So, in order to decide for myself whether Firefox is really the best I downloaded and installed Opera 9.23.

Why the Firefox Extension Site Sucks
Don’t get me wrong. I love Firefox. It is a great browser and one of the things that makes Firefox stand out is its wide assortment of extensions. The problem is when it comes to finding an extension. With thousands of extensions on their site and only about 25% of them being compatible with Firefox 2.0. Here is a solution I have come up with.

Web standards? IE? Firefox? BULLSHIT!
I am really getting tired of seeing all these "holier than thou" articles, comments and rants about how Internet Explorer sucks because it doesn't implement "web standards" correctly, and how Firefox "does".Take a look, and you decide


Anonymous said...

I repeat you have not debunked anything on the page and I will state it whenever and wherever I please.

I am comparing myself to ANY company. No reputable company posts criticism of themselves on their page. OptimizeGuides.com is no different. Stating that I am comparing myself to a corporate marketing site such as Opera or Microsoft is propaganda. My site is not a marketing site for anything period. It was created to help people with system problems online for free. Unfortunately learning the truth about Firefox is not something some people want others to know about.

Firefox Myths is not a Scientific Paper.

I am not wrong but anything that needs to be corrected as time goes by does and many things have.

I still have not received a URL that proves drive-by downloads on a fully patched IE. Blog posts that cannot be reproduced is not proof.

So submitting the Firefox link to Digg everytime a new version comes out is spamming? No what you stated is hypocrisy. The link to Firefox Myths was never submitted by me more than once unless there was a version number change.

I have never admitted nor have or ever will Spam Digg period.

I have provided overwhelming evidence of what I stated about Digg here

I am neither paranoid or delusional. I provide the evidence for what was stated.

I have not used multiple logins to Digg either. I used one and was IP banned.

Oh this is me. The Fanboy Quotes section is called FANBOY Quotes for a reason, it is satire and has nothing to do with the rest of the page. It was added after all the fanboys attempted to attack the page. I still find it hilarious.

Yes one part of a page can be Satire and that is it, get over it.

I never violated any rules on Digg.com

Digg has since allowed the site to be reposted and current searches have nothing to do with the situation two years ago.

Keep in mind though I was not the only one posting my page to Digg. Many others were and were promptly IP banned. This is how I found out about it, through emails.

Matt please stop posting a new blog post to everyone of my comments it is impossible for me to respond timely to all of them as I do have a day job.

Anonymous said...

Updates to Firefox Myths were frequent!: the page was submitted to digg 15 time I think.

Comments from Mastertech (Andrew) posted on digg, either his own submissions or other submissions regarding Firefox, were numerous (read dozens), and always included a link to his page.

Andrew returned to digg as poptech to post his new page ("The anti man-made global warming resource"). When challenged that he was in fact the banned author of the Firefox Myths page, he made some extraordinary and unbelievable claims, and then began posting links to Firefox Myths. After posting the link 29 time on one page, he was banned.


Andrew returned as PopularTech and began spamming again: after positing 61 links to his page (16 to one article alone) he was banned again.

"Get the facts, not the hype"

Google cache

Google the same phrase and you get an interesting result:

"Get the facts not the hype:


Mastertech on Beta News

Somebody's obviously telling porkies.

Anonymous said...

"Matt please stop posting a new blog post to everyone of my comments it is impossible for me to respond timely to all of them as I do have a day job."

Ohh, is the whiny little fraud upset that Matthew keeps showing the world what a liar he is?

Is it taking up too much of his time to have to make up new lies every time someone shows the world what a nasty little liar he really is?

And about your day job Andy, no one gives a damn if you're too tired to flip burgers because you were up all night screaming about fanboys.

Do you dream about your critics? Do they keep you up at night? Is there enough brain in your little head for you to realize they're right about how WRONG you are most of the time?

Anonymous said...

Frank the pot head, your lies are getting old. You have been exposed for the drug user you really are and proof of why you are delusional.

Actually I have shown how incompetent Matt is for not being able to fully read and comprehend what is on my page.

Oh and I work in IT and make very good money.

I haven't been proven wrong about anything. Facts are not debateable.

Anonymous said...

"Facts are not debateable(sic)."

For a total 284 days in 2006 (or more than nine months out of the year), exploit code for known, unpatched critical flaws in pre-IE7 versions of the browser was publicly available on the Internet. Likewise, there were at least 98 days last year in which no software fixes from Microsoft were available to fix IE flaws that criminals were actively using to steal personal and financial data from users.

In a total of ten cases last year, instructions detailing how to leverage "critical" vulnerabilities in IE were published online before Microsoft had a patch to fix them.

In contrast, Internet Explorer's closest competitor in terms of market share -- Mozilla's Firefox browser -- experienced a single period lasting just nine days last year in which exploit code for a serious security hole was posted online before Mozilla shipped a patch to remedy the problem.

How do you like those facts Andy?

Anonymous said...

Brian Krebbs is a journalist and the Washington Post is hardly a factual source on computer security. His page is simply propaganda for the uninformed.

Anonymous said...


Instead of ranting about it being "propaganda" why don't you point out some factual errors and give supporting information?

Oh, you CAN'T find any chinks in the article?

Well, that must be why you claim it's propaganda. "I don;t like what this person says, he MUST be a fraud!"

Luc Boudreau said...

Did anyone notice that Andrew K's webpage has links to sites claiming there is no global warming evidence ?

I don't want to get into this debate, but hey, this sounds ludicrous enough for me. I simply dismissed his whole website as a start.

Anyway, keep your comments comming Andrew, you're funny as heck !