
VC's Livid With Digg: Cash Was Not Meant for More "Bongs and Beer" - jackjack100
http://www.tekpopuli.com/2008/09/24/vcs-are-livid-with-digg-wanted-cash-for-digg-blackmarket-not-more-bongs-and-beer/
======
endtwist
While this article is supposed to be satirical (I hope), it fails at even
being remotely humorous. As much as I love reading an invented rant, the
excessive amount of swearing just ruins the whole effect of the article and
reduces it to a childish game of "look how much I can swear!"

~~~
ryanb
And this is stupid, but honestly, who uses the term "mary jane"?

~~~
rudyfink
Tom Petty?

~~~
silentbicycle
Exactly.

------
yan
I want to read more about the social news black market. Does anyone have any
material or comments on it?

~~~
jbenz
This an older article from WIRED (March 2007). A writer was able to buy votes
to a lame, made-up blog post.

<http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/03/72832>

I'll try to find something newer.

------
biohacker42
Are people up-voting this because they think it is funny, or because they
think it's real?

It's neither.

------
alaskamiller
It was almost believable. But I'm not sure what it's relevant to?

------
apstuff
Psst. Hey pal. What's a fella gotta do to get Dugg?

~~~
froo
Don't laugh, I actually know a few top diggers who actually do that.

No names will be mentioned, but they know exactly who they are.

------
iamelgringo
_Do you know how much money crosses hands every day in the Digg blackmarket?
About $1.6 million dollars...._

Wow, even if the figure is 1/10th of that, it's still a huge pile of cash.

------
trickjarrett
How does this hit the top of HN without someone coming in and decrying it's
nonhacker nature? I laughed at this, but I just want to stop and remark on the
fact.

------
froo
_Yeah, Revision3 is going blue next January. 100% home-made porn._

Incoming slander lawsuit.

------
stcredzero
Apostrophe-S is not a plural!

~~~
paulgb
It's pretty commonly accepted to use an apostrophe when pluralizing an
acronym. It might not technically be correct, but it improves readability, and
sacrificing readability for correctness is silly.

~~~
gstar
But - it's very incorrect, I don't agree that it enhances readability - and
moreover it makes my blood boil.

Google fails me for finding a citation, but apparently the precedent was set
by cigarette advertising (for say, 25's).

