This can't be good...
Jan. 19th, 2005 12:09 amSix Apart was bad enough, but Yahoo? Wha...?
Edit:
readerravenclaw (hope I got her name right) is now saying that the article is just speculating on the possibility that this might happen. Now that I've calmed down and re-read the article... I think she's likely right. Oops. I can read fast, but do I comprehend what I read? Apparently not. Let's have fun with doomsday predictions anyway, though.
Edit:
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:28 pm (UTC)Really, it would just be an excuse to quit. I'm morally opposed to change. Maybe I'll go to deadjournal, but probably not.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:39 pm (UTC)It'd be one thing if they were *my* ads, if I were getting money for having them, if I were choosing. I don't want somebody ELSES ads on *my* journal.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:55 pm (UTC)Gah. This sucks. Next thing you know, AOL/Time Warner will be all over it, just like everything else.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:58 pm (UTC)Hahhah, in my journal I just said that it would be Wal-Mart.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:59 pm (UTC)Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-19 08:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:58 pm (UTC)*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 10:17 pm (UTC)The article isn't revealing a rumor that Yahoo! is planning to buy SixApart; it's arguing why it thinks that Yahoo! should, and eventually will, buy SixApart. It's an opinion/economics piece, it has no (apparent) basis in any actual negotiations or even hushed insider plans.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 10:24 pm (UTC)*blush*
I'll go re-read now. My reading comprehension must go way south after midnight.
gott im himmel!
Date: 2005-01-18 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:28 pm (UTC)Really, it would just be an excuse to quit. I'm morally opposed to change. Maybe I'll go to deadjournal, but probably not.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:39 pm (UTC)It'd be one thing if they were *my* ads, if I were getting money for having them, if I were choosing. I don't want somebody ELSES ads on *my* journal.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:55 pm (UTC)Gah. This sucks. Next thing you know, AOL/Time Warner will be all over it, just like everything else.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:58 pm (UTC)Hahhah, in my journal I just said that it would be Wal-Mart.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:59 pm (UTC)Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-19 08:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 09:58 pm (UTC)*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 10:17 pm (UTC)The article isn't revealing a rumor that Yahoo! is planning to buy SixApart; it's arguing why it thinks that Yahoo! should, and eventually will, buy SixApart. It's an opinion/economics piece, it has no (apparent) basis in any actual negotiations or even hushed insider plans.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-18 10:24 pm (UTC)*blush*
I'll go re-read now. My reading comprehension must go way south after midnight.
gott im himmel!
Date: 2005-01-18 10:22 pm (UTC)