+132 Thomas Jefferson once said, "“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” The same is true of a website's owners and users, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How much do you want to bet this will be deleted?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Probably :/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It won't, he understands that everybody hates it when he does that, so he's stopped deleting posts.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If that's true, then it took him a pretty long time to understand such a basic concept.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I had a post deleted, because they claimed it didn't have a yes/no answer...it's bizarre. yesterday I saw a post somewhere that just said "I'm Hungry, amirite?" - that's stupid. Mine was actually just an observation about people in movies and tv shows not using mice, but tapping away at the keyboard to do everything on a computer...deleted. They DO make some pretty nonsensical deletions sometimes, and some really really crap POTDs

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, today's POTD is pretty good.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah that one's in my favourites. But there was one I was thinking of in particular about babies coming out of cupboards or something which was just cringe-worthy - like a 14 year-old trying desperately to be funny....eugh. But I think I was tentative enough when I added "some" to 'really crap POTDs" haha

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Woah, hey there Rocky. Long time, no see really, except for rare occasions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The purpose of a website is to make money... and people can choose the website they use while they can't choose their government.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Slow your role there, buddy. Anthony didn't make this website for money.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure it's not Ant this post is talking about though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm aware of that. I'm saying that Anthony's purpose wasn't for money. If they do change the purpose, then we no longer have the same owner/user relationship the post is talking about, and the post would be invalid.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What, you think you didn't Anthony didn't care at all about making money? Making websites is his fucking job.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not caring about making money and making the website for that purpose are two totally different things. I really don't know how to debate or argue this. Stating that Anthony made amirite? for money is just a wrong fact. There's nothing more to it. You can keep saying it's correct, but it isn't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm 100% sure that was one of his goals. I doubt it was his only one and it may not have even been his main goal, but you cannot deny that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

HATERS BE HATIN'

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Haha (:

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The difference is the website is paid for and owned by one person, not those that use it. The country is owned by the people, not the government

by Anonymous 11 years ago

While the OP makes plenty of mention of "government" and whatnot, I don't believe he's saying that a website is EXACTLY like a government, but more the attitude of its creator and manager need to remain the same - that the website is created for the benefit of its users. And like government, the owners (governors) interests are actually better met by first meeting the needs of the users (people) - i think it's a good comparison

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I look at it more like every business's motto: "The customer is always right." No customers means no revenue. The owner of a company has every right to do what he wants with his company (unlike governors), but it's in his best interests to listen to what his customers want so that he can provide it and keep them coming back to do business with him.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But by that logic you could also say therefore that business owners in fact CAN'T do whatever they like, because of what's reallyin their best interest. The freedom to do something and the ability to do something are quite different. For example, legally speaking the Queen of England could choose anyone to be prime minister and it would be totally legal and enforcable. But, she doesn't, because convention prevents her from enacting what is her RIGHT. Business owners have the rights you're talking about, but can't actually always act on them...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

http://ctrlv.in/132042

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My country's crap current government exists mostly for the governors.

by Anonymous 11 years ago