The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life


RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:23 am

<quote user="slider123456">Lies are not opinions. If you take such offense maybe I struck a nerve?! I am 100% fine with your opinion. Just pointing out that I do not empathize with people who feel the ends justify the means believing it is O.K. to LIE for the "greater good". If you accept that belief that is your opinion and prerogative not mine. I am just expressing an opinion which according to you:

"every human being has the right to have his or her own opinion."

Does that only apply when it agrees with yours!?!

You seem to have gotten it wrong: I did not take offense in your opinion, but in the way you expressed it and the words you chose to do so. See, I don't know you and you don't know me... and the first impression I get from you is seeing your post with words like "bull@$%&". That's what I have a problem with. From my point of view, using a more civil language could gain a bigger audience. As you can see, I'm actually trying to help you getting your point communicated by telling you that the words you currently chose might be seen as "a bit offensive". That's all.

<quote user="slider123456">
I also did supply what I believe is constructive criticism:

"Until it differentiates between a site that can harm my computer or steals information and someones opinion on the content of a site"

Can you say the same?[/quote]

Been there, done it. Yes, I can say I can. I do tend to choose a less aggressive tone to do so though. Thinking about it: saying your language is rather non-constructive is somewhat the best constructive criticism you can get.

I'll refrain from adding fuel to your temper right now. But please remember that "talking civil" and "less emotional" could be "more constructive".

<quote user="slider123456">
If you believe lies suit the purpose of WOT I seriously hope you are not a representative of WOT or representative of the people who rate sites on wot or it is worse than I thought.

You do realize my beef is with lying about viruses phishing etc in order to push a view on content.. right?

As I already indicated above - you seem to have gotten my post wrong. I do agree with the core of your post and you can trust in the fact that I do NOT agree with people rating sites down without any reason of proof.

What I do not agree with are the words you've chosen to express it. That's all. Maybe you should try to be less aggressive? I am neither your enemy, nor "one of them".

If you would have taken the time to talk to me instead of taking the first option to slander me, you would have learned that I do embrace any option to enhance quality: quality in ratings, quality in comments... and quality in communication.

And about the core of your post, let me just say that I one day reached a point where I said to myself: "I can't educate them all". Maybe that's where I gave up but you're starting to shine. I sure hope so. On the other hand, I don't think so because you've already stated you're leaving WOT.

Now, if you would ask for my opinion on this, I would say that leaving WOT is neither constructive, nor will it change anything you brought up. And using a strong language while running for the exit will only make it easier for "them" to argue you're just a frustrated website owner or something. But hey, everyone chooses his own ways. Mine are obviously different.

If you want to leave, fine... feel free to go. If you rather want to stay to talk constructive, use some more civil words. But if you just need a victim to slander, I'm the wrong tree to bark at. It's that simple.



RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:27 am

I'm just guesing, it should be discussed privately now using board messages, because it never leads to constructive public dialog. And where are our moderators when it's needed?

Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:27 pm

RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by slider123456 » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:16 am

When I wrote the post I was not angry and while you may see aggression I do not. A passionate discourse, maybe, aggression, no.The use of bullxxxx may be overboard but I was using it as a means of hyperbole. I was trying to get a point across using rhetoric. I generally do avoid swearing but sometimes, in moderation, it has its place. As far as the liberal use of arrogant and "moral superiority" that is my opinion, disagree if you want, but my personal moral compass and principles state that my opinions will not be forced on someone else because they have the right to decide and believe what they want and who am I to trick or force my beliefs on anyone. Edison made many mistakes making the light bulb and in contrast to most people he saw each one as a minor success and in my opinion depriving someone of the chance to make a mistake which they may learn from is irresponsible and so I would not presume to do so through any other means than directly stating my opinion for the other person to take or leave. What I was so passionate about is what I see as essentially being censorship which implicitly contains all the characteristics described above which is likely why it is generally so reviled and which is also why my wording was so strong.

While cases where viruses etc are listed when the objection is to content may be outliers not deemed to be worth the time to correct I strongly disagree. It puts into doubt the entire wot system, that the home page proudly proclaims cannot be manipulated, into question to the point that I am not sure if some sites are dangerous (as in viruses,phishing,privacy) or whether someone who does not like the content has managed to get it rated as dangerous, in other words a kind of censorship hidden behind the majority of true reputation ratings. That seems pretty serious to me.

I believe a fairly simple solution would be to have a icon color for opinion on content, another for child safety and one for viruses,phishing or privacy, each superseding the other in that order or some other scheme that does not confound website content safety with computer security concerns . If someone lies about child safety, a semi subjective rating, or virus/phishing, a much more objective rating, their weighting for all of their votes should drop precipitously for every infraction. I may continue to use wot but I no longer trust it on its own so I will likely run 2 site rating programs now, unfortunately, anyway it may give me a chance to gain back a measure of trust for mywot.


RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:09 am

I have to agree with you on some areas since sometimes, I too to stumble over scorecard comments and can only shake my head, asking myself what some people were thinking when they posted their comment(s). But I guess that's the difference between myWOT and an antivir add-on. MyWOT reflects the opinion of the "majority"... at least the majority of people with a good reputation-score (according to the system) that know and rate an individual website, while an antivir add-on will be able to fully protect you from a threat immediately. OTOH: antivirs have their false positives too. So personally, I expect the same in systems like mywot. This stuff happens.

Now let's look at sites like twitter's website as an example. It's rated green all over because millions of people do not care about receiving 50+ spam messages an hour on their timeline, as long as their "follower" count grows. And I doubt those people haven't been reading #TwitterAfterDark either. Yet, I don't see too many "spam" and "adult content" comments on the scorecard. On the contrary, you can find tons of "good site" comments instead. Are they all ignoring the truth? Are they all lairs? Am I the only one having a spam-detection? Am I the only one seeing the explicit text messages? Is the world coming to it's end? No! It's just that the majority of people thinks twitter is "ok" enough to ignore the "spam" factor and to wave the "explicit language". Personally, I think different, but if I want to survive in this world, I'll have to accept that sometimes, I am part of a minority and even when I disagree with others, I can only influence public opinion "that much". I hate it when I find myself in such situations, but it happens. So what?

Is mywot bad because the add-on says twitter is good? No. Then I am wrong saying twitter has a big spam probability? No.

In contrast to an antivir (let's just suppose they would detect spam and adult content too) which would lock down the site on a discussable "false positive", the mywot add-on offers the simple and easy way to choose for yourself if you think the site is "ok" or "not ok". According to your own, personal preference you are able to rate it and the add-on will block, lock or at least warn you when you enter a website you've rated "red"... even when that "majority" thinks all is "green". Same goes the other way around. And if you haven't rated that site yet, the mywot addon will tell you what "others" think. Therefore - To me, mywot offers an "indicator"... but not (like you seem to expect) an "absolute truth". In fact - having my own background in computer security - I don't even trust antivirs 100% and let me tell you a well known fact: "there is no such thing as absolute security", to which I always add "and there is no perfect system either".

I personally think of the mywot add-on as my own, personal "blocking" add-on. And while I block what I think is bad, I'm automatically sharing this with the system and the community. Sometimes my voice sounds like those of others, sometimes I think different. Might be ethics, might be I don't think porn is ok for kids, might be that some weapons-website is 18+, might be a personal customer experience I liked or disliked... you know, the lot.

And just like everywhere else in RealLife™, chances are there's someone living somewhere on this planet who will gladly disagree with my opinion. But that's bound to happen. Mywot offers more than a handful of options to rate and comment. The combinations are a scary "4 rating options with 17 different comment categories" calculation, producing a number that I won't write down here to avoid the dramatic effect. (But anyone knowing his/her maths can calculate it for himself/herself.) And we're not talking about the comment-text area yet.

As a result, I know my voice will never be able to change the world while I'm using mywot... but I am convinced of the fact that if enough "sane" people come together and rate/comment "honest", things do change into the correct direction. All I can do is add my own piece to the picture and I bet you can add another one that fits perfectly. Question is: are you willing to? And that's something no forum discussion can help you to decide. It's a question of motivation, hope and a bit of trust in humanity. ~smiles~

But it's not a question of icon color!!! Or do you want me to tell you everything about color perceptions? White as a color in the USA is not interpreted the same way in Japan. Black doesn't stand for mourning everywhere in the world. Red can mean "danger", but in China it represents luck... Another icon color dependent on a website's ratings, comments and/or content will change nothing - and it sure won't stop people from posting comments you, I and/or anyone else does disagree with.

Having said this, I'm closing up my contributions to this thread, hoping I could contribute to your understanding of mywot and how some of us use it. But, looking at the OP, all this is too off-topic! If you really think it's worth it, maybe start your own thread one day.


Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:27 pm

RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by slider123456 » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:36 am

A big long post that is a complete strawman. Intellectual honesty is refreshing but that post, in my opinion, is completely lacking any. I mentioned nothing about a positive rating on twitter or any site due to liking or disliking the content. Somehow you have flipped everything I said completely upside down. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a misunderstanding and not purposeful obfuscation. The point is not about a good rating on a site without viruses, phishing scams etc.. it is about a negative rating claiming viruses, phishing scams etc.. on a site that does not contain them and which is due to a disapproval of the websites content. People go to twitter full aware that it is a personal "social media" spamming engine of sorts so it is serving it's express purpose and therefore the idea of rating it negatively is nonsensical and would indicate the psychological traits of a control freak, if one were to attempt to do so, especially if they claimed it had viruses etc knowing full well it doesn't. People can go there research the content and decide for themselves if it is something they are interested in or not. That in no way equates to saying a site has viruses and phishing scams when it does not in order to discourage people from visiting a site because some individuals on their high horse feel the content is inappropriate for the unwashed masses who, based on that practice, are implicitly assumed to be too stupid to do their own due diligence and therefore need nanny-surfers to watch over them. I do not believe that deciding what content is appropriate for adults is in the purview of wot, am I wrong?

I would also say that in my opinion this post directly relates to the OP in that it is questioning the idea behind this entire thread namely this:

Most of them are still unrated/grey, so please
kindly add appropriate colours and perhaps
some comments as well.
Thank you .

Which appears to be a blatant attempt to "redball" these sites due to personal disagreement with the content which is nothing more or less than overt censorship recruiting on the mywot home-site which prides itself on having a rating system that cannot be manipulated. People here do not find that disturbing?

My main point has consistently been that confounding judgments or opinions on site content with computer security concerns is enabling censorship to take root in the wot scheme and sadly even overtly right on this site. People see no ethical problems with this state of affairs? Opinions on site content in regards to adults and security concerns need to be differentiated in order to stop what appears to be a disturbing trend.

As far as this:

"I'm closing up my contributions to this thread"

I would also leave after posting what is essentially nothing more than a strawman especially if I felt the subject matter was cutting a little close to the bone, which appears to be the case here in my opinion, hence the reaction to the "aggressive" first post. Possibly a projection of personal feelings?

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:59 pm

RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by SHTFgirl » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:59 pm

WOT now has completely lost their credibility with me after reading these comments.

The community is suppose to be about protecting the public from malicious sites NOT ethics police.

I do not or have never used MMS or plan to. I found this discussion after typing a keyword in Google then out of curiosity started reading the thread. And what I read were members actually Red Flagging sites that sold things they didn't agree with...which is NOT what the Red Flag or Status is suppose to be used for.

So how can I now trust WOT's ratings if you cannot even police yourselves?

What a joke you have made of this fine idea because of PERSONAL opinions! You are degrading this approval seal for everyone!

Think about it.

Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by NotBuyingIt » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:16 pm

<quote user="shtfgirl">What a joke you have made of this fine idea because of PERSONAL opinions! You are degrading this approval seal for everyone![/quote]

@SHTFgirl, Are you a new user or are you a returning user with a new account name? I ask because I cannot tell whom you think you are scolding. Note that several participants in this thread have departed WOT.

Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:05 pm

RE: Well Just read what this site is supposed to be about.....

Post by MrElvey » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:57 am

Answering these questions for keavyscorner leads me to rate the site as poor, poor, if I follow the guidelines you quoted, oh so helpfully!

Keavs, you note:

"Can it be trusted? Is it safe to use? Does it deliver what it promises? A poor rating may indicate Internet scams"

"Vendor reliability tells you whether the site is safe for buying and selling or for business transactions in general. A "poor" rating indicates a possible scam or a bad shopping experience."

You advertise bottles of "MMS Miracle Mineral Solution, a chlorine dioxide precursor" as "Natural & Earth Friendly Alternative Health Products". Safe for kids? Are you kidding?

You seem to admit that you have an ethical problem, as you say "You aren't supposed to be the ethics police here." You're offering stuff which you just about admit is unethical to sell, so how is it a travesty that folks are warned against buying it?

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:49 pm

RE: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by koolguymarilyn » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:49 pm

I do not wish to argue, but I will only say that as an internet viewer of many of the sites they are rating badly, and as a personal person who has used some of the advice from those sites. I will say that the information they gave me was great and worked. Information that I believe is being hidden to the public as we can see here. but its the internet. Independent thinkers will always know that these websites are good and not bad.

Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: The Humble Bishop Jim and His Elixir of Life

Post by NotBuyingIt » Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:56 pm

See the United States government's accusations of fraud and criminal contempt at

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests