| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | irishgit (145)
05/06/2008 | The better to hunt them down and tear them limb from limb.........
Oh, sorry. I don't know what happened there. I was channelling somebody...
(1 voted this helpful, 3 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Yogurt (14)
06/17/2007 | I don't really care. You can get an idea of who is logged on by reading the recent reviews.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | zuchinibut (37)
06/17/2007 | That feature wouldn't add anything to the website for me, so I don't really support it. When a person is logged on doesn't seem to matter with Rateitall.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Vudija (94)
06/17/2007 | I don't care either way, as it's quite easy to tell when most people are on 'cause they start leaving comments in the recent comments section...well, that's how *I* always know anyway :)
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | oscargamblesfro (78)
06/17/2007 | Put me down for neutral, unless it's one of the Skoal dippers, say "Blarpslayer," I'd like to get his view on global warming...wait a minute, it's never just ONE. It tends to be either no dippers at all or 45,972...
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Kairho (11)
11/20/2005 | Not terrible, but unnecessary. There are other improvements which would better take the developers' time.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | scarletfeather (49)
11/20/2005 | That would be pretty cool.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | TJGypsy2 (7)
05/04/2005 | I like the idea, but I would make it an invitation type thing. A sort of Can I be on your list, and will you be on mine? That way those who desire privacy can have it, and those that would like to socialize can have that. Best of both worlds, really.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | louiethe20th (74)
05/03/2005 | I think this is a very good idea.You could have like a buddy list.Then I would know when they were both online.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mr.Political (18)
05/03/2005 | Well, I'm indifferent to it. Yes I suppose a certain level of privacy would be sacrificed with the implementation of such a feature but perhaps reviewers could be given the option of not being shown. In any case, it still seems like a kind of interesting feature to have around.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | kamylienne (78)
05/03/2005 | I could see where this would be kinda cool, but because there isn't any form of instant-communication on RIA (there's Private Messages, sure, but it's not like AIM), this wouldn't really serve much of a purpose other than to be able to say Oh great, {insert name of reviewer}'s on. What kind of b.s. are they going to write today? UPDATE: If I wanted to instant-message anyone here, I'd give 'em my AIM/ICQ name/ID or ask them for theirs if they've got one, and there's only one person here that I've given that name to, which shows just how many people give a crap whether I'm online or not. As far as exposing frauds, I figure that's part of RIA's job, and they're equipped to deal with those issues. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how many times they post their lame-ass opinion, it's not going to make me agree with them, anyway.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (151)
05/03/2005 | I would like this. I could then ask a reviewer a question and have a list of suspects when the trolls come out to play.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CanadaSucks (47)
05/03/2005 | I don't care who's logged in.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | souljunkie (20)
05/03/2005 | No way no how. The fact that I can speak my mind with privacy is crucial. This would do nothing but facilitate personal wars all over the place.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-14 OF 14 | View All |
