Comments on: eSarcasm vs. CNET and Wired: Get the Facts

By: JR Raphael

JR Raphael — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 09:41:56 +0000

Let's just say this: When we said we were “giants,” we weren't referring to height.

By: Dee

Dee — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:12:38 +0000

When I saw Size of Staff at first I thought you guys were going to reference something else… ;)

By: JR Raphael

JR Raphael — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:41:56 +0000

Let's just say this: When we said we were “giants,” we weren't referring to height.

By: Dee

Dee — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:12:38 +0000

When I saw Size of Staff at first I thought you guys were going to reference something else… ;)

By: googooboyy

googooboyy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:29:35 +0000

I'm disappointed that TG Daily or Boing Boing weren't included. Now how do we know if eSarcasm is better in exaggerations and lies than them? Guess we'll never know.

Loving it.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:42:05 +0000

Haha, well personally i think your study is more valid then microsofts…. And i love how this site was made….kinda makes me want to give up html/css and try that…

By: marinedoc

marinedoc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:52:43 +0000

By George, I think you've got. Who in their right mind wants to read all that “ridiculous” real news. Scares the hell out me. Plus, I really like your use of cookies. Keep up the great work.