[GodGunsGuts]

Dude, what’s your problem. This effort is to get the work out about Obama. It has been specifically sanctioned by Jim Robinson. Do you even have any idea what we are talking about?

[Natchez Hawk]

If I may ask, there was a comment that ‘real names and info.’ had to be given out.

Is that the case?

I think that is what is making people skeptical.

[dalereed]

From the discriptions so far I won’t have anything to do with it.

Sounds as bad as wickapedia, facebook, or anything similar.

[TomGuy]

This effort is to get the work out about Obama. It has been specifically sanctioned by Jim Robinson. Do you even have any idea what we are talking about?

Again, how? You are the one who started this, so you need to be the one who explains it.

I don't see the point of putting a digg link on a NYTimes post on FR to link the thread on Digg.com.

I do see why the NYTimes would put a digg link on that article on 'their' website.

Thus, it would seem that the only digg-able articles/posts on FR would be the vanities, which, as I posted above, the mods either zot or dump to the blog section.

So, are the diggs applicable only to vanities? Otherwise, why 'digg' to a NYTimes article?

That would seem to make 'digg'ing only advantageous to digg.com, not to FR.