We’ve often said we don’t do endorsements unless we get bribed.  The truth is we do a lot of endorsements.  Every time we mention a piece of software, a fellow creator’s web comic, or particular breed of tiger, we are, in effect, endorsing them.  Sometimes we say good things because we like.  Sometimes we say bad things, because we think they deserve it.  (If you’re having trouble remembering something bad we’ve said about someone or something, just search for Jack Thompson.)

In scientific method, positive refers to the presence of something, where negative refers to its absence.  Negative reinforcement is not jolting a test subject with an electric shock.  It is failing to give them a cookie.   So, for us to speak about an item is, technically a “positive endorsement.”  (Even if we’re just screaming about a Florida lawyer acting like an idiot.)  Twice this week I’ve had to “do” a negative endorsement.

The second is a website which is a good source of movie information, and from whom I linked movie posters to accompany reviews.  Those links were accompanied by a click through to their site.  They’ve decided to protect the graphics they host (but do not own) from such linking.  The posters are still available to view for free on their site, and they explicitly do not own the copyrights to movie posters, so I fail to understand the logic behind preventing such direct linking.

So I’ll be “providing” negative endorsement of that site, because they made me go through the work of editing two movie posts and hosting the graphics myself.