[iphoneedbot]

Yeah.. you are admit.. Looking at it in a sensible way.

1) Title was written and posted as such to draw flame 2) Post is quickly started with a discount 3) The page is littered with advert

The merit of the technical write up is not in question; its the specific intention to incite controversy. thats the problem.

Its obvious to this crowd that 64mb is plenty to run a 18 Static Sites.

It is the very fact of challenging the ability to run 18 static sites on 64mb via a VPS is ridiculous. Now, if the article asked the question of "how quickly can you max out 64mb VPS and tactics to avoid it" -then, it would be less inflamatory.

[cdx]

Have a look at this thread - http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=765561 . The title of the blog post retorts what is generally said in that thread (No, you can't run 18 static sites on a 64mb VPS). It's a (more detailed) reply - nothing more. The offers (which, LEA most likely doesn't make money on - just the sidebar ads) were there about a month or so before the post. So, what else is wrong with it?

[iphoneedbot]

Like previously stated - theres nothing wrong with the technical write-up. though, it shouldve stated that any VPS running any control panel (like plesk or cpanel) can host 18 static sites (even without any optimization). The problem is that its flamebait. you can even see that on it the comments -- and subsequently on webhostingtalk. Just saying saying

As for the $$ im sure he does fine. Affiliate payouts in the webhosting indutry is huge.

[cdx]

Of course any VPS can host 18 static sites. The main point is even one with as little memory as 64mb can host static sites, whilst the majority opinion over at WHT is that it wasn't possible. I'm sure the OP of the WHT post wasn't intending to put out 'flamebait,' merely ask a simple question which the majority said nei. I don't believe LEA (the admin) had a WHT account, so he made a writeup via his blog. Who knows if he gets affiliates? The providers would have to make it though the promotional codes that are directly emailed to him (he does not post direct affiliate links that I can see), but the offers posted on WHT would get no affiliate income. I do see money being made via the side banner adds however. Some see it as 'flame bait,' others see it as an disproving article. I guess no one can win, ne?

[iphoneedbot]

You sure do know alot of this guys (www.lowendbox.com) affairs.. for NOT being a confederate.. or are you?

[cdx]

Nope, just a community fan. I'm sure you/others would do the same to defend this site if it came under attack for something you deem as non-valid. There is only one person who works for LEB and that is LEA.

[iphoneedbot]

Its pretty clear.. that you are a SHILL (or a community fan of LowEndBox) as you phrase it... whatever you want to call it. your impact is still negative and the same.

I find it highly suspicious that your ACCOUNT STARTED the SAME TIME this was posted.

You are FAR too sensitive to deem comments as an ATTACK on the site; or deem it as non-valid. Frankly, there is nothing for you to defend. As I stated; theres nothing wrong with his technical write-up. I just highly question the motivations of being posted on HN with such a title, promo code, ads, etc.

FRANKLY, what you are doing text book 'Gaming HN'. And Heres WHY: 1) You just started your account today for this post 2) You have your comments upvoted and down vote dissenting comments by your confederates 3) You keep on telling people to go to " BuyVM .net" which by the way has LowEndBox.com as its biggest advocate 4) You have a very intimate knowledge of how LowEndBox operates, (if he does affiliate links, or has a WebHostingTalk account, or if he makes money from his ads) Come on you can tell me if you are Francisco Dias - the guy that runs BuyVM and markets almost exclusively at LowEndBox (You just got caught!)

Please stop trying to Game HN and HN users.