Oh no I wasn't supporting Google's tactics. I had to fight for my invite a while back when I didn't turn up at the IO event.
Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer, BBC R&D 01612444063 | 07711913293 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 07 October 2009 18:58 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Google Wave Oh - "peed off" doesn't come into it. And thank you - if it does, you're a gent and I owe you a pint. I still stand by my opinion of Google's tactics though. :-) Cheers, Rich. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Ian Forrester <[email protected]> wrote: > Wow Richard you sound ummmm, a little peed off? > > If I got any invites I'll make sure one goes your way. > > Secret[] Private[x] Public[] > > Ian Forrester > Senior Backstage Producer, BBC R&D > 01612444063 | 07711913293 > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood > Sent: 07 October 2009 18:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [backstage] Google Wave > > As would I. On one hand I'd like an invite, on the other I'd rather gouge my > eyes out than have one. The way Google pass their "invites" > out is very clever-clever in building up a market, but it marks them > out as c***s. I've worked with all kinds of Google stuff and been to > various Google conferences over the years but this time I don't get an > "invite", whereas I have friends who couldn't give the square root of > f*** all about Google who've been "granted" an "invite". > > F**k 'em and the horse they rode in on. > > R. > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Dan Brickley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ian Forrester <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) >>> >>> Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a >>> chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one >>> building a decent client for it? >>> >>> Am I the only excited person? >> >> I think most everyone else is embarrassed to admit they'd quite like an >> invite. >> >> I'd quite like an invite. >> >> Main thing I'm positive about so far, is that XMPP deserves serious >> attention and this will help it get some... >> >> cheers, >> >> Dan >> - >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, >> please visit >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
