Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
A vs. A Redux has come to the attention of one of NewTeeVee, the new blog in Om Malik's stable: http://newteevee.com/2006/12/15/andrew-vs-amanda-part-ii/ Not looking good, guys. On 12/16/06, Gary Short [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda Congdon wrote: Chuck, I am personally offended by that comment. Lady cats everywhere should be outraged. My cat, Mattie, Yadda, yadda, yadda... Hey, isn't it about time that the Andrew and Amanda camps just declared a score draw and applaud each other as they leave the field? What's done is done, let's move on shall we? Apart from anything else, having two vlogging superstars duking it out like this in public, makes us all look like total amateurs. For example, I've managed to land a paying gig with the Carnoustie Golf Links, vlogging their run up to The Open 2007. This event is the major event in the pro golf calendar. We are talking about a multi-million pound business here; something that puts vlogging up there as something you just do when you are hosting an event like this. If I get it right, then every host venue from now on will be doing the same, as they all follow the RA's advice on what is best practice, and that's got to be good for everyone. I'm just glad that no-one at the RA or at Carnoustie Golf Links is following this thread because honestly, I think it could put back what we are trying to achieve by years. Please, will the pair of you just cut it out and move on. -- Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Amanda Congdon wrote: Chuck, I am personally offended by that comment. Lady cats everywhere should be outraged. My cat, Mattie, Yadda, yadda, yadda... Hey, isn't it about time that the Andrew and Amanda camps just declared a score draw and applaud each other as they leave the field? What's done is done, let's move on shall we? Apart from anything else, having two vlogging superstars duking it out like this in public, makes us all look like total amateurs. For example, I've managed to land a paying gig with the Carnoustie Golf Links, vlogging their run up to The Open 2007. This event is the major event in the pro golf calendar. We are talking about a multi-million pound business here; something that puts vlogging up there as something you just do when you are hosting an event like this. If I get it right, then every host venue from now on will be doing the same, as they all follow the RA's advice on what is best practice, and that's got to be good for everyone. I'm just glad that no-one at the RA or at Carnoustie Golf Links is following this thread because honestly, I think it could put back what we are trying to achieve by years. Please, will the pair of you just cut it out and move on. -- Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Oh boy, digging a deeper hole for yourself. ABC News is exactly the people we were in deep talks with. ABC NEws and ABC Family. Its all under Dinsey and we were in project talks with all. You have just lied again, mark my words here. I will release the document to my blog then. The AAA story? Jeze, you have not told the relevant truth, documents are forthcoming. I spent months on this project and it was my sponsor relationship you took for Ford. You quit before the deal was done. You were only able to complete the deal for no money. My deal was for $250,000. No wonder you were able to close it. HBO contacted Rocketboom and wanted to do a show with Rocketboom. You told them I didnt want to. I said I did. I will provide docs, forthcoming. Finally, now we can get somewhere. Drew http://www.rocketboom.com http://www.dembot.com On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: Sorry, Gary, attacks require rebuttal. I've been minding my own business. Wish Mr. Baron could do the same. He's long talked about leaving it up to the lawyers instead of the media, but now (since that hasn't worked in his favor), has decided to go the public route. Hope this ends it. http://amandacongdon.com/blog/?p=6 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gary Short [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda Congdon wrote: Chuck, I am personally offended by that comment. Lady cats everywhere should be outraged. My cat, Mattie, Yadda, yadda, yadda... Hey, isn't it about time that the Andrew and Amanda camps just declared a score draw and applaud each other as they leave the field? What's done is done, let's move on shall we? Apart from anything else, having two vlogging superstars duking it out like this in public, makes us all look like total amateurs. For example, I've managed to land a paying gig with the Carnoustie Golf Links, vlogging their run up to The Open 2007. This event is the major event in the pro golf calendar. We are talking about a multi-million pound business here; something that puts vlogging up there as something you just do when you are hosting an event like this. If I get it right, then every host venue from now on will be doing the same, as they all follow the RA's advice on what is best practice, and that's got to be good for everyone. I'm just glad that no-one at the RA or at Carnoustie Golf Links is following this thread because honestly, I think it could put back what we are trying to achieve by years. Please, will the pair of you just cut it out and move on. -- Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
The deal I was trying to secure was for $250,000 You landed the deal for $0. Nice one. On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: As far as AAA goes, just another example of you failing to secure sponsorship. No contract, no deal. Unless there was a contract that you hid from me? You did hide a lot of business stuff. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
As you can see, I spent legal fees on the HBO opportunity that was meant for Rocketboom but yea, as I said, you stole it away for yourself. Lie #2. Resolved. Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: June 2, 2006 2:20:46 PM EDT To: Thompson, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Johnson, Channing [EMAIL PROTECTED], andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Matthew Lesher, semi-urgent Bryan and Channing, Thank you for getting back to me on this so quickly. As it turns out, the HBO meeting is now happening on Monday rather than later today. The introductory meeting between Ari, Andrew and me is still on as scheduled at 3pm Pacific. How does this change the order of events, if at all? Yes, please prepare Matthew's termination letter. Thanks again, Amanda On 6/2/06, Thompson, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda: I spoke to Channing about this. We think that your analysis of the situation is spot-on accurate and that it would be appropriate for you now to terminate your relationship with Matthew. Accordingly, we believe that you should inform Matthew, both orally and in writing, that your relationship with him is now terminated. You should also inform him that he is not to participate in the HBO conference call, nor is he to contact or speak with HBO or Endeavor concerning you, Andrew, or Rocketboom. Let me know if you would like us to prepare a letter to Matthew concerning this. In order to assure that Matthew is not on the call, you will need to contact him orally before the call. Even if we sent a letter right now, he might not actually read it before the HBO call begins. When you speak to him you can let him know that a letter will be coming. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amanda Congdon Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:19 PM To: Johnson, Channing; Thompson, Bryan; andrew michael baron Cc: Jim Congdon Subject: Matthew Lesher, semi-urgent Hello everyone, I spoke with Matthew Lesher this evening. I asked him why Ari Emanuel would be under the impression he was Rocketboom's manger. He said he didn't know, that maybe Ari just assumed as much. He then said, in fact, that both he and Ari had no interest in the management of Rocketboom. He also said that because Ari (and thus Endeavor) were not involved in the book deal, that he felt Ari was being aggressive in wanting 10% equity in Rocketboom. I asked him why he then jumped on the bandwagon and asked for the same thing (on Friday Matthew brought up getting 10% too). He started back peddling and saying that we were just beginning the conversation, that nothing had been decided. I told him it sounded like he didn't have my best interests in mind, and he said no, he was just presenting all the options. If he truly had my best interest in mind, he would have told me he thought Ari was being aggressive on Friday, not now after I pressed him about it. Bottom line is that I don't trust him, so I believe the relationship will have to be terminated. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks. The big issue now is that I have a conference call today (Friday) scheduled with Caroline Strauss at HBO to workshop show ideas at 2:30 Pacific, and I don't want Matthew in on that. Ari is the only one that had anything to do with setting that up. Matthew also has included himself in an introductory conversation that was supposed to happen directly before the HBO meeting, with Andrew, Ari and me. Andrew just sent me an email suggesting perhaps the talk with Matthew occur very shortly before the HBO meeting is scheduled, so as not to give Matthew time to backlash before the meeting. Help please!! Thanks so much for all of your guidance, Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
The best way to avoid factual statements is to ask questions. On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: This proves what? That I (not you) had an HBO meeting and that I fired my manager? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you can see, I spent legal fees on the HBO opportunity that was meant for Rocketboom but yea, as I said, you stole it away for yourself. Lie #2. Resolved. Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: June 2, 2006 2:20:46 PM EDT To: Thompson, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Johnson, Channing [EMAIL PROTECTED], andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Matthew Lesher, semi-urgent Bryan and Channing, Thank you for getting back to me on this so quickly. As it turns out, the HBO meeting is now happening on Monday rather than later today. The introductory meeting between Ari, Andrew and me is still on as scheduled at 3pm Pacific. How does this change the order of events, if at all? Yes, please prepare Matthew's termination letter. Thanks again, Amanda On 6/2/06, Thompson, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda: I spoke to Channing about this. We think that your analysis of the situation is spot-on accurate and that it would be appropriate for you now to terminate your relationship with Matthew. Accordingly, we believe that you should inform Matthew, both orally and in writing, that your relationship with him is now terminated. You should also inform him that he is not to participate in the HBO conference call, nor is he to contact or speak with HBO or Endeavor concerning you, Andrew, or Rocketboom. Let me know if you would like us to prepare a letter to Matthew concerning this. In order to assure that Matthew is not on the call, you will need to contact him orally before the call. Even if we sent a letter right now, he might not actually read it before the HBO call begins. When you speak to him you can let him know that a letter will be coming. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amanda Congdon Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:19 PM To: Johnson, Channing; Thompson, Bryan; andrew michael baron Cc: Jim Congdon Subject: Matthew Lesher, semi-urgent Hello everyone, I spoke with Matthew Lesher this evening. I asked him why Ari Emanuel would be under the impression he was Rocketboom's manger. He said he didn't know, that maybe Ari just assumed as much. He then said, in fact, that both he and Ari had no interest in the management of Rocketboom. He also said that because Ari (and thus Endeavor) were not involved in the book deal, that he felt Ari was being aggressive in wanting 10% equity in Rocketboom. I asked him why he then jumped on the bandwagon and asked for the same thing (on Friday Matthew brought up getting 10% too). He started back peddling and saying that we were just beginning the conversation, that nothing had been decided. I told him it sounded like he didn't have my best interests in mind, and he said no, he was just presenting all the options. If he truly had my best interest in mind, he would have told me he thought Ari was being aggressive on Friday, not now after I pressed him about it. Bottom line is that I don't trust him, so I believe the relationship will have to be terminated. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks. The big issue now is that I have a conference call today (Friday) scheduled with Caroline Strauss at HBO to workshop show ideas at 2:30 Pacific, and I don't want Matthew in on that. Ari is the only one that had anything to do with setting that up. Matthew also has included himself in an introductory conversation that was supposed to happen directly before the HBO meeting, with Andrew, Ari and me. Andrew just sent me an email suggesting perhaps the talk with Matthew occur very shortly before the HBO meeting is scheduled, so as not to give Matthew time to backlash before the meeting. Help please!! Thanks so much for all of your guidance, Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Guys, this isn't helping either of you. My strong advice as a businesswoman and (I hope) friend is DO NOT discuss this stuff here OR on your blogs. If I were a potential sponsor watching all this, I'd be extremely uncomfortable about the sensitive details getting batted around. And that is the last I'm going to say on the subject. Moderators, where are you? On 12/16/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup. You are right on that one. I wasn't doing it for the money. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The deal I was trying to secure was for $250,000 You landed the deal for $0. Nice one. On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: As far as AAA goes, just another example of you failing to secure sponsorship. No contract, no deal. Unless there was a contract that you hid from me? You did hide a lot of business stuff. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
I agree. This isn't impressing me in the least about either party. I don't really care anymore. You both are polluting this group and it needs to stop, and stop now. Take it onto your blogs where, if we care, we can read your slings at each other. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Digital Buddha Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:49 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! Andrew and Amada, I admire your work both when you were working together, and now independently of one another. I am embarrassed for the two of you with your public display. The court of public opinion is not the one to discuss this. It may not seem like poor judgement today to either of you, but you may be thinking much differently a year or two from now. Please, please, please take it off line. You are now at the stage of virtual shouting. I am waiting for objects to start to fly. It will just get uglier. I hope you and your respective legal counsel will be able to settle this swiftly. On 12/16/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:amanda%40amandacongdon.com n.com wrote: This proves what? That I (not you) had an HBO meeting and that I fired my manager? --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you can see, I spent legal fees on the HBO opportunity that was meant for Rocketboom but yea, as I said, you stole it away for yourself. Lie #2. Resolved. Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: June 2, 2006 2:20:46 PM EDT To: Thompson, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Johnson, Channing [EMAIL PROTECTED], andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Matthew Lesher, semi-urgent Bryan and Channing, Thank you for getting back to me on this so quickly. As it turns out, the HBO meeting is now happening on Monday rather than later today. The introductory meeting between Ari, Andrew and me is still on as scheduled at 3pm Pacific. How does this change the order of events, if at all? Yes, please prepare Matthew's termination letter. Thanks again, Amanda On 6/2/06, Thompson, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda: I spoke to Channing about this. We think that your analysis of the situation is spot-on accurate and that it would be appropriate for you now to terminate your relationship with Matthew. Accordingly, we believe that you should inform Matthew, both orally and in writing, that your relationship with him is now terminated. You should also inform him that he is not to participate in the HBO conference call, nor is he to contact or speak with HBO or Endeavor concerning you, Andrew, or Rocketboom. Let me know if you would like us to prepare a letter to Matthew concerning this. In order to assure that Matthew is not on the call, you will need to contact him orally before the call. Even if we sent a letter right now, he might not actually read it before the HBO call begins. When you speak to him you can let him know that a letter will be coming. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amanda Congdon Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:19 PM To: Johnson, Channing; Thompson, Bryan; andrew michael baron Cc: Jim Congdon Subject: Matthew Lesher, semi-urgent Hello everyone, I spoke with Matthew Lesher this evening. I asked him why Ari Emanuel would be under the impression he was Rocketboom's manger. He said he didn't know, that maybe Ari just assumed as much. He then said, in fact, that both he and Ari had no interest in the management of Rocketboom. He also said that because Ari (and thus Endeavor) were not involved in the book deal, that he felt Ari was being aggressive in wanting 10% equity in Rocketboom. I asked him why he then jumped on the bandwagon and asked for the same thing (on Friday Matthew brought up getting 10% too). He started back peddling and saying that we were just beginning the conversation, that nothing had been decided. I told him it sounded like he didn't have my best interests in mind, and he said no, he was just presenting all the options. If he truly had my best interest in mind, he would have told me he thought Ari was being aggressive on Friday, not now after I pressed him about it. Bottom line is that I don't trust him, so I believe the relationship will have to be terminated. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks. The big issue now is that I have a conference call today (Friday) scheduled with Caroline Strauss at HBO to workshop show ideas at 2:30 Pacific, and I don't want Matthew in on that. Ari is the only one that had anything to do
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Girls! Girls! You're ALL pretty! On 12/16/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ryanne, I think considering Andrew's onslaught of attacks have been unprovoked and unsubstantiated, it might not be a bad idea to ban him. All I have ever done is defend myself. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i don't think it's really up to the moderators to tell you both to just shut up. what are the mods going to do ban you guys from the list? if that's what you want. On 12/16/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree completely Deirdre. Where are the moderators? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan deirdre.straughan@ wrote: Guys, this isn't helping either of you. My strong advice as a businesswoman and (I hope) friend is DO NOT discuss this stuff here OR on your blogs. If I were a potential sponsor watching all this, I'd be extremely uncomfortable about the sensitive details getting batted around. And that is the last I'm going to say on the subject. Moderators, where are you? On 12/16/06, Amanda Congdon amanda@ wrote: Yup. You are right on that one. I wasn't doing it for the money. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: The deal I was trying to secure was for $250,000 You landed the deal for $0. Nice one. On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: As far as AAA goes, just another example of you failing to secure sponsorship. No contract, no deal. Unless there was a contract that you hid from me? You did hide a lot of business stuff. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Author of Secrets of Videoblogging http://tinyurl.com/me4vs Me http://RyanEdit.com, http://RyanIsHungry.com Educate http://FreeVlog.org, http://Node101.org Community Capitalism http://HaveMoneyWillVlog.com iChat/AIM VideoRodeo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Meanwhile, Amanda marches on. She's on CNN's program The Future right now. And she's doing well. Of course, this means I'm blogging rather than working out and holiday shopping... Zennie --- Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Dang, so much for my attempt to distract away from the tears and tantrums episode. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 20:07, Zenophon Abraham wrote: Meanwhile, Amanda marches on. She's on CNN's program The Future right now. And she's doing well. Of course, this means I'm blogging rather than working out and holiday shopping... Zennie --- Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Ladies and Gentlemen, Im finished. Ive said everything I wanted to say to defend myself from Amanda. EOF I would like to explain my method and thank you for providing a forum in which to help. I did not find this back-n-forth harmful, inappropriate or out of the ordinary. For me this is a result of months and months of pent up emotion, anticipation, and especially legal strategy. This is extremely serious. This is regarding grossly false accusations on my personal character within our own community of friends and colleagues. The feeling is much more intense for me than anyone else because its my integrity at stake and this is directly tied into Rocketboom's well being. I feel as though this forum is important for the support of videobloggers with regards to all aspects of the trials and tribulations of videoblogging. For me, it has always been this way. As you can see from one of 1000's of posts just like this, it also has a real and direct effect on my business: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/05/congdon-fired-from-rocketboom/ I appreciate that I could get my side of the story out to a group of people who I find to be the most likely to relate, understand and care. We all have plenty of lessons to learn and hopefully the learning will never stop for any of us. If its not clear or you feel nothing has been settled, that's okay, I feel as though it has and that's why I can now say I am finished with my public statements on this issue. So thanks again. Drew On Dec 16, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Paul Knight wrote: Dang, so much for my attempt to distract away from the tears and tantrums episode. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 20:07, Zenophon Abraham wrote: Meanwhile, Amanda marches on. She's on CNN's program The Future right now. And she's doing well. Of course, this means I'm blogging rather than working out and holiday shopping... Zennie --- Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Amanda Congdon wrote: I agree completely Deirdre. Where are the moderators? Amanda, The mods are working behind the scenes. I've been contacted off list and asked not to post on the thread. I assume others have too. -- Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Drew, You da man, as far as I concerned. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 21:15, andrew michael baron wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, Im finished. Ive said everything I wanted to say to defend myself from Amanda. EOF I would like to explain my method and thank you for providing a forum in which to help. I did not find this back-n-forth harmful, inappropriate or out of the ordinary. For me this is a result of months and months of pent up emotion, anticipation, and especially legal strategy. This is extremely serious. This is regarding grossly false accusations on my personal character within our own community of friends and colleagues. The feeling is much more intense for me than anyone else because its my integrity at stake and this is directly tied into Rocketboom's well being. I feel as though this forum is important for the support of videobloggers with regards to all aspects of the trials and tribulations of videoblogging. For me, it has always been this way. As you can see from one of 1000's of posts just like this, it also has a real and direct effect on my business: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/05/congdon-fired-from-rocketboom/ I appreciate that I could get my side of the story out to a group of people who I find to be the most likely to relate, understand and care. We all have plenty of lessons to learn and hopefully the learning will never stop for any of us. If its not clear or you feel nothing has been settled, that's okay, I feel as though it has and that's why I can now say I am finished with my public statements on this issue. So thanks again. Drew On Dec 16, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Paul Knight wrote: Dang, so much for my attempt to distract away from the tears and tantrums episode. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 20:07, Zenophon Abraham wrote: Meanwhile, Amanda marches on. She's on CNN's program The Future right now. And she's doing well. Of course, this means I'm blogging rather than working out and holiday shopping... Zennie --- Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
BBC!? You da man! On Dec 16, 2006, at 5:04 PM, Paul Knight wrote: Drew, You da man, as far as I concerned. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 21:15, andrew michael baron wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, Im finished. Ive said everything I wanted to say to defend myself from Amanda. EOF I would like to explain my method and thank you for providing a forum in which to help. I did not find this back-n-forth harmful, inappropriate or out of the ordinary. For me this is a result of months and months of pent up emotion, anticipation, and especially legal strategy. This is extremely serious. This is regarding grossly false accusations on my personal character within our own community of friends and colleagues. The feeling is much more intense for me than anyone else because its my integrity at stake and this is directly tied into Rocketboom's well being. I feel as though this forum is important for the support of videobloggers with regards to all aspects of the trials and tribulations of videoblogging. For me, it has always been this way. As you can see from one of 1000's of posts just like this, it also has a real and direct effect on my business: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/05/congdon-fired-from-rocketboom/ I appreciate that I could get my side of the story out to a group of people who I find to be the most likely to relate, understand and care. We all have plenty of lessons to learn and hopefully the learning will never stop for any of us. If its not clear or you feel nothing has been settled, that's okay, I feel as though it has and that's why I can now say I am finished with my public statements on this issue. So thanks again. Drew On Dec 16, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Paul Knight wrote: Dang, so much for my attempt to distract away from the tears and tantrums episode. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 20:07, Zenophon Abraham wrote: Meanwhile, Amanda marches on. She's on CNN's program The Future right now. And she's doing well. Of course, this means I'm blogging rather than working out and holiday shopping... Zennie --- Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Find your path, and share the joy! The People Of The United Methodist Church. --- Paul Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dang, so much for my attempt to distract away from the tears and tantrums episode. Paul On 16 Dec 2006, at 20:07, Zenophon Abraham wrote: Meanwhile, Amanda marches on. She's on CNN's program The Future right now. And she's doing well. Of course, this means I'm blogging rather than working out and holiday shopping... Zennie --- Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it has entertainment value for some, but they're hurting themselves more than each other. You know how in movies you see someone doing something really stupid and wrong and you know they're going to get caught, or hurt, or killed? Like when Susan is doing the nth stupid thing in Desperate Housewives and you can see the trainwreck coming? I can't take those scenes - they hurt my stomach, I get up and walk out. Which is how this whole thing makes me feel. On 12/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Moderators, where are you? this one is sitting back watching this tread with great amusement. thanks for the entertainment. in particular, i really liked the hugs video loiez shared. that was the highlight. i really haven't had time to watch soap operas for a long long time and this one was actually a real treat. for those who wish it would stop: please just ignore it. btw, a moderator started this thread. and another moderator already set it on fire. what more do you want? play nice kids :) --- Markus Sandy -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of andrew michael baron Sent: 14 December 2006 22:39 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! Apparently, not having your own ideas runs in the family. ;) Andrew, you are really starting to get on my nerves now with this carping; it is so childish, it's like listening to my kids arguing over who has been given the most veg and how it's s unfair. For goodness sake stop being such a baby. The sad fact of business is that people come together, they do great work and sometimes they disagree and go their own way - that's life Andrew, get over it. The thing is there is no doubt you have talent, but you are not encouraging anyone to reach out to you with a new business idea/partnership with this behavior. People will be reading these outbursts of yours and saying to themselves, is this what it is like if it doesn't work out? and they'll be giving you a big body swerve. While we are on the subject, stop pretending that Rocketboom was some huge intellectual breakthrough on your part, that it was all your wonderful idea. What utter nonsense. Entertaining though Rocketboom was (and still is) there wasn't a single new idea there. I mean, taking a look at the more quirky aspects of the news? Been done. Fronting the show with a good looking, intelligent and charismatic woman. Been done. Hosting the show as a video cast for download? Been done. So what was your idea exactly? Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Den 15.12.2006 kl. 10:04 skrev Gary Short [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? If you don't want to pour water on troubled water, you should refrain from writing e-mails as the one I'm quoting here. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
If I were wronged, be it in business or personal affairs, and the culprit gets off scott-free and is simultaneously raised upon the collective hands of the community that I helped to build, I would feel it worth a fight to get my story told. On 12/15/06, Gary Short [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com[mailto: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of andrew michael baron Sent: 14 December 2006 22:39 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! Apparently, not having your own ideas runs in the family. ;) Andrew, you are really starting to get on my nerves now with this carping; it is so childish, it's like listening to my kids arguing over who has been given the most veg and how it's s unfair. For goodness sake stop being such a baby. The sad fact of business is that people come together, they do great work and sometimes they disagree and go their own way - that's life Andrew, get over it. The thing is there is no doubt you have talent, but you are not encouraging anyone to reach out to you with a new business idea/partnership with this behavior. People will be reading these outbursts of yours and saying to themselves, is this what it is like if it doesn't work out? and they'll be giving you a big body swerve. While we are on the subject, stop pretending that Rocketboom was some huge intellectual breakthrough on your part, that it was all your wonderful idea. What utter nonsense. Entertaining though Rocketboom was (and still is) there wasn't a single new idea there. I mean, taking a look at the more quirky aspects of the news? Been done. Fronting the show with a good looking, intelligent and charismatic woman. Been done. Hosting the show as a video cast for download? Been done. So what was your idea exactly? Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
True, but there comes a point when everyone gets sick of it and it produces exactly the opposite of the sympathy and support you're looking for. And it doesn't reflect well on anybody's professionality to be airing these grievances here. On 12/15/06, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I were wronged, be it in business or personal affairs, and the culprit gets off scott-free and is simultaneously raised upon the collective hands of the community that I helped to build, I would feel it worth a fight to get my story told. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
How does it reflect upon justice? http://yeastradio.podshow.com/?p=954 On 12/15/06, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True, but there comes a point when everyone gets sick of it and it produces exactly the opposite of the sympathy and support you're looking for. And it doesn't reflect well on anybody's professionality to be airing these grievances here. On 12/15/06, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] bullemhead%40gmail.com wrote: If I were wronged, be it in business or personal affairs, and the culprit gets off scott-free and is simultaneously raised upon the collective hands of the community that I helped to build, I would feel it worth a fight to get my story told. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Quirk Sent: 15 December 2006 09:41 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! If I were wronged, be it in business or personal affairs, and the culprit gets off scott-free and is simultaneously raised upon the collective hands of the community that I helped to build, I would feel it worth a fight to get my story told. I can understand that point of view, but I believe it does no good in the long run; it simply turns off future partners/employers. The best revenge (if that is what is required) is to keep quiet, get out there, and become even more successful. Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
If you don't want to pour water on troubled water, you should refrain from writing e-mails as the one I'm quoting here. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ You are probably correct, but then again it’s just so frustrating that so much energy is being wasted on this feud. How much better would it be if the same energy was being used to create something new and truly innovative? Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Den 15.12.2006 kl. 11:08 skrev Gary Short [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You are probably correct, but then again it’s just so frustrating that so much energy is being wasted on this feud. How much better would it be if the same energy was being used to create something new and truly innovative? My reply was the unobtrusive way of telling you and anyone else to stop posting in this thread (without me having to put on a 'moderator' hat). It has run its course and both points of view have been expressed. Anything that will come from this thread in the future is flamebait and mudslinging and we don't need that. So knock it off. Please. Like you say: Create something innovative. That ain't gonna happen in this thread. - Andreas -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Gary, whats the point of telling me Im getting on your nerves? You are doing exactly what Andrew Congdon did and I have no problem speaking up about it and defending myself. I think I provided a well rounded argument for disucssion about the cost of doing business when merging established media and new media. When Andrew Congdon chimed in to refute my contribution to this group by saying Sour Grapes, I think this shows dolt behavior. I think this is now your unfortunate oversight. Your comments should have been directed at him. So what was your idea exactly? Why dont you go back and read the post instead of participating in accusing me of being such a baby and shooting me down for the contributions I give to this field, big or small. Andrew, you are really starting to get on my nerves now with this carping; Give me a brea it is so childish, it's like listening to my kids arguing over who has been given the most veg and how it's s unfair. For goodness sake stop being such a baby. Huh? The sad fact of business is that people come together, they do great work and sometimes they disagree and go their own way - that's life Andrew, get over it. The thing is there is no doubt you have talent, but you are not encouraging anyone to reach out to you with a new business idea/partnership with this behavior. People will be reading these outbursts of yours and saying to themselves, is this what it is like if it doesn't work out? and they'll be giving you a big body swerve. While we are on the subject, stop pretending that Rocketboom was some huge intellectual breakthrough on your part, that it was all your wonderful idea. What utter nonsense. Entertaining though Rocketboom was (and still is) there wasn't a single new idea there. I mean, taking a look at the more quirky aspects of the news? Been done. Fronting the show with a good looking, intelligent and charismatic woman. Been done. Hosting the show as a video cast for download? Been done. So what was your idea exactly? Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
As a mod asked everyone to stop posting on this thread (you must have missed that) I'll not respond here, but if you wish to continue this discussion please feel free to contact me off list. Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of andrew michael baron Sent: 15 December 2006 14:33 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! Gary, whats the point of telling me Im getting on your nerves? You are doing exactly what Andrew Congdon did and I have no problem speaking up about it and defending myself. I think I provided a well rounded argument for disucssion about the cost of doing business when merging established media and new media. When Andrew Congdon chimed in to refute my contribution to this group by saying Sour Grapes, I think this shows dolt behavior. I think this is now your unfortunate oversight. Your comments should have been directed at him. So what was your idea exactly? Why dont you go back and read the post instead of participating in accusing me of being such a baby and shooting me down for the contributions I give to this field, big or small. Andrew, you are really starting to get on my nerves now with this carping; Give me a brea it is so childish, it's like listening to my kids arguing over who has been given the most veg and how it's s unfair. For goodness sake stop being such a baby. Huh? The sad fact of business is that people come together, they do great work and sometimes they disagree and go their own way - that's life Andrew, get over it. The thing is there is no doubt you have talent, but you are not encouraging anyone to reach out to you with a new business idea/partnership with this behavior. People will be reading these outbursts of yours and saying to themselves, is this what it is like if it doesn't work out? and they'll be giving you a big body swerve. While we are on the subject, stop pretending that Rocketboom was some huge intellectual breakthrough on your part, that it was all your wonderful idea. What utter nonsense. Entertaining though Rocketboom was (and still is) there wasn't a single new idea there. I mean, taking a look at the more quirky aspects of the news? Been done. Fronting the show with a good looking, intelligent and charismatic woman. Been done. Hosting the show as a video cast for download? Been done. So what was your idea exactly? Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Hi Gary, no need. I think Sul just meant he didn't want people to be antagonistic with each other. My intent is to provide feedback that will hopefully be useful to others. There is a direction I was going with this and it has to do with business practices. Because everyone in the Amanda camp have done their best to silence the discussion, I posted it to my blog - you and they seem to be overly resistant to considering this worthwhile topic. http://www.dembot.com/011937.html The other part of the discussion which I have yet to begin is also very important and it has to do with the relationships of band members. Videoblogs are a lot like bands and the collaboration between partners leads to a hell of a lot of strife for many people. Amanda chose to make ours public when she posted her video and began attacking me on her blog and to the press. Thus, it's a perfect opportunity to explore and share the experience for the sake of preventing others from having to go through this. People go though this all the time but its usually behind closed doors so no one learns from mistakes and thus progression in the favor of independents becomes stifled. I did not understand the importance of this until it was already overwhelming. There are a lot of people that start working on a project - especially duos - and they really need to do some things to anticipate the future, good or bad. On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Gary Short wrote: As a mod asked everyone to stop posting on this thread (you must have missed that) I'll not respond here, but if you wish to continue this discussion please feel free to contact me off list. Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of andrew michael baron Sent: 15 December 2006 14:33 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! Gary, whats the point of telling me Im getting on your nerves? You are doing exactly what Andrew Congdon did and I have no problem speaking up about it and defending myself. I think I provided a well rounded argument for disucssion about the cost of doing business when merging established media and new media. When Andrew Congdon chimed in to refute my contribution to this group by saying Sour Grapes, I think this shows dolt behavior. I think this is now your unfortunate oversight. Your comments should have been directed at him. So what was your idea exactly? Why dont you go back and read the post instead of participating in accusing me of being such a baby and shooting me down for the contributions I give to this field, big or small. Andrew, you are really starting to get on my nerves now with this carping; Give me a brea it is so childish, it's like listening to my kids arguing over who has been given the most veg and how it's s unfair. For goodness sake stop being such a baby. Huh? The sad fact of business is that people come together, they do great work and sometimes they disagree and go their own way - that's life Andrew, get over it. The thing is there is no doubt you have talent, but you are not encouraging anyone to reach out to you with a new business idea/partnership with this behavior. People will be reading these outbursts of yours and saying to themselves, is this what it is like if it doesn't work out? and they'll be giving you a big body swerve. While we are on the subject, stop pretending that Rocketboom was some huge intellectual breakthrough on your part, that it was all your wonderful idea. What utter nonsense. Entertaining though Rocketboom was (and still is) there wasn't a single new idea there. I mean, taking a look at the more quirky aspects of the news? Been done. Fronting the show with a good looking, intelligent and charismatic woman. Been done. Hosting the show as a video cast for download? Been done. So what was your idea exactly? Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Andrew vs. Amanda, Part 9,452,953: When Blogging It Ain't Enough On 12/15/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Gary, no need. I think Sul just meant he didn't want people to be antagonistic with each other. My intent is to provide feedback that will hopefully be useful to others. There is a direction I was going with this and it has to do with business practices. Because everyone in the Amanda camp have done their best to silence the discussion, I posted it to my blog - you and they seem to be overly resistant to considering this worthwhile topic. http://www.dembot.com/011937.html The other part of the discussion which I have yet to begin is also very important and it has to do with the relationships of band members. Videoblogs are a lot like bands and the collaboration between partners leads to a hell of a lot of strife for many people. Amanda chose to make ours public when she posted her video and began attacking me on her blog and to the press. Thus, it's a perfect opportunity to explore and share the experience for the sake of preventing others from having to go through this. People go though this all the time but its usually behind closed doors so no one learns from mistakes and thus progression in the favor of independents becomes stifled. I did not understand the importance of this until it was already overwhelming. There are a lot of people that start working on a project - especially duos - and they really need to do some things to anticipate the future, good or bad. On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Gary Short wrote: As a mod asked everyone to stop posting on this thread (you must have missed that) I'll not respond here, but if you wish to continue this discussion please feel free to contact me off list. Cheers, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of andrew michael baron Sent: 15 December 2006 14:33 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! Gary, whats the point of telling me Im getting on your nerves? You are doing exactly what Andrew Congdon did and I have no problem speaking up about it and defending myself. I think I provided a well rounded argument for disucssion about the cost of doing business when merging established media and new media. When Andrew Congdon chimed in to refute my contribution to this group by saying Sour Grapes, I think this shows dolt behavior. I think this is now your unfortunate oversight. Your comments should have been directed at him. So what was your idea exactly? Why dont you go back and read the post instead of participating in accusing me of being such a baby and shooting me down for the contributions I give to this field, big or small. Andrew, you are really starting to get on my nerves now with this carping; Give me a brea it is so childish, it's like listening to my kids arguing over who has been given the most veg and how it's s unfair. For goodness sake stop being such a baby. Huh? The sad fact of business is that people come together, they do great work and sometimes they disagree and go their own way - that's life Andrew, get over it. The thing is there is no doubt you have talent, but you are not encouraging anyone to reach out to you with a new business idea/partnership with this behavior. People will be reading these outbursts of yours and saying to themselves, is this what it is like if it doesn't work out? and they'll be giving you a big body swerve. While we are on the subject, stop pretending that Rocketboom was some huge intellectual breakthrough on your part, that it was all your wonderful idea. What utter nonsense. Entertaining though Rocketboom was (and still is) there wasn't a single new idea there. I mean, taking a look at the more quirky aspects of the news? Been done. Fronting the show with a good looking, intelligent and charismatic woman. Been done. Hosting the show as a video cast for download? Been done. So what was your idea exactly? Like I said though, I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, as I think we are all tired of hearing about it - just please, get over yourself will you? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
I know how it goes... When Little Jerry Seinfeld (my former cat) and I started working together in 2005, we got off to a good start, but after starring in some of my most popular videos, he demanded more from me. He wanted me to agree to a contract where he would get a can of tuna a day, and a new toy mouse every week. During negotiations he got really heavy into catnip and started to be really belligerent. I told him that I couldn't agree to his demands so he left. I told everyone it he videoblogging world that he ran away, but it was a little more complicated than that. We lost touch after that (I do know that he started hanging out with a group of strays who had not yet been neutered or spayed). After Jerry left, I was forced to find a new cat-co-host. I searched all over and found some real talent with Winnie Cooper. As she grew she proved to be a fantastic partner. She helps me edit videos, curates joshleo.com/vlogcats and has starred in a few of her own videos. I am happy with the way things are going and hope there isn't too much bad blood between Jerry and I. Last I heard he was thinking about going into rehab and getting back into the videoblogging scene, but we will see how things play out. I suppose that there could have been ways to prevent the whole situation, but you know what they say... On 12/15/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did not understand the importance of this until it was already overwhelming. There are a lot of people that start working on a project - especially duos - and they really need to do some things to anticipate the future, good or bad. -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
I too was bothered by the ads - not the advertising per se, but rather the length. That and the fact that it felt they were created for television and not the web. There's a different style that works on the web and advertisers have yet to figure it out. In the long run, product placement will work better. Jan On 12/13/06, Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ads bothered me so much, I probably won't watch again. I love Amanda's posts, but I just can't stand to sit through commercials, especially on a video blog, at least not when they're shown first thing. Commercials are exactly the thing that deters me from watching much television anymore. How about a mid-roll ad? How about at least limiting video blog ads to 5 seconds. Yeah, if advertising is going to happen at all on video blogs, can we make a 5-second rule? I'm truly sorry Amanda. Adam http://oneeyedview.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up! / Tea Time!
But, sweetie, you're too old for him! grin On 12/14/06, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, I'd TOTALLY want to have Jerry Lee Lewis over for tea! I bet he's a Formosa Oolong kind of guy. B. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:\ Jerry Lee Lewis liked having sex with (and marrying) 14 year olds. Not someone I'd particularly enjoy having over for tea, probably. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
On the topic of ABC's videoblog, I'm going to set aside all of the technical problems everyone has already mentioned with the video distribution and the ABC platform - the fact that there are no RSS feeds, the comments are pre-approved and filtered (even when not offensive), the video scrolls have been turned off, one is forced to view long, irrelevant pre-roll ads that outlast many people's curiosity and especially the closed platform with no mobile or local potential. In otherwords, the only difference between this video platform and one from say, 1997, is that for this one, at least the video does come on and plays. Maybe they can hire someone who knows a thing or two about it. I'm going to suggest that the greatest failure of this project however has to do with the severely expensive resources that are being used for a product that can be much more valuable for a mere fraction of the effort and costs. My question is, how much money did it take to produce this? Also, if all of the effort only goes into a once-a-week show, how effective and interested are the people behind the show to take so much time and money to do so little? For instance, we know they are probably paying Amanda a professional salary. They are also paying two senior level producers for this. Then there is at least one editor, a camera person (unless one of the producers is a cameraman), lighting tech, audio guy, all with premium 'ABC' salaries. I am just speculating, perhaps I have missed some. In addition to that, the entity ABC needs to make revenue (beside the people), yet they also have at least one rep that works with Amanda besides the producers and other production staff. Surely they have someone who works on the website if not a section of a team. Amanda's agent needs a professional share. Amanda's manager too. They obviously have a very aggressive PR team too (which they will definitely need to drive people to the show). Lets not forget the advertisers! They are the ones supporting this and because so many people need to get paid such high salaries, the advertisers need to get paid most of the real-estate of the website. In many ways, this scenario is typical of one where the advertisers are way more important than the show itself. The show is just a tool for ad sales in the end, after all. The point I want to make is, there are probably WAY too many people needed to pull off this one 5 minute production exclusively for a small flash file on one website. A company like ABC should perhaps use their expensive resources to produce content that needs expensive resources. Was there special access gained? Was there need for expensive equipment? Travel expenses? 3 producers? No, there was no sign of any need for any of the above that I could see.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes On 12/14/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the topic of ABC's videoblog, I'm going to set aside all of the technical problems everyone has already mentioned with the video distribution and the ABC platform - the fact that there are no RSS feeds, the comments are pre-approved and filtered (even when not offensive), the video scrolls have been turned off, one is forced to view long, irrelevant pre-roll ads that outlast many people's curiosity and especially the closed platform with no mobile or local potential. In otherwords, the only difference between this video platform and one from say, 1997, is that for this one, at least the video does come on and plays. Maybe they can hire someone who knows a thing or two about it. I'm going to suggest that the greatest failure of this project however has to do with the severely expensive resources that are being used for a product that can be much more valuable for a mere fraction of the effort and costs. My question is, how much money did it take to produce this? Also, if all of the effort only goes into a once-a-week show, how effective and interested are the people behind the show to take so much time and money to do so little? For instance, we know they are probably paying Amanda a professional salary. They are also paying two senior level producers for this. Then there is at least one editor, a camera person (unless one of the producers is a cameraman), lighting tech, audio guy, all with premium 'ABC' salaries. I am just speculating, perhaps I have missed some. In addition to that, the entity ABC needs to make revenue (beside the people), yet they also have at least one rep that works with Amanda besides the producers and other production staff. Surely they have someone who works on the website if not a section of a team. Amanda's agent needs a professional share. Amanda's manager too. They obviously have a very aggressive PR team too (which they will definitely need to drive people to the show). Lets not forget the advertisers! They are the ones supporting this and because so many people need to get paid such high salaries, the advertisers need to get paid most of the real-estate of the website. In many ways, this scenario is typical of one where the advertisers are way more important than the show itself. The show is just a tool for ad sales in the end, after all. The point I want to make is, there are probably WAY too many people needed to pull off this one 5 minute production exclusively for a small flash file on one website. A company like ABC should perhaps use their expensive resources to produce content that needs expensive resources. Was there special access gained? Was there need for expensive equipment? Travel expenses? 3 producers? No, there was no sign of any need for any of the above that I could see. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Apparently, not having your own ideas runs in the family. ;) On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Andrew Congdon wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes On 12/14/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the topic of ABC's videoblog, I'm going to set aside all of the technical problems everyone has already mentioned with the video distribution and the ABC platform - the fact that there are no RSS feeds, the comments are pre-approved and filtered (even when not offensive), the video scrolls have been turned off, one is forced to view long, irrelevant pre-roll ads that outlast many people's curiosity and especially the closed platform with no mobile or local potential. In otherwords, the only difference between this video platform and one from say, 1997, is that for this one, at least the video does come on and plays. Maybe they can hire someone who knows a thing or two about it. I'm going to suggest that the greatest failure of this project however has to do with the severely expensive resources that are being used for a product that can be much more valuable for a mere fraction of the effort and costs. My question is, how much money did it take to produce this? Also, if all of the effort only goes into a once-a-week show, how effective and interested are the people behind the show to take so much time and money to do so little? For instance, we know they are probably paying Amanda a professional salary. They are also paying two senior level producers for this. Then there is at least one editor, a camera person (unless one of the producers is a cameraman), lighting tech, audio guy, all with premium 'ABC' salaries. I am just speculating, perhaps I have missed some. In addition to that, the entity ABC needs to make revenue (beside the people), yet they also have at least one rep that works with Amanda besides the producers and other production staff. Surely they have someone who works on the website if not a section of a team. Amanda's agent needs a professional share. Amanda's manager too. They obviously have a very aggressive PR team too (which they will definitely need to drive people to the show). Lets not forget the advertisers! They are the ones supporting this and because so many people need to get paid such high salaries, the advertisers need to get paid most of the real-estate of the website. In many ways, this scenario is typical of one where the advertisers are way more important than the show itself. The show is just a tool for ad sales in the end, after all. The point I want to make is, there are probably WAY too many people needed to pull off this one 5 minute production exclusively for a small flash file on one website. A company like ABC should perhaps use their expensive resources to produce content that needs expensive resources. Was there special access gained? Was there need for expensive equipment? Travel expenses? 3 producers? No, there was no sign of any need for any of the above that I could see. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Steve W.: Perhaps a smarter strategy for them would be to forget about getting direct advertising revenue from Amanda's videos, and try to use it to drive more traffic to their site overall. I think you're very right. I mean who ever went to their site otherwise? joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
oh my mistake, I would add a creative comment that you would probably take credit for but I don't want to encourage further public spectacle. On 12/14/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apparently, not having your own ideas runs in the family. ;) On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Andrew Congdon wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes On 12/14/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED]andrew%40rocketboom.com wrote: On the topic of ABC's videoblog, I'm going to set aside all of the technical problems everyone has already mentioned with the video distribution and the ABC platform - the fact that there are no RSS feeds, the comments are pre-approved and filtered (even when not offensive), the video scrolls have been turned off, one is forced to view long, irrelevant pre-roll ads that outlast many people's curiosity and especially the closed platform with no mobile or local potential. In otherwords, the only difference between this video platform and one from say, 1997, is that for this one, at least the video does come on and plays. Maybe they can hire someone who knows a thing or two about it. I'm going to suggest that the greatest failure of this project however has to do with the severely expensive resources that are being used for a product that can be much more valuable for a mere fraction of the effort and costs. My question is, how much money did it take to produce this? Also, if all of the effort only goes into a once-a-week show, how effective and interested are the people behind the show to take so much time and money to do so little? For instance, we know they are probably paying Amanda a professional salary. They are also paying two senior level producers for this. Then there is at least one editor, a camera person (unless one of the producers is a cameraman), lighting tech, audio guy, all with premium 'ABC' salaries. I am just speculating, perhaps I have missed some. In addition to that, the entity ABC needs to make revenue (beside the people), yet they also have at least one rep that works with Amanda besides the producers and other production staff. Surely they have someone who works on the website if not a section of a team. Amanda's agent needs a professional share. Amanda's manager too. They obviously have a very aggressive PR team too (which they will definitely need to drive people to the show). Lets not forget the advertisers! They are the ones supporting this and because so many people need to get paid such high salaries, the advertisers need to get paid most of the real-estate of the website. In many ways, this scenario is typical of one where the advertisers are way more important than the show itself. The show is just a tool for ad sales in the end, after all. The point I want to make is, there are probably WAY too many people needed to pull off this one 5 minute production exclusively for a small flash file on one website. A company like ABC should perhaps use their expensive resources to produce content that needs expensive resources. Was there special access gained? Was there need for expensive equipment? Travel expenses? 3 producers? No, there was no sign of any need for any of the above that I could see. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
It's not in your section, but a couple of things leaped out at me - the usual affect instead of effect somewhere (which actually requires a human copy editor) and there was another I don't remember now. Congrats - the new show looks good! I'm mailing you separately a hometown shot for your backdrop - as abundantly attested to by the vlogEurope attendees, Lake Como is beautiful! On 12/13/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That IS embarrassing, Deirdre! What's misspelled? Weirdly, the big issues I've had with ABC have been related to interface design and infrastructure, not content. They don't touch my scripts. I am working on them to change the henious javascript among other things-- and blogging about my progress in these areas on amandacongdon.com. Anyway... nice to be back. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would someone at ABC learn to SPELL? It's embarassing that a news organization can't use a spell checker. On 12/13/06, Vincent Njoroge Ndonye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: try here http://abcnews.go.com/Amanda/ vincent On 12/13/06, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]deirdre.straughan%40gmail.com wrote: Is there video of her somewhere? I can't find it on the site. On 12/13/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/BeSeenBeHeard/ You can send in your questions to Amanda via cell phone video. Yo! Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- regards, vincent.njoroge.ndonye [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
The bottom of the page calls this thing we all live on the Iternet. It's not too early to call it a rich-girl's rocketboom either. Call it whatever you want, just don't call it entertaining, informative, or worth my time. On 12/13/06, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whats the spelling mistake you refer to? I didnt enjoy the video, the adverts drove me crazy and I thought it was overproduced. Its too early for me to call it a poor-mans rocketboom but I will anyway. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would someone at ABC learn to SPELL? It's embarassing that a news organization can't use a spell checker. On 12/13/06, Vincent Njoroge Ndonye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: try here http://abcnews.go.com/Amanda/ vincent On 12/13/06, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]deirdre.straughan%40gmail.com wrote: Is there video of her somewhere? I can't find it on the site. On 12/13/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/BeSeenBeHeard/ You can send in your questions to Amanda via cell phone video. Yo! Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- regards, vincent.njoroge.ndonye [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Amanda, I have always been outspoken about sharing my experiences with Rocketboom and this is no longer an exception. You can hide talking about it publicly, we see how that has led to your advantage. As long as no one speaks up, you continue to lie and mislead people about what you have done for yourself. Meanwhile no one can learn from the problems you have created. As you know our lawyers ARE working on it. I hope your lawyer is listening when I say yet again, look here below how you have out right lied in saying I let you go. People should know that in order to do business in this field there is a need to protect oneself from this kind of atrocious behavior. Luckily I have, its just that I have previously been quiet about it for legal reasons myself. So now Im ready to share with everyone how I expect this will turn out and then we can talk about it, take wagers, and see what the judge has to say. In the end, we should all be in a better position to engage in creative partnerships. On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: Andrew, get a grip. Please. This http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=rocketboom.comurl=rocketboom.com is not my fault. You made the decision to let me go. So I went. As for your outlandish claims about HBO and ABC, please contact my lawyers. Let's do this the right way. And having a desk and a second camera are not ideas you own. Those are conventions. Best to focus on your own show, I think. Or you can continue to attempt to drag me down and write emotional emails to ABC but I'm done talking about this publicly. Time to move on. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeeze, I have never been so offended. Its like Alice and Wonderland around here, somebody pinch me: http://www.dembot.com/011895.html On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, CarLBanks wrote: This gives me hope that I could be picked up one day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Y'know, if anyone else in the world had posted about their new videoblog they were all excited about (and Amanda didn't even start this thread), 99% of this group would at least try to be nice, no matter what we actually thought of it, because we all believe videoblogging is important and want to encourage everybody to make of videoblogging exactly what THEY want it to be. In two and a half years on this group I have rarely, if ever, seen anyone attack anyone else's work on whatever grounds. Disagree with content, points of view, etc., but never be downright vicious. We all recognize each other as artists, and believe in the worth of each other's visions. At worst, if we didn't like something, we genteelly ignored it - we're all out here on the long tail, who are we to criticize? So why did you single out Amanda for this vitriol? I won't even speculate. You tell me. On 12/13/06, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bottom of the page calls this thing we all live on the Iternet. It's not too early to call it a rich-girl's rocketboom either. Call it whatever you want, just don't call it entertaining, informative, or worth my time. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
I dont want anything at all right now. I just want to talk about it. I think its lame, that all. I have not filed a suit against Amanda. If you had a business yourself and one of your partners left and took all of your contacts and business relationships, your code, your design and your format and the projects that meant the most to you, the same projects that you spent a lot of money on, I think you would be concerned, especially if they did not have any control over these projects. Its illegal in most cases. This is just what I have learned. On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:35 PM, jesse.cooper wrote: A creative partnership I thought you all had that with rocketboom... now it sounds as if you would like to creatively get paid by ABC for what Amanda does regardless if you are a part of it or not. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the end, we should all be in a better position to engage in creative partnerships. On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: Andrew, get a grip. Please. This http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=rocketboom.comurl=rocketboom.com is not my fault. You made the decision to let me go. So I went. As for your outlandish claims about HBO and ABC, please contact my lawyers. Let's do this the right way. And having a desk and a second camera are not ideas you own. Those are conventions. Best to focus on your own show, I think. Or you can continue to attempt to drag me down and write emotional emails to ABC but I'm done talking about this publicly. Time to move on. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: Jeeze, I have never been so offended. Its like Alice and Wonderland around here, somebody pinch me: http://www.dembot.com/011895.html On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, CarLBanks wrote: This gives me hope that I could be picked up one day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Great, easy. Chuck, you are the man with the answer. It was the night before Amanda posted her video. As our mediator, I told you I was going to make a demand. I said I was no longer negotiating and I demanded that Amanda come into work on Monday and film a news day for Rocketboom. Everything else was negotiable but that one demand I put on Amanda was non negotiable. So what happened? As a matter of fact she did not meet my demand, gave up, as we expected she would, and that was it. This was the third time she had quit and this time she quit for good. End of story on that one. On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:39 PM, mariolibrandi wrote: Andrew, There is nothing to hide. Facts are facts. You made a mistake by kicking us out and now you have to live with it. Good luck with the lawsuit. And if you really want to share experiences, I am still waiting for that $7,050 check. I've always said to Amanda that we should just have a public debate to end this once and for all, that way we can show everyone the truth. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda, I have always been outspoken about sharing my experiences with Rocketboom and this is no longer an exception. You can hide talking about it publicly, we see how that has led to your advantage. As long as no one speaks up, you continue to lie and mislead people about what you have done for yourself. Meanwhile no one can learn from the problems you have created. As you know our lawyers ARE working on it. I hope your lawyer is listening when I say yet again, look here below how you have out right lied in saying I let you go. People should know that in order to do business in this field there is a need to protect oneself from this kind of atrocious behavior. Luckily I have, its just that I have previously been quiet about it for legal reasons myself. So now Im ready to share with everyone how I expect this will turn out and then we can talk about it, take wagers, and see what the judge has to say. In the end, we should all be in a better position to engage in creative partnerships. On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: Andrew, get a grip. Please. This http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=rocketboom.comurl=rocketboom.com is not my fault. You made the decision to let me go. So I went. As for your outlandish claims about HBO and ABC, please contact my lawyers. Let's do this the right way. And having a desk and a second camera are not ideas you own. Those are conventions. Best to focus on your own show, I think. Or you can continue to attempt to drag me down and write emotional emails to ABC but I'm done talking about this publicly. Time to move on. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: Jeeze, I have never been so offended. Its like Alice and Wonderland around here, somebody pinch me: http://www.dembot.com/011895.html On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, CarLBanks wrote: This gives me hope that I could be picked up one day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Damn, now that Amanda Is back for another 15 minutes maybe I should bring back Demanda Condom to my show. Jimmy CraicHead TV http://www.jchtv.com/ --- Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew, get a grip. Please. This http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=rocketboom.comurl=rocketboom.com is not my fault. You made the decision to let me go. So I went. As for your outlandish claims about HBO and ABC, please contact my lawyers. Let's do this the right way. And having a desk and a second camera are not ideas you own. Those are conventions. Best to focus on your own show, I think. Or you can continue to attempt to drag me down and write emotional emails to ABC but I'm done talking about this publicly. Time to move on. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeeze, I have never been so offended. Its like Alice and Wonderland around here, somebody pinch me: http://www.dembot.com/011895.html On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, CarLBanks wrote: This gives me hope that I could be picked up one day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] http://www.jchtv.com/ A Philadelphia based vlog about Craic, Travel and Sailing the Chesapeake Bay! Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
In a message dated 12/13/2006 2:46:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In two and a half years on this group I have rarely, if ever, seen anyone attack anyone else's work on whatever grounds. Disagree with content, points of view, etc., but never be downright vicious. We all recognize each other as artists, and believe in the worth of each other's visions. At worst, if we didn't like something, we genteelly ignored it - we're all out here on the long tail, who are we to criticize? So why did you single out Amanda for this vitriol? This email interchange is starting to remind me of the ongoing vlog wars on YouTube. But, hey, notice the viewership that those are getting. Maybe you should VLOG this interchange instead of just emailing it, put it on your respective personal websites and sell banner ads. That way everybody wins, eh? Not taking sides, just an observation and a bit of marketing advice from, Kathryn Coombs Heritage House Productions [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
For those that know me knows that I definitely do not have the hippie/let's all get along/commune for artist thing. The rocketboom brouhaha is nothing new, its typical business-as-usual. People work together, people disagree, people get angry and lawyers are called. It sucks for everyone involved, but it's also just Life. I understand here in the age of Web2.0 that transparancy (or the illusion of transparancy, which is what businesses are really doing...showing something but not EVERYTHING), is the new Black, but really, once things escallate to attacks/money/lawyers, throwing barbs into the public sphere is unbecoming for Smart Adults-- WHICH ALL OF YOU ARE. I wish that I could say all of you guys will win in the end, but you know there always has to be a loser. I hope that both winners and losers will keep their dignity and just keep trying to make their work better. That is all I can hope for: interesting work made by interesting people. In the end, though I'm not a hippie, I still like Group Hugs! Group Hug!!! Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 12/13/06, mariolibrandi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew, There is nothing to hide. Facts are facts. You made a mistake by kicking us out and now you have to live with it. Good luck with the lawsuit. And if you really want to share experiences, I am still waiting for that $7,050 check. I've always said to Amanda that we should just have a public debate to end this once and for all, that way we can show everyone the truth. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda, I have always been outspoken about sharing my experiences with Rocketboom and this is no longer an exception. You can hide talking about it publicly, we see how that has led to your advantage. As long as no one speaks up, you continue to lie and mislead people about what you have done for yourself. Meanwhile no one can learn from the problems you have created. As you know our lawyers ARE working on it. I hope your lawyer is listening when I say yet again, look here below how you have out right lied in saying I let you go. People should know that in order to do business in this field there is a need to protect oneself from this kind of atrocious behavior. Luckily I have, its just that I have previously been quiet about it for legal reasons myself. So now Im ready to share with everyone how I expect this will turn out and then we can talk about it, take wagers, and see what the judge has to say. In the end, we should all be in a better position to engage in creative partnerships.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Good to see you on techie topics again Amanda, any chance the RSS feed could be fixed so that I can subscribe with fireant (Error parsing channel feed http://blogs.abcnews.com/amanda/index.rdf ) Ciao Jez. http://jez.blip.tv -- Groovy Engineer http://javanicus.com/blog2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Right on Steve! I began to think Andrew was a real schmuck when he posted the contract from Microsoft re Zune on his blog. JCH http://www.jchtv.com/ --- Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow you still havent got over this? You still dont recognise that this whining makes you look like a bit of an ass? You think you can turn back time or use legal means to ensure you get the credit etc you deserve for all those wonderfully original ideas and contract negotiations? Its not like rocketboom was 100% original, borrows from the past and otehr formats all the time. You'll just have to learn to live with the fact that Amanda has as much moral right to build on her legacy with rocketboom as you do. I dont know what the law will say, obviously there are a load of boring specifics that I dont want to know about (Im sick of your dirty laundry being waved in my face), I hope you get laughed out of court. Theres not a single idea in rocketboom or anythign else that I think should be protected, and it would be utterly unrealistic to expect Amanda to build a totally new no-camera persona just to avoid any comparisons with the past. You arent the first person to get a rude awakening when it comes to the fact that the person the viewers see may have an equal or stronger relationship with the viewer than the show/brand itself. But time has now passed, isnt there any progress? For me you are defecating on your own legacy, please stop. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeeze, I have never been so offended. Its like Alice and Wonderland around here, somebody pinch me: http://www.dembot.com/011895.html On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, CarLBanks wrote: This gives me hope that I could be picked up one day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] http://www.jchtv.com/ A Philadelphia based vlog about Craic, Travel and Sailing the Chesapeake Bay! Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
So why did you single out Amanda for this vitriol? Only because she has lied to the public, specifically us in this group, about the Rocketboom situation, and has underhandedly stolen our colleague Andrew's hard work, time, and business contacts and passed them off as her own. I find it's necessary to take sides in situations such as this, because standing on the sideline applauding the chaos is inhumane. Someone is lying to you, either Amanda or Andrew. I don't know Amanda. I know Andrew. He has not lied to me before and I see no reason why he would now. It's a very shitty thing, what she did. AQ On 12/13/06, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
and then Andrew Called me, I hosted Rocketboom that day, Punched Oprah in the face and demanded that Amanda and Mario make me a Pizza using only the ingredients in my refrigerator! Ok Who is next? to everyone involved in this argument: please be quiet and let's just see how things play out... because this isnt getting us anywhere. On 12/13/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, easy. Chuck, you are the man with the answer. It was the night before Amanda posted her video. As our mediator, I told you I was going to make a demand. I said I was no longer negotiating and I demanded that Amanda come into work on Monday and film a news day for Rocketboom. Everything else was negotiable but that one demand I put on Amanda was non negotiable. So what happened? As a matter of fact she did not meet my demand, gave up, as we expected she would, and that was it. This was the third time she had quit and this time she quit for good. End of story on that one. -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Damn! I knew we forgot something on the vlogEurope program! On 12/13/06, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the end, though I'm not a hippie, I still like Group Hugs! Group Hug!!! -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
For those that know me knows that I definitely do not have the hippie/let's all get along/commune for artist thing. The rocketboom brouhaha is nothing new, its typical business-as-usual. People work together, people disagree, people get angry and lawyers are called. It sucks for everyone involved, but it's also just Life. And it's also just business, and Rocketboom and Amanda's new project(s) are all business. Situations like this are, honestly, why there are things like NDAs and other such anti-transparency things seen as distateful in groups like this. Even if Andrew didn't get screwed, if it was his business, then this is a wake-up call about learning to protect your business. If there's provable damage and dishonesty, take it to court. If there isn't, there isn't. Fighting on here like wet cats in a gunnysack does nothing, though, and I don't really see the point. This is also why I'm so glad Freetime isn't even breaking even. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZuk99jFnN4 :) sull On 12/13/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Jez, We will definitely have a subscription option. Right now they have one, but it doesn't support enclosures. This is my #1 priority. Oh, and Adam, you are right. You don't know me. And it's clear you don't Andrew very well either. Interesting that you automatically take what he says as fact. Maybe because I'm just a dumb blonde. I'm with Josh. The lawyers will unearth the truth in the end. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Rayner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good to see you on techie topics again Amanda, any chance the RSS feed could be fixed so that I can subscribe with fireant (Error parsing channel feed http://blogs.abcnews.com/amanda/index.rdf ) Ciao Jez. http://jez.blip.tv -- Groovy Engineer http://javanicus.com/blog2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
As I've said several times before, I was and remain determinedly agnostic about this whole situation - I don't know or care who's right, and it may not be possible for anyone short of some omniscient deity (and I don't believe in one) to ever know the truth. So you have taken sides and dislike Amanda. That's your prerogative. But what does that have to do with your public attack on her work? The Rolling Stones are probably not very nice human beings - didn't Marianne Faithful have a thing or two to say about that, when she finally dried out? Jerry Lee Lewis liked having sex with (and marrying) 14 year olds. Not someone I'd particularly enjoy having over for tea, probably. But they all make great music. So... don't disguise a personal attack as an artistic critique. That's just a cheap shot. On 12/13/06, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So why did you single out Amanda for this vitriol? Only because she has lied to the public, specifically us in this group, about the Rocketboom situation, and has underhandedly stolen our colleague Andrew's hard work, time, and business contacts and passed them off as her own. I find it's necessary to take sides in situations such as this, because standing on the sideline applauding the chaos is inhumane. Someone is lying to you, either Amanda or Andrew. I don't know Amanda. I know Andrew. He has not lied to me before and I see no reason why he would now. It's a very shitty thing, what she did. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
No RSS feed? No iTunes version? Flash video only, and the player doesn't want to play in my browser. Gosh, this video blogging stuff must really be scaring ABC, because someone REALLY wants to keep me from watching it. On Dec 13, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Amanda Congdon wrote: That IS embarrassing, Deirdre! What's misspelled? Weirdly, the big issues I've had with ABC have been related to interface design and infrastructure, not content. They don't touch my scripts. I am working on them to change the henious javascript among other things-- and blogging about my progress in these areas on amandacongdon.com. Anyway... nice to be back. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would someone at ABC learn to SPELL? It's embarassing that a news organization can't use a spell checker. On 12/13/06, Vincent Njoroge Ndonye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: try here http://abcnews.go.com/Amanda/ vincent On 12/13/06, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]deirdre.straughan%40gmail.com wrote: Is there video of her somewhere? I can't find it on the site. On 12/13/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/BeSeenBeHeard/ You can send in your questions to Amanda via cell phone video. Yo! Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- regards, vincent.njoroge.ndonye [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _ Peter U. Leppik CEO Vocal Laboratories Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
It definitely has nothing to do with your level of intelligence or hair color. You're right though, it was a judgement call on my part, as it is with anyone trying to decipher the truth from two opposing viewpoints. Luckily I know Andrew well enough to make that a fairly easy decision. As for Josh and those that would rather not hear or read this discussion, delete these messages. No one is forcing you to involve yourself. On 12/13/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Jez, We will definitely have a subscription option. Right now they have one, but it doesn't support enclosures. This is my #1 priority. Oh, and Adam, you are right. You don't know me. And it's clear you don't Andrew very well either. Interesting that you automatically take what he says as fact. Maybe because I'm just a dumb blonde. I'm with Josh. The lawyers will unearth the truth in the end. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Rayner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good to see you on techie topics again Amanda, any chance the RSS feed could be fixed so that I can subscribe with fireant (Error parsing channel feed http://blogs.abcnews.com/amanda/index.rdf ) Ciao Jez. http://jez.blip.tv -- Groovy Engineer http://javanicus.com/blog2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
old Europe thinks that htpp://www.youtube.com/v/vr3x_RRJdd4 Loiez [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
On 12/13/06, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZuk99jFnN4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnYw-OuCnI :) sull On 12/13/06, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED]amanda%40amandacongdon.com wrote: Hey Jez, We will definitely have a subscription option. Right now they have one, but it doesn't support enclosures. This is my #1 priority. Oh, and Adam, you are right. You don't know me. And it's clear you don't Andrew very well either. Interesting that you automatically take what he says as fact. Maybe because I'm just a dumb blonde. I'm with Josh. The lawyers will unearth the truth in the end. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Rayner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good to see you on techie topics again Amanda, any chance the RSS feed could be fixed so that I can subscribe with fireant (Error parsing channel feed http://blogs.abcnews.com/amanda/index.rdf) Ciao Jez. http://jez.blip.tv -- Groovy Engineer http://javanicus.com/blog2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- --- Brett Gaylor http://www.etherworks.ca http://www.homelessnation.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
I agree, that was bad form. I will save any artistic critique for parody videos and Evilvlog. I feel like Charlie Watts is probably a decent guy. On 12/13/06, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've said several times before, I was and remain determinedly agnostic about this whole situation - I don't know or care who's right, and it may not be possible for anyone short of some omniscient deity (and I don't believe in one) to ever know the truth. So you have taken sides and dislike Amanda. That's your prerogative. But what does that have to do with your public attack on her work? The Rolling Stones are probably not very nice human beings - didn't Marianne Faithful have a thing or two to say about that, when she finally dried out? Jerry Lee Lewis liked having sex with (and marrying) 14 year olds. Not someone I'd particularly enjoy having over for tea, probably. But they all make great music. So... don't disguise a personal attack as an artistic critique. That's just a cheap shot. On 12/13/06, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] bullemhead%40gmail.com wrote: So why did you single out Amanda for this vitriol? Only because she has lied to the public, specifically us in this group, about the Rocketboom situation, and has underhandedly stolen our colleague Andrew's hard work, time, and business contacts and passed them off as her own. I find it's necessary to take sides in situations such as this, because standing on the sideline applauding the chaos is inhumane. Someone is lying to you, either Amanda or Andrew. I don't know Amanda. I know Andrew. He has not lied to me before and I see no reason why he would now. It's a very shitty thing, what she did. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Le 13 déc. 06 à 22:48, Loiez D. a écrit : old Europe thinks that Sorry for the bugg May be a good link here ;-) http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=vr3x_RRJdd4eurl=iurl=http%3A// sjl-static7.sjl.youtube.com/vi/ vr3x_RRJdd4/2.jpgt=OEgsToPDskL8lSG6JLxr0KsY71BM1jlG Loiez (Copy and paste of course) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Deirdre: Since it is ABC, I think the expectation is that the standards will be higher. But I can't comment on the video itself, since I can't watch it. ^*@ broken flash player. -Peter On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Y'know, if anyone else in the world had posted about their new videoblog they were all excited about (and Amanda didn't even start this thread), 99% of this group would at least try to be nice, no matter what we actually thought of it, because we all believe videoblogging is important and want to encourage everybody to make of videoblogging exactly what THEY want it to be.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Sorry Amanda, please don't think I'm piling on you. It's just that a straw broke the camel's back. Why must people keep talking about the MSM... As if it's mainstream! It's a Corporate Media, and there's nothing 'Mainstream' about it. Mainstream media would have 5 second commercials and freedom to download and distrubute. That term, Mainstream Media, or MSM gives them far too much credit, and does us a disservice by placing us and Responsible Media Outlets in the 'outside the mainstream' category. Using the term MSM and Mainstream media putting us in poor position to argue that we, PEOPLE, are the future of media. I'm glad you got a shot, Amanda. It must be awesome. Sorry about your business issues, all of you, but PLEASE stop calling it the MSM. Cheers, Ron On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: Ugh. I know. It's giving me heartburn. That's why I'm venting on my personal site. I am working very aggressively to get a lot of things changed regarding the entire look and feel. While it is slow working with msm, they've listened to me so far about nearly everything ... so I'm hopeful we'll get many of the user experience issues resolved. It involves abc thinking differently about a lot of stuff, but that's a good thing. That's what needs to happen anyway. And they've told me that's one of the reasons they hired me-- to help them make sense of this whole new media world-- so I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't going to work to make them less TV-ish. Thanks for your insights everyone .. I'm going to use it as evidence if you don't mind! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel its likely that the non-enclosure feed and popup stuff is part of ABC business strategy rather than technical boob. I would think the lack of enclosures reflects a desire to control distribution, ensure adverts are watched, and monitor viewing figures. The popup gives all the video on the site the same technical backend and frontend. It allows them to squeeze in another ad banner, and providae linkage to all the other video sections they have. It enables them to not have to think too hard about what impact the video will have on the rest of the main site pages. I think it will be hard to get them to change most of this, unless they change their online video strategy in general. Do ABC currently do any true podcasts/video podcasts at all, in the true downloadable sense? From a technical standpoint they could slightly reduce the hideousness of using popups if they used a 'virtual popup' which is something that looks like a popup window but actually is part of the main page, so it doesnt get blocked by popup-blockers or cause a mess by opening more actual windows on the viewers computer. Same tech as lightbox/ thinbox etc use, eg the excellent vPip can work in a thinbox mode (for example click the 'play in thickbox link on this page: http://utilities.cinegage.com/videos-playing-in-place/ ) But I still think the adverts are far more annoying, although I was unlucky as the first tiem I watched it was a hideous animated ad banner that jiggled at the bottom the whoe time and distracts the eye from the video portion of the screen. I havent really checked out whether feedback/comments etc are going to be a weaker experience for your ABC viewers than it was for your rocketboom viewers back in the day. at least ABC are promoting the idea of viewer feedback via video to some extent. Its quite interesting to me in that you are the first 'new media' person I have seen cross over into an area of mainstream media where they are trying to adapt to what new media has been doing for years. Your experiences with how creative control issues, as well as technical limitations imposed from above, pan out will determine just how much both you and your viewers will get to enjoy this experienced. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Congdon amanda@ wrote: Hey Jez, We will definitely have a subscription option. Right now they have one, but it doesn't support enclosures. This is my #1 priority. Oh, and Adam, you are right. You don't know me. And it's clear you don't Andrew very well either. Interesting that you automatically take what he says as fact. Maybe because I'm just a dumb blonde. I'm with Josh. The lawyers will unearth the truth in the end. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Rayner jeremy.rayner@ wrote: Good to see you on techie topics again Amanda, any chance the RSS feed could be fixed so that I can subscribe with fireant (Error parsing channel feed http://blogs.abcnews.com/amanda/index.rdf ) Ciao Jez. http://jez.blip.tv -- Groovy Engineer http://javanicus.com/blog2
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
Hey Ya! That was Brilliant! Thanks Brett. Nothing like a lil charlie brown to infiltrate an awkward thread :) On 12/13/06, Brett Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/13/06, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] sulleleven%40gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZuk99jFnN4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnYw-OuCnI :) sull -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
First time I tried it I just got the Ad and nothing else.. Reload worked. My Yahoo! did accept the rtf. I thought the production was cheezy compared to RB, even the swing shotas were kind of mistimed. And webpage screenshots in embedded flash are not a good idea. Competition is good, right? joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
This medium is going to be lost because people don't know how to talk about it. As if the Corporate Media is just going to give this shit away. Language is a powerful tool, and the Corporate Media are masters at manipulating it; that's what they do. You can say MSM or Mainstream all you want. It ought to really help people understand the reality of our mediascape when it comes time for them to have to be informed to make a stand to protect people's rights to access and create media. Us 'outside the mainstream' ought to do well in the battle of public relations. So frustrating. I'm going to try to just shut up now. ron On Dec 13, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Charles Hope wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Amanda, please don't think I'm piling on you. It's just that a straw broke the camel's back. Why must people keep talking about the MSM... As if it's mainstream! It's a Corporate Media, and there's nothing 'Mainstream' about it. Mainstream media would have 5 second commercials and freedom to download and distrubute. Let me guess. You were born in the year 2017 and you're here scrounging for parts to fix your time machine. Awesome! I hope I live long enough to see your future, but in 2006, ABC is still unquestionably mainstream. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
On 12/13/06, Peter Leppik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deirdre: Since it is ABC, I think the expectation is that the standards will be higher. LOL! All we do in this group is talk about how MSM sucks and we can do better! Well, now one of our own gets to go and prove it. But I can't comment on the video itself, since I can't watch it. ^*@ broken flash player. I got that to work fine, and am grateful that I'm *allowed* to see it, since ABC won't let me watch any of their actual TV shows from Italy (nor will any of the other American channels). And, for all the fuss, the popup is exactly what Comedy Central was doing for years, and theirs worked even worse - I could only run it in IE. They have now solved these problems, and even started limited sharing of their clips (did you realize those shared clips expire?) but they've got a couple years' experience on ABC. -Peter On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Y'know, if anyone else in the world had posted about their new videoblog they were all excited about (and Amanda didn't even start this thread), 99% of this group would at least try to be nice, no matter what we actually thought of it, because we all believe videoblogging is important and want to encourage everybody to make of videoblogging exactly what THEY want it to be. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
