Heh, my argument is VERY simple. All I'm saying is it's not a blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog You can argue all day about wether it has videos or not, but it ain't no blog. :) I would tend to think that if it ain't no blog that this would make it certainly by definition no videoblog. If you call this thing qualifies as a blog you mine as well call any and every page on the web a blog. Besides... it's not about what you call it. It's about what it does... and it has not a single mechanism that blogs tend to have that make them useful tools for communication. So... if it is a blog or even a video blog, you must admit it's one of the worst damn blogs evar. This completely despite Amanda, her winning personal verbals stylings, personality and choicey news bits. Which I hear are in there somewhere, burried behind a mess of ads and popout windows. I think. Maybe. Peace, -Mike On 12/22/06, Charles Hope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for that suggestion. I will pass it along! > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard (Show) Hall > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 15:21 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Amanda on ABC is not a vlog > > > > Should this be available via the amanda accross america feed? > > On 12/22/06, Charles Hope <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:charles%40blip.tv> > wrote: > > > > Amanda is still maintaining her vlog! She just posted a video > there > > today, in fact. > > > > Starring Amanda Congdon > <http://blip.tv/users/view/amandacongdon > <http://blip.tv/users/view/amandacongdon> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > -- > http://richardhhall.org <http://richardhhall.org> > http://richardshow.com <http://richardshow.com> > http://inspiredhealing.tv <http://inspiredhealing.tv> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
