Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of trusting a critic more doesn't follow.
-- Enric --- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without > kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids... > > Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy to > see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as part > of a heated argument on this forum. > > He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty clued- > up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright personal > opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-such a > thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer. > > Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where > there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed opinions > arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life. > > I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in > conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more than > the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and cons > of the system. Even if I disagree with their conclusions. > > > On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote: > > The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an > "expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The broadness of > his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before proven > innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true without real > proof: platitudes. > > -- Enric > > > It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their > friends on how to raise kids...... ;) > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > > --- In [email protected], andrew michael baron > <andrew@> wrote: > > > > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I may > > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not, > > back to the drawing board. > > > > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I just > > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I > > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently. > > > > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging (who > > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets > > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was > > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand > > dollars to a videoblogger: > > > > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in > circles that > > are in awe of his name and his past reputation" > > > > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point > > of the new age of video on the internet " > > > > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get" > > > > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver > believes > > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts > > together the best range of shows to suit his audience. " > > > > "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and > 'disruptive' > > when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those > > words actually mean" > > > > "But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the > > long-tail, so dont hold your breath." > > > > "Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning" > > > > "I will read their terms and conditions later " > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
