Well, I for one was not "dismissing" his arguements. I wholeheartly agree that sometimes a person "outside" can bring tremendous benifit.....and I can choose to listen to it or not, but sometimes it just felt like arguing for the sake of arguing....but regardless he acknowldged that perhaps he needed to back off a bit, which says to me, that he is a big boy and can take as well as dish. and I personaly don't want to see him "go away".....but that is just my opinion.....
Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it? Doesn't it? I'm not clever enough to follow your logical > outflanking of me. The only point I was making was that we shouldn't > be making judgements about people's 'expertise' and thereby telling > people we won't respect their opinion, based on their vlogging > productivity. A keen observer can be just as intelligent on an issue > as a keen participant. And my other point was that I instinctively > trust more the *objectivity* of a critic as opposed to a producer on > this kind of issue, as someone who is not directly financially > affected by the industry & market's direction. > > I've always enjoyed reading Steve's opinions, whether I agree or not, > when I have a couple of hours to spare :) > But now it seems he might go away... and other people we may not have > heard from will be less willing to speak. Not good. But if I've > misunderstood and am objecting wrongly, forgive me. I am an > occasional dabbler, and I just read in passing for fun, when I should > be finishing my tax. > > Rupert > > > On 30 Jan 2007, at 15:17, Enric wrote: > > Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of > trusting a critic more doesn't follow. > > -- Enric > > --- In [email protected], Rupert <rupert@> 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] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
