Looking into swirling tea leaves, I see the future of this
discussion... on a blog!

--- In [email protected], Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am seeing the posts rolling in now about taking this off list as I  
> am just about to publish the below. I'd like to go ahead and publish  
> it, I think its relevant. It has to do with videoblogging, blogging,  
> history of the space and people who are involved:
> 
> On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Jason McCabe Calacanis wrote:
> 
> > Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to something so libelous.
> > However, this is so false I've got to correct it.
> >
> > > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> > > identical knock off- Engagdget
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> 
> The point I was trying to make though, is that you didn't do anything  
> innovative or new, you just take one thing and clone it exactly the  
> same. This is fine Jason, Im just saying you do business by knocking- 
> off others. This is not interesting to me and I have found in my life  
> that people who do this are usually selfish at the expense of others.
> 
> > > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> >
> > False.
> >
> 
> 
> But you write: "better than or as good as Denton"
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> > > broke)
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> > Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you rather talented folks
> > not get offers when they've achieved success? After working for you
> > should Amanda never work again? I'm confused.
> 
> Your confused because you don't seem to have any understanding of the  
> social element.  Its just really rude and not supportive, Jason. Its  
> selfish because you always think you have so much more to offer and  
> in that case you knew nothing at all about what was going on or who  
> we were. Imagine that the news broke that you and your wife were  
> having problems and then the next day, your business partner called  
> her up for a date. Yea, I know, this is not about love affairs, but  
> there is a social element involved and you have repeatedly shown  
> disrespect for others who are participating and trying to get along  
> in the same space.
> 
> 
> >
> > > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
> >
> > False.
> >
> 
> I beg to differ. After a long history of cloning other peoples idea,  
> I think its true that you not only tried to clone digg and failed  
> miserably, but also had the audacity to goto Digg to try to sway away  
> the top posters (for miserable salary no less). Again, you didn't  
> understand the social, but by this time, it was the online social you  
> didn't understand. What happened in the end? People revolted against  
> you for trying to "rip of digg" (these are not my words), the site  
> crashed and burned and now you are gone. Say what you will about  
> quitting, its a great self-defense. I know people who have a history  
> of saying they were fired when they quit and saying they quit when  
> they were fired. I guess its just a coincidence that the project you  
> had suggested turned to crap right at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> > > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> > > likes.
> >
> > The 1.5 million unique who've come in the last 30 days (our fifth
> > month) might disagree with you. :-)
> >
> 
> Out of 1.5 million, where are the positive reviews? I have never seen  
> a single positive review of Mahalo. Ever. I know you must have a few  
> Jason, can you point us to a really good review of Mahalo by someone  
> who really understands the space? Just one good one - there must be one?
> 
> 
> > In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much better deal than
> > the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she has much more
> > resources behind her than ever.
> >
> 
> Great. More salary than Nick Denton pays, and better salary than  
> CNET. Not exactly something to boast about. So why are you the one  
> here doing the work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to