I think a lot of people stopped posting so much for a while, and discussing things at length. I'm sure there wasn't any backing away from you.
On 13 Nov 2007, at 19:09, Steve Watkins wrote: That wikipedia debate appeared to kill what little goodwill and tolerance people showed towards me in the past. I was used to getting few replies to my posts, but since then I get virtually none, and my posts havent changed in length. I talk too much in the flesh too, its a part of me, Im stuck with it, wheras everyone in this group will eventually escape it when, one day, for whatever reasons, I dont post here anymore. I dont think Im any sort of voice of reason. I have ideas about what a discussion should involve, what the boundaries & word count are, that do not appear to be the norm, which, along with various other social deformities, make me a general failure at being human, as my genital cobwebs will attest to. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the > Wikipedia Storm of '07. > > Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may > be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is > very much "the videoblogging group." :) > > I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this > medium's moguls. I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert > Murdoch contributes. > > As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's > often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had > stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the > very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for > for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source: > Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are > frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted. > > darn...151 words...now 156... > > On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be > > > > > selling out in the > > > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs > > > that Mr Baron was > > > seeking to achieve a different sort of power. > > > > AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha!!!!! But what kind of > > Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? MMMMM I like the sound of > > this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!???? > > > > Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread > > on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words. > > > > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for: > > > > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the > > identical knock off- Engagdget > > 2. Not paying employees fair wages. > > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news > > broke) > > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape > > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting > > fired from AOL > > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one > > likes. > > > > Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely > > destructive to the world, but also based on his regular, > > stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I > > just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is > > exactly this: taking and causing conflict. > > > > Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they > > can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while > > collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all > > over everyone. > > > > Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause > > others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the > > reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post: > > When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being > > brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage > > and rubs off on the rest off. > > > > My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered. > > The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its > > by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be > > asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got > > Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need > > to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How > > can you improve the show? > > > > We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to > > receive the most concern out of every thing we do. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
