Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
On 4/3/06, lishisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to put the whole thing past me... Can YOU? Well, gosh. I was trying to. I decided to leave well enough alone after what appeared to be a somewhat sincere change of heart and attempt to engage. I decided that it would be good to step back and let the discussion go. I will admit that I probably shouldn't have replied to Ron's message, or should have replied privately, because I was actually upset over something completely unrelated at the time and unable to just drop it. But then this vitriol. Anyway, I've had to cut out a lot of my initial reaction to this-- the last paragraph will explain why. > Stephanie, > You are the epitomy of hipocracy... You potray me to be some evil > martketeer, yet you are marketing a product that anybody with half a brain > could figure out for free. It's a "for Dummies" book. If the folks reading it wanted to figure it out by digging around the Internet, they would, and in many cases do anyway. But they also would like to have someone else dig around for it and print the information for them in a handy package. I don't hold a lot of illusions about my book, here. It's not Hemingway, for god's sake. > I sure it will make a wonderful refence three > years from now when every point in the book is moot. Computer books don't have a long shelf life. That's not really news. > While I am on the subject of your useless banter... who died and left you > boss of this group? Who asked you to determine what this group is, what it > likes and dislikes? The difference between spam and not spam... it is all > YOUR opinion you have no right to speak for a group of over 2000... [Careful, Jason. Godwin is watching] I believe in the post to which you are replying, I even said "I do not personally have a problem with..." Actually, I think there's only one point where I didn't preface my comment by stating that it was my opinion, but since the previous remark had been stated as opinion, I figured it was obvious. By the way, I believe we both have supporters here. I'm sure you've been emailed privately with as many "hang in there''s, as I've received "go get 'em"'s, so perhaps neither of us can claim to speak for more than ourselves? > your book is probably great... and on impulse > I probably would have bought it, I certainly would veer completely in the > opposite direction... at this point I might even burn it on site. Well, books aren't sacred. Actually, I secretly hope you hold a great big book-burning party for it. I could use the press. > Oh and for the record, I emailed Steve Garfield from his vlog long before I > knew he was even a member here or who any members here were to be honest. As stated earlier: I'm sorry I even mentioned that. I did not, however, feel it necessary to drag Steve into this by name. > Thanks to those who understand, and a big fuck you to those who offend or > are offended, I am just tired of this shit and want to move on. Then move on already. > I should have vlogged this... by the way hold my beer while I go vomit, I'll > be back in a moment. Yeah, you probably should have vlogged it. That would have been interesting. Not unique, but interesting. Jason, I will make you a deal, if you've even read this far, and I'm going to ask that everyone else who's engaged you adversarially in this discussion to consider the same deal. I'm going to stick to posting about vlogweek more or less until after the 9th. And I won't reply to anything you say, and you won't reply to anything I say (erm, though if you're in vlogweek, let's just keep it civil), for a 10 day cooling off period (of course you could reply to this, cause I know you want the last word and anyway, how can you accept a truce if you don't reply?). I know I, for one, would rather cool off and come back and meet on less hostile footing in a week and a half than have to muddle through more flamewars. --Stephanie -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at: http://www.mortaine.com/blogs Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
Yes ladies and gentlemen. This is how not to win friends and influence people. I am going to guess that you are the type of person that walks into a crowded room and shouts "LOOK AT ME! I'M SANDRA DEE!!" As you are seeing, that kinda thing doesnt work too well and the more and more you push it, isnt working for you. You might want to stop while you are well behind. _David Howellhttp://www.davidhowellstudios.com From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lishismanSent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:34 PMTo: videoblogging@yahoogroups.comSubject: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE What is distasteful are the continued accusations I keep recieving... I am trying to put the whole thing past me... Can YOU? For those of you keeping record...my first two posts were the same thing INTRODUCTION... I forgot to include something in the first... ref. 36615 and 36616 The third was a casting call looking for field coorespondantsref. 36618 The fourth was in response to "send me your vlogs". ref. 36619 The fifth and sixth - number 5 I was proud of my first dual camera action, 6 I reposted cuz I didnt think 5 got through...ref. 36653 and 36654 Number 7 was my first try at stand up comedy... ref. 36701 Number 8/9 (accidental double post) I was pissed, in that after 4 days of posting to this forum I got ZERO responses. ref. 36752 and 36754 Numbers 10 WAS the ONLY so-called test I did that was marketing related... I posted "DO NOT WATCH MY VIDEO TODAY" And you know what I figured out?This was the first time I got responses out of any of you. I don't even know if I would consider it a test. It was just.. "hey, I havent recieved any responses so what the hell? If I tell them not to watch will they?". Ref. 36916 Number 11 was another introductary post, that I did simply because I had gained some attention and wanted people to know me a little. This was the infamous self admission of me being a spammer, a failed attempt at humor... Which obviously no one got. Ref. 36949 Do any you honestly think I dont know the difference between spam and not spam? If so, you are just plain STUPID. And wasting your time spelling it out for everyone here, is just STUPID too... NUMBER 12- >>>37030 was the back breaker "VLOGGERS UNITE", forget coming up with an idea EVER, the close mindedness, jealousy, whatever feelings came out in this thread are perfect examples of idiocracy. The following is an attempt at misinformation... At least know what your talking about before trying to dehumanize someone... [VLOGGERS UNITE was message #12 - it was >preceded by 10 messages containing one line and then a link to the blog. That's the big problem. The small problem is that the 10 messages apparently was a "market research experiment" making the whole thing slightly unethical and very annoying. ] Did you even read the posts? Screw you for trying to make me look bad, fucking troll... Stephanie,You are the epitomy of hipocracy... You potray me to be some evil martketeer, yet you are marketing a product that anybody with half a brain could figure out for free. I sure it will make a wonderful refence three years from now when every point in the book is moot.Stop fucking attacking me. I am not the person you are painting a picture of... While I am on the subject of your useless banter... who died and left you boss of this group? Who asked you to determine what this group is, what it likes and dislikes? The difference between spam and not spam... it is all YOUR opinion you have no right to speak for a group of over 2000... Dont like that? Then dont stereotype me, or question who I am as a person... What the hell do you know about me? I know nothing about you, and until this post tried not to judge you... your book is probably great... and on impulse I probably would have bought it, I certainly would veer completely in the opposite direction... at this point I might even burn it on site. Oh and for the record, I emailed Steve Garfield from his vlog long before I knew he was even a member here or who any members here were to be honest. You see as a new vlogger, I didnt know of anybody else to talk to to get feedback on my vlog, I asked for his help once he said he would check it out, and then I checked with him a few days later, he emailed me saying that I didnt have to email him anymore, that was the extent of it. Please Mr. Garfield chime in anytime, right or wrong? I have grown to respect a community I never knew existed until a short couple of weeks ago. <<>> I wanted some help is all. So fuck you. I wasnt even going to let this flame continue but fuck it, do you really expect me to stand here and let you tear me apart for no apparent reason other than to procrastinate and not make a video for vlogweek? I vlog every weekday and will continue to do so as long as I have interest. Currently, I havent found a way to make money fr
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:24:42 +0200, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something that drives me crazy about this group is that there is some > serious confusion about what is and is not spam. It's quite simple: Sending a message with a link to your new vlog: Not spam, encouraged. Sending *10* messages in four days with a link to your new vlog: Spam, discouraged. Give the people on the list some credit. We're not morons, repeating the same message over and over does not convince anyone (optionally: insert joke about the current president of the USA here). > I found nothing seriously distatasteful about the VLOGGERS UNITE > thread from Jason, the original poster, and in his mea culpa, he > brought up some issues that are important to me. Namely the fact that > RSS is some kind of tool to get exposure. It is not a tool for > exposure. It is simple distribution; it is shipping, more or less. VLOGGERS UNITE was message #12 - it was preceded by 10 messages containing one line and then a link to the blog. That's the big problem. The small problem is that the 10 messages apparently was a "market research experiment" making the whole thing slightly unethical and very annoying. > There are now almost 7000 feeds at mefeedia. When I started Vlogging > in December '05 there were 3000. How many were there when you started > Vlogging? mefeedia didn't exist back then, but I'm no way near a top listing in mefeedia. :o) > Exposure for vlogs is a problem, and it gets bigger everyday. Those > problems are compounded when, in a group about video blogging, asking > for people to check out your vlog is spam. Why is exposure a problem? Is vlogging only fun for you if you have 130,000 views a day? As it's been repeated many times on this list: Sending a message with a link to your new vlog *is* encouraged. Sending 10 messages is discouraged. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
On 4/2/06, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interesting thread. Something that drives me crazy about this group is that there is some serious confusion about what is and is not spam. When someone posts about a vlog they are proud of, some people tend to think that it is spam. I actually apologized for spamming the group when I posted a piece that I was proud of (thanks for the feedback for all of you that viewed and reviewed it). I think that is a problem. I do not personally have a problem with: * An introduction post the first time someone puts up their videoblog * A "wow this was tough/fun/interesting" when there's something GENUINELY cool about a recent vlog they posted. * A post introducing a videoblogging-related product or service. These annoy me if they are the only thing the person posts, however; learn to contribute. I do have a problem with: * A post every day or so with the same information posted yesterday. Namely "check out my vlog." Hey, if we didn't go see it yesterday, what makes you think today is different? * A post EVERY TIME someone posts a vlog entry. Sorry-- each individual vlog is probably not that unique. Cool and important to you, sure. But not enough to post every time you update. This isn't a notification list. * People who use this group as an experiment in their marketing plans. I can go on and on about experimentation in marketing, but the fact is, Jason either lied about that, or is a very unethical marketer. I think we know the latter is true, at least. There's a very limited set of cases where it's ethical to experiment on a group without their knowledge or permission. This isn't one of them. * People who also privately email individual members of the group to ask them why they haven't come to look at their vlogs. From email I have received, Jason may have done this, as well, basically using the videoblogging group as a source for email addresses to follow-up with his marketing garbage. I do agree that RSS is not a promotional tool per se, in the sense that it doesn't get more people to see your vlog. However, RSS makes it easier to get your vlog into certain search and index sites. I notice that most of the people who responded with angst in this thread have pretty good name recognition within this community. I am not attacking anyone, but I think that those of you who are established Vloggers don't really see the problems for getting exposure for a new Vlog. This is very, very true. The "core" vloggers will, whether they like it or not, be seen as "cliqueish" as more videobloggers enter the vlogging world. That's not who they are, and not what they're about-- in fact, it's hard to find a more enthusiastic, engaging, and inclusive group of folks in the high tech world. But the nature of group dynamics is such that this is a nearly-inevitable side effect of becoming "the experts." Exposure for vlogs is a problem, and it gets bigger everyday. Those problems are compounded when, in a group about video blogging, asking for people to check out your vlog is spam. It's not spam. It's spam when it's every 12 hours. Oh yea, we just signed the paperwork for our new dog training studio, boutique and art gallery. I will be posting video soon, and if it is good enough I will 'spam' the group with the info, mainly in the hopes that local vlogging hero Josh Leo will watch it and come out and vlog about it. Then maybe all of you will get a chance to see our new place. See, I don't see this as spammy at all, because you contributed valuable thoughts and perspective to the discussion. There *has* to be a high signal-to-noise ratio on this list, or it will collapse. --Stephanie -- Stephanie Bryant[EMAIL PROTECTED]Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:http://www.mortaine.com/blogs SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
Interesting thread. Something that drives me crazy about this group is that there is some serious confusion about what is and is not spam.When someone posts about a vlog they are proud of, some people tend to think that it is spam. I actually apologized for spamming the group when I posted a piece that I was proud of (thanks for the feedback for all of you that viewed and reviewed it). I think that is a problem. I found nothing seriously distatasteful about the VLOGGERS UNITE thread from Jason, the original poster, and in his mea culpa, he brought up some issues that are important to me. Namely the fact that RSS is some kind of tool to get exposure. It is not a tool for exposure. It is simple distribution; it is shipping, more or less. I notice that most of the people who responded with angst in this thread have pretty good name recognition within this community. I am not attacking anyone, but I think that those of you who are established Vloggers don't really see the problems for getting exposure for a new Vlog. You all created this, and have deep (or not so deep) relationships with the other members of the community. People go to your Vlogs to learn. Your vlogs show up at the top of mefeedia, and have huge interconnected distribution channels because of that. There are now almost 7000 feeds at mefeedia. When I started Vlogging in December '05 there were 3000. How many were there when you started Vlogging?Exposure for vlogs is a problem, and it gets bigger everyday. Those problems are compounded when, in a group about video blogging, asking for people to check out your vlog is spam. As far as the VLOGGERS UNITE thread, I don't have a problem with it, and don't see it as spam, any more than I see this entire list as spam. I like this group, and have learned tons from it, but there is very little of what I got that I actually ask for. I appreciate the 'spam' on this list. It is some of the finest spam on the internet. I am not going to join that group, but I don't mind deleting one more of my 230 videoblogging messages in my inbox. I don't know what to do about the exposure problem, so this is kind of a meta piece, with probably little to no value, but I felt as if I should chime in and speak my mind. Oh yea, we just signed the paperwork for our new dog training studio, boutique and art gallery. I will be posting video soon, and if it is good enough I will 'spam' the group with the info, mainly in the hopes that local vlogging hero Josh Leo will watch it and come out and vlog about it. Then maybe all of you will get a chance to see our new place. Got to run. Time for a new coat of paint and to hang some sweet signage.Later, Ron WatsonPawsitive Vybe Canines12 E Bridge St Suite GRockford, MI 49341[EMAIL PROTECTED]301.524.6670http://pawsitivevybe.comhttp://k9disc.comhttp://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 31, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Michael Meiser wrote: I just find one thing funny. That posting your posts to a yahoo group is the fastest way to get your pages listed. Quite frankly the fastest way to get your pages listed is through your RSS feed. Specifically if you use feedburner as that no only indexes your feed and pings all the relevant websites, but also includes mediaRSS info which is sent straight to yahoo. Furthermore building an audience of subscribers through actually offering value not spam is the best possible way to build a long term repeat audience... focus on promoting subscriptions not just individual posts. Visitors to your site come and go, subscribers stick around. When I heard about this proposed yahoo group I simply heard the term spam group. By all means though if you want to spam yourself and others who would spam you go right a head. A giant echo chamber... people yelling at each other... check out my feed, no check out my feed. Everyone shouting noone listening. I think it'd be funny. Just don't do it here. And btw, for future reference, people don't like being "experimented with" that definitely does not make it OK. In fact it may offend people worse than just being clueless, because it's condescending too. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie Bryant" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I don't think you know anything about Internet marketing. If you did, >> you would know the difference between a discussion group and an >> audience for spam. > > I think thats a very important point that helps explain this groups > stance on what are not acceptable ways to do business here. Of course > there is no single groupview on this or any other issue, but certaint > kinds of marketing are definately one of the things that gets some > vocal peoples backs up here. > > I personally dislike marketing in general, but I have a passionate > hate for really vulgar marketing & sales techniques, adverts etc. Now > it seems to be that these days there are a lot of companies that are > doing the
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:05:40 +0200, lishisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am asking that a moderator please DELETE the remnants of this thread. The thread has already been mailed out to the 2104 members of this group. It is already in their inboxes. Deleting the thread would be cosmetic. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
I just find one thing funny. That posting your posts to a yahoo group is the fastest way to get your pages listed. Quite frankly the fastest way to get your pages listed is through your RSS feed. Specifically if you use feedburner as that no only indexes your feed and pings all the relevant websites, but also includes mediaRSS info which is sent straight to yahoo. Furthermore building an audience of subscribers through actually offering value not spam is the best possible way to build a long term repeat audience... focus on promoting subscriptions not just individual posts. Visitors to your site come and go, subscribers stick around. When I heard about this proposed yahoo group I simply heard the term spam group. By all means though if you want to spam yourself and others who would spam you go right a head. A giant echo chamber... people yelling at each other... check out my feed, no check out my feed. Everyone shouting noone listening. I think it'd be funny. Just don't do it here. And btw, for future reference, people don't like being "experimented with" that definitely does not make it OK. In fact it may offend people worse than just being clueless, because it's condescending too. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie Bryant" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I don't think you know anything about Internet marketing. If you did, >> you would know the difference between a discussion group and an >> audience for spam. > > I think thats a very important point that helps explain this groups > stance on what are not acceptable ways to do business here. Of course > there is no single groupview on this or any other issue, but certaint > kinds of marketing are definately one of the things that gets some > vocal peoples backs up here. > > I personally dislike marketing in general, but I have a passionate > hate for really vulgar marketing & sales techniques, adverts etc. Now > it seems to be that these days there are a lot of companies that are > doing the modern style of sleek seductive advertising, and internet > savvy/more ethical/less vulgar type stuff. And this stuff is bound to > be a bit more palatable to a wider range of people and the blogosphere > than the other sort of marketing, the sort that gives marketing a bad > name, and that I have ranted about in the past. > > If Im not mistaken this latest vulgar marketeer has tried an ebay > auction of pixels on his site, and the marketing used on the ebay > auction page for that item is just a classic example of the kind of > marketing that will get you a lot of heat from people. It makes some > people hopping mad, I will speculate as to some of the reasons why: > > 1) A relentless hard sell. If the product is worth it, why the need > for hard sell? > > 2) The hideously outdated and tacky use of a few specific font > attributes. Clearly there must be a long tradition of dodgy marketeers > selling other would-be marketeers stupid guides that say that using > red sentences and ALL CAPITALS at specific moments, then throw in some > blue sentences, along with a relentless style of bullshit, will just > melt those potential customers minds and the dollars will come a > flowing. NO! It looks bad enough on backpage classified adverts, on > the internet it just looks like laughable parpings of the truly > desperate. > > 3) The term 'viral marketing' is used. It wouldnt be called viral if > it was a nice thing. Does that make the person behind viral marketing > campaign a virus? If so then is an angry response a yahoo groups best > innoculation against such a virus? > > Oh well I dont know why Im bothering with this rant, experience so far > is that the people who indulge in such stuff never seem to understand > why some people get so upset with it and them. They dont see anything > wrong with it, which is understandable as humans need to > self-rationalise their own behaviour. So its percieved that we who > moan are the problem, that we must be a minority, so its worth setting > up another group where the majority will live happily with the viral > marketing slugs and be happy to be crudely manipulated by them using > the power of red fonts and half-understood pseudo-marketing > techniques. > > Nah, anyway I think the biggest brainwrong is the assumption that its > only a minority who hate this sort of marketing. I happen to think > that most people are against hard selling because if something is > worth buying, why the need to push it so. And its totally natural that > humans hate the idea of being manipulated by anybody else. So whilst > they may still sometimes fall for sophisticated advertising or subtle > uses of emotions in adverts (or even not so subtle uses of eg sex to > sell), they will not have pleasant thoughts about stuff that is not > subtle, is pushy or invasive etc. > > A bizarre test of this opinion of mine that the majori
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
On 3/31/06, lishisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Secondly, my spamming was a marketing test. I had 27 people go to my > site this month from this group. I was going to leave a related message in my drafts box, but I'm going to post it now, because of what you've said here. Frankly, I think you should be banned for spamming. It's unacceptable and you show no remorse for annoying over 3000 people. > The truth is VERY simple. Groups are indexed immediatly on the servers > of yahoo and google. Google "pirates" yahoos groups. Go ahead... you > will see all your posts on Google Groups, and a bunch that are google > specific. Strange really. The Yahoo group is cross-posted to a google group-- someone set that up about six months ago. Again, ignorance has made you look foolish. > My market test proves that people do not come here to find videos... > not the general public anyway, so there needs to be a group for > them... do you know of one? *eyeroll* Of course they don't. This is the VIDEOBLOGGING DISCUSSION GROUP. Not the "FIND VIDEOS SEARCH ENGINE." For that, you go to a search engine. Right tool for the job. > For you, the work will be simple...join the group, post a link to your > vlog evertime you have a new one. Thats all. No discussions. I will do > the rest. No. I have an RSS feed to promote my vlog. Feel free to subscribe to it. There's even an email subscription option. > I will never abandon this group, and this is not an alternative to it, > it is the marketeing side of it for all vloggers... I don't think you know anything about Internet marketing. If you did, you would know the difference between a discussion group and an audience for spam. > On SEO and optimization.. I do not need a website or books, please > humor me... I do work in this area, not just hokey doke stuff... I > have large clients... Campaigns I manage spend over $20,000 per month. > I need to know what I am doing. My own personal campaigns run into the > lower thousands... and I make money! You do not know what you're doing. You may work in Internet marketing and have a lot of rich clients, but that does not mean that you know anything about marketing videoblogs or about talking to technical people. Every person in this group is an early adopter for technology. They are NOT the people you typically market to. Your ignorance of that simple premise has resulted in you shooting yourself in the foot. > LASTLY...whew... I plan on building a website list of vlogs... TV with > channels. There are many lists on the web, but there are better ways > to do things... This site will cater to daily shows... and will be > marketed heavily in this new group. It will also be developed so > people can find what the're looking for... "blog video" is the hot > keyword today, maybe it will be vodcast tomorrow, either way thats > what people search to watch vlogs. I look forward to seeing your website of vlogs enter an already crowded market and do poorly because you lack subtlety. > Peace OUT! How about just OUT. -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at: http://www.mortaine.com/blogs Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: VLOGGERS UNITE
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:28:30 +0200, lishisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Secondly, my spamming was a marketing test. I had 27 people go to my > site this month from this group. Please don't do any "marketing tests" in the future. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
