--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Clint Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Markus Sandy wrote:
>
> > andrew,
> >
> > i already wrote why I am in favor of sticking with the orignal
date
> > i also specifically said in my last email that i am not against
an
> > earlier date
> > but some one has to be the "devil's adovcate" (or lapdog for the
time
> > being)
> > since you persist in fear mongering
> >
> > as to your other question: i don't think it's bad
> > you are the one that claims that waiting til 2006 is bad
> > please don't try to put words in my mouth
> >
> > nice attempt at turning the question around without answering it
> > sorry to see that you can't get your point across
> >
> > markus
> >
> >
> Firstly, for gods sakes, please trim your replies people!  Jesus. 
> Secondly, from your first response to this you've been labeling him
as a
> fear monger.  Nice tactic, but throwing out names and labels when
we're
> trying to have an honest debate about when to schedule a conference
is
> inappropriate in my mind.
>


Clint obviously you missed the Baron's post because he was CLEARLY
feeeer mongering.  i mean this is classic stuff:

xxxxxxxxxxx  FEEER ON  xxxxxxxxxxxxx

The logic of doing it sooner is that I'm worried we'll be squished.

If we dont work harder and faster, we will be swept up entirely.

The major media, the FCC, world trade, everyone is seeing whats going
on.

In less than 2 months you'll have Apple pushing CBS video thru RSS
enclosures and the media writing stories about HOllywood broadcast
producers like the self-fufilling trademarking VJ guy.

The news, methods, procedures, legalities, tools, will be elsewhere.
. .

Potentially.

Sorry Verdi, but one day you may very well be stopped for doing what
you do online.

xxxxxxxxxxx  FEEER OFF  xxxxxxxxxxxxx


i mean for crying out loud?

but but but i still think we should have the conference sooner the
better

ro




SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Typepad


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to