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 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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] >
