Is it? Doesn't it? I'm not clever enough to follow your logical outflanking of me. The only point I was making was that we shouldn't be making judgements about people's 'expertise' and thereby telling people we won't respect their opinion, based on their vlogging productivity. A keen observer can be just as intelligent on an issue as a keen participant. And my other point was that I instinctively trust more the *objectivity* of a critic as opposed to a producer on this kind of issue, as someone who is not directly financially affected by the industry & market's direction.
I've always enjoyed reading Steve's opinions, whether I agree or not, when I have a couple of hours to spare :) But now it seems he might go away... and other people we may not have heard from will be less willing to speak. Not good. But if I've misunderstood and am objecting wrongly, forgive me. I am an occasional dabbler, and I just read in passing for fun, when I should be finishing my tax. Rupert On 30 Jan 2007, at 15:17, Enric wrote: Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of trusting a critic more doesn't follow. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without > kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids... > > Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy to > see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as part > of a heated argument on this forum. > > He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty clued- > up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright personal > opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-such a > thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer. > > Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where > there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed opinions > arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life. > > I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in > conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more than > the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and cons > of the system. Even if I disagree with their conclusions. > > > On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote: > > 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 > > > It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their > friends on how to raise kids...... ;) > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron > <andrew@> 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] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
