Yeah, reading back I don't know why I wrote half of what I wrote this morning, other than that I'd had no sleep. I should just stop typing and go away for a while, clear my head. I wouldn't have intended to give the impression that I was supporting one position or the other. I personally don't feel particularly passionate about the definition, or as capable of arguing one way or the other as a lot of other people. I'm all for as open a definition as possible, and a section on the wikipedia page which acknowledges that there is a debate, if other people think that's acceptable. Sorry I was hasty in writing, I'm going to unplug for a while. Rupert
On 1 May 2007, at 16:24, Michael Verdi wrote: On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy > way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the > debate. > > It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was > disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not, > and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided > romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think > one side has to *win*. Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to be encompassed. - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
