I'm amazed that you like it Patrick, as we all went to town about you
in April.  It was enough to make me unsubscribe, because I got so
caught up with it.
I don't get the enjoyment of it.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
> Wikipedia Storm of '07.
> 
> Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
> be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
> very much "the videoblogging group." :)
> 
> I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
> medium's moguls.  I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
> Murdoch contributes.
> 
> As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
> often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
> stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
> very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
> for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
> Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
> frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.
> 
> darn...151 words...now 156...
> 
> On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> >
> >  > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
> >
> >  > selling out in the
> >  > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
> >  > that Mr Baron was
> >  > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
> >
> >  AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha!!!!! But what kind of
> >  Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? MMMMM I like the sound of
> >  this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!????
> >
> >  Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
> >  on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
> >
> >  Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
> >
> >  1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> >  identical knock off- Engagdget
> >  2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> >  3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> >  broke)
> >  4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
> >  2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
> >  fired from AOL
> >  3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> >  likes.
> >
> >  Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
> >  destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
> >  stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
> >  just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
> >  exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
> >
> >  Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
> >  can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
> >  collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
> >  over everyone.
> >
> >  Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
> >  others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
> >  reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
> >  When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
> >  brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
> >  and rubs off on the rest off.
> >
> >  My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
> >  The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
> >  by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
> >  asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
> >  Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
> >  to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
> >  can you improve the show?
> >
> >  We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
> >  receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
> >
> >
> >  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>


Reply via email to