Comments on: How to further blow something out of proportion

By: Amit Malhotra

Amit Malhotra — Tue, 24 May 2005 00:03:45 +0000

when I said that the comments were not verbatim, it did not mean that steve may or may not have said those. It just means the exact wording was not probably not the same – I was just being polite! The key points are all valid including steve’s assertion that RSS was too simple and the rest of the answers – I have also had this double check with some peers in the conf. In fact I have a feeling that the reason we have not seen transcripts (I saw people taking notes and a video too) is perhaps they are less flattering.
In Scoble’s defense, I have met him and spoken to him about RSS(enterprise) in the past, so I am sure he gave me the benefit of doubt in that the Q&A was a valid conversation.
Steve was in a partner/CEO level forum where he was talking about billion $ opportunities that microsoft was investing in .. and perhaps did not really want to draw too much attention to emerging tech – though I was surprised why he went on to dis RSS and talk further about web services and better stuff…
amit – at – well – dt – com

By: Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp — Sat, 21 May 2005 22:24:38 +0000

Rick,

I was probably a bit harsh on you on the shameful thing. However, the way I read your post seemed very much like you were just amplifying Winer’s perspective. You are correct about busting Dave on the FUD thing, and I should have probably given you more credit for that. I think you had some very valid points as well. Glad to see VCs getting into the blogger game. There’s so much mystery surrounding the VC world that anybody who’s out there talking about it will definitely help to dispell the myths. As an entrepeneurial guy, I’m excited to see this. I’ve also read your two follow up posts, and I’m subscribed now. I think more often than not, the business side of blogging is sorely neglected, and I think your post on Dodge and customer service was very insightful.

By: Rick Segal

Rick Segal — Sat, 21 May 2005 21:21:04 +0000

Hi Clint,
I read your post and wanted to point out a couple of things. First, the seq. of events didn’t have Dave’s comment in it as step two, good point. The order in which I read stuff was Robert’s blog, then Amit’s via the link in Robert’s post, then I started working on the post which really was focused on the corporate blogging issue. I’m a VC with no investment in ANT/RSS/XML stuff so I really don’t have a technology agenda.

With respect to Dave, I thought I busted him on the FUD comment, regardless of liking/not liking the guy.

I chose this posting from Robert because it was interesting to me. No real agenda. I didn’t pick it to defend RSS or Dave, that boy is clearly able to defend himself. I thought I was clear in saying that I liked the guy and have met up but maybe saying I’m a fan so read what follows with that filter would be better. But, that’s okay, your response/post is just further data for people to read and study as blogs get ‘mainstream.’

Back when newsgroups started to have feeds from compuserve/aol/etc, there were all kinds of ‘newbies’ flying around and the old guard was up in arms while some offered suggestions. Remember all the people telling all the newbies all caps = shouting? Then there was email and people finally, after years, starting to realize text conversations with missing personal expressions can take on a meanings never intended.

These days, it’s blogs and like the old days, bloggers will have to settle into a set of norms that will get all of this stuff in balance over time.

I think “shameful” is a bit much but if you assume I’m acting as a Winer shill, I can see your point. But look at the bright side. Until heading over here, I had no idea what ant publishing was, so there you go, another person taking a look.

Thanks for the commentary, it was an interesting read.

By: paul

paul — Sat, 21 May 2005 19:15:45 +0000

Dave’s fear; http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atompub-charter.html