Day: March 17, 2002

How much do we listen to each other? How of much of what we do is skimming a weblog looking for the “juicy” parts, so that we can act and react accordingly?

This weekend, I’ve seen way too much reaction, and not enough comprehension. And I see signs of this continuing.

I’m tired. Tonight, I feel really tired.

earlier

Eric wrote the following in response to a comment John Robb made about journalistic coverage of web services:

‘…that’s what the press does: it’s reactive, it covers emerging trends as they emerge, but it doesn’t instantly declare, “Revolution in the barnyard, the big rooster is dead” the instant the tiny chick makes its first hole in the shell (as much as the chick would like it to).’

Cluck. Cluck. Heh.

Ahhh, don’t look now Jonathon, but I think that the BlogSisters just discovered the little fracas we all had this weekend. And your original throwaway remark.

Tutor, regrets that he could not ride to rescue me from dragons sinister in the extreme. Spurned he says. Spurned by his Lady Love.

Me thinks that the languid pressing of hand to fevered brow when casting your words upon still, still waters, Tutor, will avail you not. In truth fair knight, I doth understand the whys and wherefores of your traitorous acts of inaction: black leather became me not.

Sigh.

And as a quick aside: thanks to everyone for expressing their opinions yesterday and today. Especially those who expressed their opinions above the belt rather than below.

It would also seem that the difficult posting from yesterday hit both Blogdex and Daypop top ten. I would rather my dog story rise in the buzz charts — I think it’s a better posting — but I imagine a homeless pooch doesn’t compare with or have the same impact as “Sexism and Hypocrisy”, as Daypop titled it.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Yesterday’s post went awry, and the rancor has struck deeply. I find it extremely difficult to respond to the comments — those expressed online, and those expressed within email. The only comments I will address at this time are those from Dave Winer.

Dave, you say that I’m a sexist and male-basher because I spoke about you rather than to you when I pulled up previous and current weblog posts. Read the “offending” post again — all I did was describe your influence, post a previous comment that Meg made in August, post your words related to that same comment as well as the words you spoke yesterday. I then asked people to read your words.

I didn’t speak about you. You spoke about yourself.

I know that others would wish us to take a more peaceful route in our disagreement, but things were said yesterday and this morning that cannot be gainsaid. And, unlike your earlier posts from this morning, they cannot be retracted or pulled.

So be it.