DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Mathew's comments is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Mathew's comments

Jump to original thread »
Author

Dave’s dark side returns to the forefront

Started by mathewi · 10 months ago

Well, I guess the blog hiatus I mentioned yesterday didn’t last too long - my old friend Dave Winer has gone and done something outrageously stupid, even for Dave (and that’s saying something). After a couple of posts in which he made cryptic comments about someone s ... Continue reading »

7 comments

  • Peter Cranstone

    3 years ago

    It won't last long - RSS is still an open standard, Dave is tired and cannot go on alone. It's either lead (he did) follow (he is) or get out of the way (he's in the process of doing). Just have to patient while the process works itself out.

    Peter
    reply
  • Paul Montgomery

    3 years ago

    You've given very short shrift to Dave's side of the story, Mathew. I don't think either side is spotless in this instance, especially if what Dave says it true about Rogers taking public what they had agreed would be a private matter between lawyers. Did you consider at any point that Rogers might not be a saint?
    reply
  • King Bastard

    3 years ago

    Do we really believe Dave's side of the story? That lawyer letter seemed to be a lot more tense than Dave's story. So either the lawyer went over the top, or Dave's lying -- you pick.
    reply
  • Mathew

    3 years ago

    Thanks for the comment, Paul -- I realize I've given Dave's side the short end of the stick, and that was deliberate. I'm prepared to believe that Rogers isn't a saint, but given what has happened in the past involving Dave, I would say that Rogers is a heck of lot closer to sainthood than Dave is.

    Mathew
    reply
  • Seth Finkelstein

    3 years ago

    ",,, the RSS debacle, which gets weirder by the day ..."

    Weirdness tends to follow the money :-)

    Paul: I think you're improperly implying a moral equivalence. Here's a simple point: Dave had the option of saying "My lawyer was too aggressive, I apologize and withdraw any threat of litigation." He didn't. Or anything close to it. That's just one profound asymmetry (that the target had been derided as a "lackey" and "sycophant" is to me another telling point as to why we are dealing with abuse and not equals).
    reply
  • dahowlett

    3 years ago

    Airing dirty laundry, especially with a lawyer's tag, in the court of public opnion is a recipe for disaster. And the lawyers usually win.
    reply
  • aablog

    3 years ago

    I don’t know either of these guys personally, but I do e-joy reading their posts now and then. I especially like the DaveNet archives.

    Get into any topical discussion out here in the wild, something strikes a chord and bam, the e-pinions hit the fan.
    I dont' think Rogers should have posted the attorney's letter. I do not think for a moment that Dave is above distortion by his virtual self.

    When the chord resonates, the virtual self can emotionally flog the keyboard and at that moment none of us is above distortion - that includes Rogers and the rest of us.

    It comes down to a matter of perception I think. I try to be fair, AND I ‘viturally’ do not perceive Dave to be as bad as his detractors do. I ‘virtually’ do not perceive Rogers to be as pure of heart as his supporters do.

    Virtually it is interesting. Personally does it really matter? Not much.

    Two important words here, communication and trust. Another two words - money and power often get in their way.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login