-
Website
http://www.mathewingram.com/work -
Original page
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/03/15/duncan-riley-lessons-in-diplomacy/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I read Duncan's original post, Louis's reply, and thought it was all pretty ordinary. Duncan's response is more like that of a troll rather than the professional, respectable debate that is expected of someone in Duncan's position.
I think I actually agree with Duncan's points, but I dunno, I'm AMERIKUNH and we like bombing crap and watching fights. Duncan, you're a better American than most of the blogosphere. God bless. His original points are lost because of dropping the cunt-bomb.
Will Gawker please please PLEASE buy TechCrunch already? PLEASE?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Disqus
I'm entitled to post as I please on my personal blog, it wasn't on TechCrunch, but I love how you'll attack me without even reading any of it, from the beginning. Typical of the American lynch mob coming after me on this.
However, just to clarify, the term 'Bitchmeme' was, as far as I know, coined by MG Siegler: http://www.parislemon.com/2007/10/case-for-bitc...
term, but wanted to link to your post specifically.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Disqus
that's a waaaaay no-no word. i consider it as bad as
the n-word.
You mention rational debate, but go back to my original post, the one Louis ignored in his attack on me, where none of the core points I made (in particularly duplication) have been responded to.
As for traffic I couldn't give a shit about it on my personal blog, I wouldn't have logged into awstats for the site in 3 years.
Mathew, I know in your country openly responding to stuff like this is a foreign concept, but I'd rather respond openly then bottle it all up, eh. :-) Rational argument deserves rational argument, I'm not the person who took it down a peg, or perhaps you can point out where Gray actually put together a rational response because I cant see it. You're just another member of the Gray cheersquad who is cloaking your argument in the belief that Gray has a right to attack me but I have no right to respond.
He said that you missed the point. How is that making it personal? He
certainly didn't call you a self-important c*nt or a wanker, or
comment on you in any way as far as I can tell.
I'm all for discussing things out in the open, but you went way over
the line this time, mate. If disagreeing with your approach makes me
part of Louis Gray's "cheer squad," then so be it.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Disqus
As a fairly neutral guy here, not knowing either you or Louis, I have to say I think you are picking fights you don't need to pick. Each time you've responded to anything negative, you've been lowering the bar. For example, by calling Mathew a member of some "Gray cheersquad" you are turning a deaf ear to his points, and making it personal yourself.
I think your original TC post had a pretty fair point. I think Louis' response did include some "personal" items but was not exactly a vicious attack. Your response on your personal blog was quite vicious, and I think Mathew reasonably called you out for it.
You can go anywhere you want with all this, but I'd suggest a hearty "deep breath" then think about what you really care about before lashing out further.
Best,
Jeremy
ps As a Canadian+American, I am both unbottling it, then declaring war on a small country somewhere as a distraction to the problems I have at home, but in turn, feeling quite guilty about it.
Step back, deep breath, etc.
< / rodneyking >
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Disqus
Typical of the American lynch mob coming after me on this.
Mathew, I know in your country openly responding to stuff like this is a foreign concept
Duncan how many countries and people are you going to try to label nonsensically during this exchange? You obviously had a bad day, then overreacted to Gray's critique of your review of Friendfeed, and now you are clenching teeth and fists as if this was a bar fight. Something is missing from this story ... is Arrington treating you OK?
His personal blog is is own business. He can posts what he wants. I honestly think his original post was fairly direct and on track, and then he was "attacked". So he hit back. Big deal.
From an outsiders POV.
I'm an American, btw.
Duncan's post put me in a bad mood :-)
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Disqus
And I know a lot of folks are expecting me to weigh in and continue the conversation... but I think the posts here and elsewhere speak for themselves.
That said - people are entitled to their opinions. Duncan thinks that FriendFeed aint all it is cracked up to be - people get touchy would are close/spoken to the founders and lo and behold everyone thinks the world is going to end.
In Duncans defense - he did say in the post that he might come to love it if he uses it more - but at the moment he doesn't. Not quite sure why Louis continued with the attack on him but at the same time - I don't think he really took it to the personal level that Duncan did.
No need for abhorrent language in all of this. Chill out, have a beer - or meet up and bunch the shit out of each other until you resolve it.
TechCrunch is the Fox News of the tech blogs.
Besides, how can the same person be a c*nt and a wanker? Seems like a bad picture for somebody speaking English as his first language.
I've found the interweb a much nicer place now that I've learned that trolls are trolls and have nothing to do with me or what matters. I move on and look for more thoughtful, err, thoughts.
I'm glad these things generally flare up on weekends - much easier to ignore this way!
(Of course I've now allowed myself to be sucked in - but I'm telling myself it's only because I want to use Disqus commenting a bit more.) :)
Really, I don't think you can claim kudos points for not descending to the level of the playground if you also write what you would have written if you weren't so civilised.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Disqus
I find that the only time women are demeaned by these words is if they're used directly against us. I don't believe any player in this cat fight is a woman. Thank goodness for small favors.
(PS I apologize if anyone is offended by the word being spelled out, but I can't stand these coy, playful uses of characters to re-created a word, which we all know anyway. Call the word the word and damn the consequences.)
not -- I happen to think that those kinds of terms are demeaning to
people in general. In any case, my point was that they don't help to
advance any kind of rational argument.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Disqus
As for the point, you can use the sweetest words in the world and not advance a rational argument. I look at it this way: Louis Gray's words, though they be coached in gentle terms, had enough of a negative impact on Duncan Riley that he reacted as he did. Maybe Duncan is in a bad mood; maybe, though, Gray pushed the right buttons in this circumstance.
Regardless, this struck me as a personal issue between the two that perhaps should have been resolved between the two. Or is saying that an irrational argument?
I would suggest perhaps new glasses? Maybe?
Oh I love it when people say they were going to do or say something but then thought better of it, yet still tell everyone what it is they were going to do.
Fact is, you've still said it. Mind you, you've done fairly well out of Techmeme on the whole thing as well. :)
Aussie Aussie Aussie - disown that loser!
and what is it with all the us vs. them language? trying to rally people to your side based on some wack nationalism? isn't that a bit totalitarian?
"He's trying to _destroy_ me!"
kid sounds like a daytime soap opera.
Dude thinks he can bust out with the anti-woman language, too, and not be challenged for it. Who is this fool?
Dare step to to God - blogger for the mighty Techcrunch? I'll show you! I'm mean, I swear, I'll fight - I finish you - shrimps on the barbie and shit. Loser.
We got George Bush and Dennis Miller. Oz has John Howard and Duncan Riley.
Oz is still my favorite place. Out.