Pardon the INXS reference, but it seems appropriate.
We've all heard that weblogs are conversations, and we often assume that they are generally productive conversations. Even when someone (like me) posts a bitchy or uninformed entry, there's often some little bit of good to come out of it. That's generally a testament to my readers. Some have an uncanny ability to see what I'm getting at even when I can't quite seem to make my real point.
But it's not always like that.
A couple days ago, I noticed Dave Winer's scripting.com show up in my hourly referer log summaries. He had linked to my Blinded by Gmail's Gigabyte post (that now has over 50 comments--wow!) in which I react to Tim O'Reilly post on Gmail and the "Internet OS" meme (mostly focusing on that meme rather than his entire post).
Now Tim's a really smart guy and did a good job of blasting folks for going nuts over the Gmail privacy debate. And his company publishes my book. So I clearly don't think he's evil or anything.
I agree with Tim that it's all become way too stupid. And I further agree with Rich Skrenta's post about the Google platform that got a lot of people thinking. In fact, I've been thinking about that off an on for a couple years now--about the fact that Google has a fundamentally more innovative architecture that Yahoo does. And I wonder what that means for Yahoo. (More on that some other day if I can convince myself that I won't get fired for saying what I think on the matter.)
Why? Because he used this quote: "Even Tim O'Reilly seems to be sucked in by Google's reality distortion field now." instead of something like "For god's sake, it's web mail with a really big quota!" which was what I expected someone might use. Either that or "Jeremy's pissing on Google again. Does Yahoo pay him to do that?!" :-)
Then a few folks said the same thing (completely out of the blue) via private e-mail to me. I wondered what his motivation for the link was, but didn't think too much about it. Maybe he just thought it was a good headline, since that's his blog style much of the time.
Then, before I had a chance to notice today, it seems that Dave linked to it again but this time directly to Tim O'Reilly's comment. In that comment, Tim notes that he does in fact own a bit of Google stock (as does my employer--but probably a bit more than Tim does), which he got as the result of an acquisition.
If you're going to potshot, don't do it by manipulating blogs like Jeremy's, or seeking to slander luminaries like Tim. They're both out of your league. If you want to keep slander as your weapon of choice, bring it to me.
Now I'm starting to feel a bit used. And I'm starting to think that my joking suggestion of Tim owning Google stock wasn't such a bright idea.
What am I supposed to think of this, Dave? Is this why Mark Pilgrim blocks referers from your site? Did you also try to use his content against someone else you disklike in the past? Your terse linking style leave a lot of room for interpretation.
Posted by jzawodn at April 20, 2004 08:48 PM