Ok, maybe I'm a bit behind the curve, but I read this;

A bit of a sticky wicket?: "Jay Rosen had a schedule conflict, and the replacement they chose is someone I don't want to have a public discussion with about ethics and credibilty (or a private one for that matter). So the only way out is for me to recuse myself, which I have done."(Via Scripting News.)

And then this;

Reuters On Tuesday Evening In New York: "Meanwhile, there's a rumor that I'm replacing Jay Rosen on the panel. Certainly very flattering, but c'mon guys, could anyone actually replace Jay Rosen anywhere? No! So let me say that I was invited to participate at roughly the same time Jay realized he had a conflict and had to be in another town entirely. I'll miss him. As you may have read, we've been having a little"(Via Halley's Comment.)

Am I connecting unconnected dots here? Does Dave have an issue with Halley? Tell, Tell!

Or is this horribly unethical of me? *grin*

11:52:05 PM     Discuss: []

Scoble is a man of respect....: "Scoble is a man of respect. 'My co-author Shel Israel gave me heck for being too nice to my fellow bloggers.' Right on. Too much footsie in the blogosphere. Enough. Just the facts please. Enough telling me about your friends. Make some new enemies for a change." (Via Scripting News.)

Dave's got a pretty good point here. Seriously.

When you post a link to someone's post whom you agree with, whattya write?

"She's so right!", "I wish I'd said that!"

What's the interest in that? What do you add to the conversation? Not that I'm saying that the link provides nothing; it provides me a link to (possibly) an interesting article. That article tells me something about you, but nothing directly from you.

Whereas, when posting about something you disagree with, it's a lot more likely that you will comment on it in a personal nature. A lot more likely that you'll talk about something you believe in, or don't believe in, for that matter. A lot more of you there. Good idea.

11:36:38 PM     Discuss: []