Let it be.
Today, someone I work with sent me an article that was a pretty vile and ugly attack on my personal religious beliefs. I think it was done intentionally, with intent to cause pain (this person knows my views and beliefs), and as far as I am aware it was done without any particular provocation on my part. So I said a prayer for the sender, and one for the writer, and I let it go, or tried to.
But because I was taking it personally, it got me thinking about all the other times people have said nasty things about what I believe in. Then it occurred to me that over the years, people have said ugly things to me when they found out:
So it's really foolish (and possibly prideful) to take this stuff personally, or to feel compelled to "say something back" to individuals who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to put me "in my place." It isn't about me, it's about them.
Dawn D. said something on her weblog the other day that also came to me in the middle of this: "I know they suffer just like I do, and they think that [people like me] are the reason they are suffering." (not an exact quote, but close enough)
Thanks, Dawn -- I needed that.
And I thought maybe I imagined it ...
Dave Winer in Boston saw the same Meet the Press that we got here in Dallas. I don't know which group I loathe more - pols or press. -- BB
Meet the Press had a particularly clueless segment on blogs. Typical BigPub arrogance. One guy says he has a blog, but his is different -- he posts columns instead of pancake recipes. Oh. Okay. I guess you're smart and we're stupid. Thanks. [Scripting News]
Social network software.
Social network software has been getting a lot of attention lately. Is it a good thing or not? I think it's always good to add a channel through which people can find you, especially if you are a small business. Some people are suspicious or nervous about sharing their rolodexes. My view is that those who share thrive, those who hoard die. I'm on LinkedIn - search for me as William Brandon, and please add me to your network. -- BB
"Get yourself out of the mind set of social network software for the sake of social network software and start thinking about how adding a social networking component to existing systems could improve them."
Follow the links from JZ's post to find a lot of discussion surrounding this debate.
And see the argument that my colleague Stephen offers to the view that there is a disincentive to sharing one's connections:
"If the value you create is based on 'knowing', then your livelihood will be undercut by someone who has the same knowledge - in this case, the same (or similar) network of contacts - and who shares it freely."(By the way, my primary point of presence in social networking systems is here, on Ryze. Ryze is one of the oldest systems alive today - it was launched in 2002. Worth a login if you have yet to try one of those systems...)
[Seb's Open Research]
View other people's feeds.
"Share Your OPML: A commons for sharing RSS Feeds" You can upload an OPML file from your aggregator that identifies your RSS subscriptions (or point to the place on the Web where your aggregator stores your subscriptions). This allows people who read your weblog to also view your subscriptions in a convenient way. You do have to join the service -- this is because the OPML files themselves will be aggregated in various ways (Dave hasn't said what those ways are, yet, though he is showing the top 100 and the number of subscribers to each, for example). I suspect it also allows him to deny access to any individual who might choose to abuse the service in some way.
This is one more reason why I stay with Radio, in spite of its warts. The more I look at how it's put together, the more impressed I become. Also the more embarassed about my own clumsy use of it. Well, we can't all be Robert Scoble or Joi Ito.
Two more reasons I don't watch television.
The NY Times asks if CBS paid Michael Jackson $1 million for the 60 Minutes interview. "In essence they paid him" for the interview, the Jackson associate said of CBS, "but they didn't pay him out of the 60 Minutes budget; they paid him from the entertainment budget, and CBS just shifts around the money internally. That way 60 Minutes can say 60 Minutes didn't pay for the interview." [Scripting News]