 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Side Note Beth's site is down
Dave challenges me, and others, all kinds of ways — and quite frequently. (We've been going back and forth around open source for years now.) I don't always agree with him. And if I do, it's not editing. It's just agreement. There's a difference. FWIW, I don't think I backed down in the first case, because he brought up some very good points. I *had* meant to disclaim the fact that the gig with Microsoft was paid, and I hadn't done that. I also think holding bloggers up to the same gold standard as big-J journalists is an interesting exercize, as Sheila Lennon challenged us to do today. I think good has come out of the whole conversation, and I'm glad Mitch and Dave brought it up. I also agree with Dave that I was giving Beth insufficient credit for her own strength (whether she took her blog down or not), and I do agree with you, and myself, that what Andrew did was mean-spirited and personal. There's no contradiction here. FWIW, I also said "maybe he's right." And I was referring to her need for defense, nothing more. I'm also betting that Beth is not silenced as a blogger. While it's a shame that she took her current blog down, that doesn't mean she won't be back. She's had other blogs before, and I suspect this last one was not her final one. She's a pioneer and an experimenter, and I believe that's the spirit she's still bringing to what she does. Live and learn. Blogging is one way we live, and live to live again. As for my objectivity, question it all you want. My response to Andrew's slam on Beth was not meant to be objective anyway. When we try to be objective, we sign on to a myth. What we get here in blogland is a lot of personal perspectives. Mine is just one of them. Sometimes more than one, even within the same word. As Whitman says, Do I contradict myself? Very well then. I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. So do we all. There are responses to this message:
|
