DISQUS

Thanks for the kind words...

It's been an interesting day, lots of comments, lots to absorb.

My first reaction -- if they follow this to its logical conclusion they will turn the web browser into an email client. The cool thing about the web is that it's for publishing, which at its root means "public." Email, by its nature is the opposite -- it's personal, non-public. P2P. Both modes of communication are necessary of course. Yin and yang, zig and zag.

Here's a list of the Mets of the 60s.

http://ultimatemets.com/decades.php?ThisDecade=...

I like Jeff's post, but I'd add that it would have worked out better if the Mets had sucked more at the beginning of the season and been strong at the end than the way it worked out.

But I was lucky, I started loving the bums when they sucked 162 games a year, every year. Those were the Mets I fell in love with, those are the Mets I miss. Choo Choo Coleman, Rod Kanehl, Bud Harrelson, Frank Thomas, Marv Throneberry, Ed Kranepool, Ed Charles, Bob Shaw (lived next door to us in Queens, mowed his lawn as a kid!), Gil Hodges, Duke Snyder, and on and on. Tommy Agee! Casey Stengel! These were the canonical Mets. They're smiling down from heaven or wherever they are (some are still with us, for sure) thinking how appropriate that the Mets disappointed this crop of fans, who actually expect them to win because that ain't the way it works!!

The Mets are about poetry, philosophy, drama and love.

Only winning when winning helps accentuate the above.

And baseball can teach us about life -- I'm serious about it. Because no matter how much fun life is, we all end up losing in the end. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is the truth. Enjoy it while you got it, cause it ain't gonna last. :-)

By who?

Actually I used the tinyurls in a vain effort to not be linked into the chorus under the Official Definition of Web 3.0 piece. Contrary to what Mike says, I would have been happy if my piece hadn't been picked up on TechMeme at all, but in the end I'm happy to get the flow and the attention. I think the points I make need to be considered. I certainly have heard from a lot of people who support my point. How disappointing to see that Mike wants it censored, as if TM were Gabe's personal blog, and as if the top spot were his exclusive territory. Talk about throwing your weight around! And I've been waiting for a chance to say: With friends like this... Heh.

Also consider that Calacanis's post may have been a dig at the Web 2.0 Summit, which is coming up the week after next. Jason and Mike both compete with it (they're having product showcases at Web 2.0 this year), so it's kind of tacky for them to be taking such cheap shots at a competitor. I don't know -- could just be me. And it may be that his piece was what it seemed to be -- another cheezy attempt to get people talking about his company.

Fred, I didn't know that you were an investor in Mahalo. Seems to me that's something you should disclose here.

Makes Jason look like even more of an idiot, taking cheap shots at me, when I'm one of the key influencers in the area he hopes to be taken seriously. I'd have a good firm talk with him about the difference between being the editor of Silicon Alley Insider and the CEO of a tech company. Taking a little criticism isn't cause for a scorched earth campaign. I don't blame Jason for not wanting to take it up again, he screwed up and didn't even have the CEO sense to apologize for the screwup.

This really was the focus of my comments both at Gnomedex and after. As I said, all the personal stuff Jason threw at me was a smokescreen, he didn't have an attractive proposition for the people at Gnomedex, that's why the people there didn't receive his presentation very well. He made me the scapegoat for his own failure, and you're supporting that theory here. I wish people who weren't there would stop tying to settle this, because you got it wrong. Lots of other people were talking back to him at the conference, in person and on the back channel, including Chris Pirillo, the host of the show.

Anyway -- it's not all about APIs. Google has pulled back support for their experimental Google API, even so, much of the flow of the web is still centered around them because:

1. Their ads pay us money.

2. Their search engine brings us readers.

We may not like Google as a company, but this is a fair deal, so they've got a good business. In neither case does it have anything to do with APIs.

It's just common sense that when you try to sell an idea to a group of people there should be some way for them to profit, or else your pitch is going to fall flat.

Imagine a company that came in to pitch Union Square Ventures on a product, and you loved it, and you said great, how can I participate, and they said, oh sorry you can't participate. You might think they were wasting their time and yours.

It seems that for some people this is complex math. And a cause to smear the messenger. I was acting as a friend at that point, my purpose was to help him find a way for the people at Gnomedex to win alongside him. Now I would never recommend someone writing for his company, not as long as Calacanis is the CEO there.

Any CEO that changes the subject when people want to talk about his product has a pretty basic problem, imho.

Fred, you're really onto something here.

I believe advertising will get:

1. More useful.

2. Better targeted.

3. More entertaining.

And when it's done doing all this evolving it won't be advertising anymore.

It'll be information.

That's why I say I don't believe in advertising.

Intruding is something we're building incredible defenses against. Guarding our attention is almost a survival of the fittest thing. The people you most want to reach with your "message" will be the people with the highest barriers.

One more thing, I couldn't stay out of it, after Jason decided to make me the excuse for what went wrong at Gnomedex, and kept up his campaign for days, in lots of different places, after he said I got fired from his TechCrunch 20 conference, unless I was willing to let his accusations stand, I had to say something.

So your giving grief to both of us is grossly unfair and pretty thoughtless.

Yes, I could have not said anything, and believe me, I won't be saying anything at Gnomedex in the future, after this outpouring of anger, it just isn't worth the trouble.

And by the way, I wasn't the only person who objected to what Jason was doing. A lot of people talked to him openly in the room, before I said anything, and in the chatroom and on Twitter, including Chris, so he didn't stay out of it.

I was the just guy Jason decided to villify.

FYI.

You're right about it not being much of an incident. I have a suggestion -- why don't you take your own advice and stay out of it. "Good move."

BTW, my middle name is "Michael."

Just FYI. :-)

If it's not new, as you say, its significance hasn't penetrated the thinking in the tech community where, according to convention wisdom, Facebook was considered a sandbox, a walled garden, a silo. If you knew about this Matthew, the significance must have escaped you. Or did I somehow miss the post where you explained it? (Apologies in advance if I did.)

Phil, it's in development. It's only been a couple of days...

I'll be sure to let Fred know when it's ready for more users and he can post a link.

Gotta do this carefully, before I create a support nightmare! :-)

Hi Fred...

First, thanks for the kind words.

I implemented your first request. A very good idea. The second one might not be so easy, but I'll take a look. My phone doesn't set any tags on the pictures.

Are you coming to Gnomedex??

Why do you make this so goddam personal?

Adam Green doesn't "allow" comments, and Doc Searls has a discussion group behind his blog, it's fairly active.

You could do some homework before you go ranting.

And how have I only allowed comments in "limited" way and why is this "Winer-esque?"

You're pretty nasty. It's easier to see when you go after someone else, like Doc.