<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for calvin pearson</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/c6e48815843a7e73b533b7309b093e9f/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 13:46:13 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Marvel: Please don&amp;#8217;t watch our movie</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/marvel_please_don8217t_watch_our_movie_67/#comment-395835</link><description>well, you can criticize them from a distance and label them as PR naifs, but they are well within their rights to dispose of their IP in any manner they wish. whether you or mike arrington are displeased really isn't relevant to the law. if push comes to shove, marvel is in the right. but arrington wins too: he got the PR he was looking for. you wrote about it.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">calvin pearson</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:57:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Arrington and Wired: Keyboards at dawn</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/arrington_and_wired_keyboards_at_dawn_96/#comment-462929</link><description>mean-spirited jab? you must be kidding, right? well, no, you're serious. over the last several months i've read many "jabs" (mean-spirited or others in this space.) it's your right as an arm-chair opinion-meister to weigh in as you see fit. but outside of the "butt munch" tag (and i don't know whose call that was) questions about arrington's coverage is fair game. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;at the same time, his "fuck you" tweet was a heck of a lot more mean-spirited than the wired piece. there's no place for that sort of gutter languague.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">calvin pearson</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 12:12:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Ars Technica snapped up by Conde Nast</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/ars_technica_snapped_up_by_conde_nast_79/#comment-480795</link><description>Am still waitng for Arrington to write this one: "Why Conde bought Ars, and not the other way around?"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;more seriously, this one is bizarre. ars isn't very relevant and conde is limited when it comes to the high tech space.  the cbs/cnet deal which you trashed (unfairly, imho) yesterday appears to make for a far more powerful combination.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">calvin pearson</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 19:06:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FriendFeed kill Twitter? Not going to happen</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/friendfeed_kill_twitter_not_going_to_happen/#comment-524406</link><description>this is beyond stupid. "kill" twitter? he has GOT to be kidding, right? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; if people are fed up with twitter's down time  problems, then, obivously, they will move elsewhere. but there's no room here for such infantile thinking. i can't believe i'm even wasting my time commenting on such an intellectually vapid post. but for some reason, people are linking to it and believe it's worthy of debate. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;let's dispense with these sorts of verbal jihads. there are more interesting &amp; important topics of discussion</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">calvin pearson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 13:46:13 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>