<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Ethan Osten</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/f6a61da92fddaf5af71b89ecf96c4b4d/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:06:53 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Future-safe archives (Scripting News)</title><link>http://scripting.disqus.com/future_safe_archives_scripting_news/#comment-31819</link><description>Isn't this the problem that the Wayback Machine was supposed to help solve?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ethan Osten</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:19:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Who will fill Russert's shoes? (Scripting News)</title><link>http://scripting.disqus.com/who_will_fill_russerts_shoes_scripting_news/#comment-678093</link><description>Keep in mind that they need someone who is good at actually /interviewing/ people, since that's the whole appeal of Meet the Press. That strikes out Olbermann and Matthews right there; they're just not regarded as impartial enough to conduct the sort of interviews that MtP does. Mitchell and Gregory are the conservative choices, but neither are really very good at interviewing either; especially Gregory, who is just boring.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Don't expect them to bring in Blitzer, Stephanopoulous, Wallace, either. These are people who all competed with MtP, and lost. NBC's interest here is to maintain MtP's viewership as much as possible; bringing in people like them, who have proven they couldn't do it, wouldn't seem sensible. Besides, why would they? They already have great jobs on shows that are nearly as well-respected.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I wouldn't count on Todd. Cooper, Ifill, Rose - they all have good positions now, especially Rose, who is practically an institution on PBS (though he'd certainly have the interviewing abilities).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'd love to see Aaron Brown, too. But I just can't imagine it happening, somehow.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ethan Osten</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:06:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Political and Religious Controversy on Facebook</title><link>http://allfacebook.disqus.com/political_and_religious_controversy_on_facebook/#comment-1637781</link><description>Certainly not. Free speech should be granted wherever it is practical to grant it. It is certainly practical to grant it here.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Further, giving in like this would set a poor precedent. "If you dislike what someone says, just complain loud enough and we'll get rid of it." That's not something I want to see on Facebook any more than absolutely necessary.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ethan Osten</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:03:59 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>