<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for jwestfall</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/jwestfall/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:24:02 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Gawker: Continually jumping the snark</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/gawker_continually_jumping_the_snark_02/#comment-75215</link><description>I'm not sure about that.  It's true that Denton doesn't seem all that&lt;br&gt;attached to his employees, but the sites I read regularly --&lt;br&gt;Valleywag, Idolator, Gizmodo and Kotaku -- seem to still have more&lt;br&gt;half-decent posts than not.  It'll be interesting to see how that&lt;br&gt;changes with the new compensation scheme.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:24:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Gawker: Continually jumping the snark</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/gawker_continually_jumping_the_snark_02/#comment-75057</link><description>The problem with Gawker, and Gawker Media as a whole, is that Denton doesn't care about his employees.  This is more than easily seen when actually &lt;em&gt;talks&lt;/em&gt; about his employees.  Denton cares about his PVs and his money and getting it his way, ethics or professionalism be damned!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the whole, most Gawker Media sites' quality of writing has been in sharp decline in stark contrast to their pageviews continually going up.  With such an ongoing fresh crop of readers, very few people realize how bad the writing has actually gotten and how little &lt;strong&gt;anyone&lt;/a&gt; on a Gawker Media site actually writes anything other than being a press release-repeating, RSS-feed-regurgitating machine.  It's paying the bills but it's not doing a thing for their credibility.&lt;/strong&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jwestfall</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:07:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google ruining Christmas? Get a grip</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/google_ruining_christmas_get_a_grip_53/#comment-47769</link><description>I agree, J.  Pretty dumb, I think.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:03:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google ruining Christmas? Get a grip</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/google_ruining_christmas_get_a_grip_53/#comment-47763</link><description>OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING!  I never understood the hysteria about this this week.  Since Ol' Goog married GTalk and GReader almost two weeks ago to the day, you figure people would have expected this to happen, it's only a natural progression.  But no, people are bemoaning the fact that their contacts can see their feeds.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Let alone ignore the fact that, as you stated, they have to use GReader too.  And you have to share items.  And you have to specifically share your feeds with certain people in your list, or allow access to the shared feed.  It seems in the Christmas fury, everyone forgot that just because you share an item doesn't mean everyone -- or anyone -- actually sees it without you authorizing them to.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jwestfall</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:58:41 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>