Well, that'd have to be CyberRep, where I was doing customer service for a cellular telephone company (it's idenitfy isn't terribly important, since I was working for CyberRep, not them).
Mainly because Management was woefully mis-named. While there are valid arguments for flexibility and adaptability, managers at this company tended to simply change rules at the drop of a hat, and then hold you to them retroactively. So, for example, if you performed your job on Monday based upon the current rules, and then they changed the rules on Tuesday, you'd get shit for not obeying Tuesday's new rules back on Monday.
They also were somehow rather cerebrally incapable of discriminating when it came to disciplinary action. When any given employee or two would not be performing well, or was screwing around, rather than taking them aside and working with them on it directly, they'd make blanket company-wide edicts that had the essential effect of treating us all like we were in grade school.
When I finally up and quit, the head manager at the time asked me why (immediately after I had just explained in detail part of why). I re-iterated what I had already said and rattled off all the other reasons. He then decided it would be a shrewd thing to say, "Well that's an immature attitude to take." At which point I stood up perfectly straight (I had been hunching over because quitting a job is nerve-wracking), looked him in the eye and said, "I am done having this conversation now. And you of all people have some nerve using that word with anyone."
That was a fun day, all in all.
A Conversation sparked by Christopher Locke's 'Gonzo Marketing: Winning Through Worst Practices'. Started by Jeneane Sessum in 2001, Gonzo Engaged was the first Blogger.com team weblog. Let the games continue.
Saturday, March 02, 2002
Nice Job Kevin and Evil Corporations
I like it Kevin--and I really like this "open letter" vehicle that is floating around these days. They speak in such a human voice--not someone trying to be legal because they are afraid the recipient might get mad and sue them. Anyway, it has my vote as a send. Do you want me to put a link on the left nav bar to it posted someplace, so that once more posts come in it doesn't get "buried"? Let me know. I'm glad you're here. Did everyone miss me? I've been playing with the girls, and I'm exhausted. I got this idea in my pre-sleep state one night and blog sisters was the result. We climbed to number 3 on daypop in our first 24 hours and finally fell off the charts today. So I can ease up a little bit and come back to my roots some. I was adding 1-2 sister bloggers an hour for most of yesterday, which means I participated in fewer than usual extracurricular activities.
With that, I'm going to rest.
I pose a question--what was the shittiest company you ever worked for and why? (I warn you not to use actual company names unless you're unafraid of litigation.) My disfunction junction was a now defunct Atlanta-based mom-and-pop boutique consulting firm where I served as director of corporate communications. We worked so hard for so little, it should have been illegal. game-playing, alcoholism, cheating, divorce, plots to get people fired, all of this happening in a group of people that numbered 80 in it's prime. Direct report meetings generally started with one or two women crying. Even before the meetings started. Door slaming, chair kicking, and lots of screaming between the CEO wife and Chairman husband. I told myself when I walked into the madness that if it ever started to seem "normal," I needed to leave. It started to seem normal, and I didn't leave. THAT was a crucial mistake. In the end, the place nearly killed me--quite literally--and brought one 6' 2" 60-year-old man to his knees during one of the company's patented workshops.
This was my lesson that although corporations can't breathe, can't love, aren't human, they *can* be inherently evil**. The sum of their parts, working in tandem, can create enough velocity to spin into some mad force of destruction. I have seen it, felt it, and seen people destroyed by it. No one person, plot, scheme, or hateful idea on its own has the power of evil. But when two or more join, the result can be a horrifying synergy of mass proportions.
Clearly, I went on longer than I should have here. But, when you come back home again, you might as well bring a story with you.
**evil - an overused word these days, but I think it applies much more aptly to corporations than to countries and their people.
With that, I'm going to rest.
I pose a question--what was the shittiest company you ever worked for and why? (I warn you not to use actual company names unless you're unafraid of litigation.) My disfunction junction was a now defunct Atlanta-based mom-and-pop boutique consulting firm where I served as director of corporate communications. We worked so hard for so little, it should have been illegal. game-playing, alcoholism, cheating, divorce, plots to get people fired, all of this happening in a group of people that numbered 80 in it's prime. Direct report meetings generally started with one or two women crying. Even before the meetings started. Door slaming, chair kicking, and lots of screaming between the CEO wife and Chairman husband. I told myself when I walked into the madness that if it ever started to seem "normal," I needed to leave. It started to seem normal, and I didn't leave. THAT was a crucial mistake. In the end, the place nearly killed me--quite literally--and brought one 6' 2" 60-year-old man to his knees during one of the company's patented workshops.
This was my lesson that although corporations can't breathe, can't love, aren't human, they *can* be inherently evil**. The sum of their parts, working in tandem, can create enough velocity to spin into some mad force of destruction. I have seen it, felt it, and seen people destroyed by it. No one person, plot, scheme, or hateful idea on its own has the power of evil. But when two or more join, the result can be a horrifying synergy of mass proportions.
Clearly, I went on longer than I should have here. But, when you come back home again, you might as well bring a story with you.
**evil - an overused word these days, but I think it applies much more aptly to corporations than to countries and their people.
A Open letter to Jack Valenti and Michael Eisner
Jack, in your sneering washington Post piece about copy protection, you refer to professors for whom '"innovation" is legalizing the breaking of protection codes'. Michael, in your testimony to congress you badgered an Intel exec until he told you that files copying can't be prevented.
As you are evidently impervious to logical discussion, let me tell you a story.
This is the story of a rebel, a war hero, a persecuted homosexual, and a deep thinker. His life reads like the plot of a far-fetched movie, but if anyone fits your bogeyman image of professors who break code, it is Alan Turing.
In 1936 Turing published a paper on theoretical mathematics, in which he described the Universal Turing machine. It was a simple mechanism that could read symbols from a tape, and write back different symbols or change the tape's direction. He showed that with this general purpose machine, you could simulate any special purpose machine. He had invented the idea of the programmable computer.
Between 1938 and 1945, Turing worked in great secrecy on computing machines that broke codes. These were the first real computers ever made, and the codes they broke were those used by the German Wehrmacht. Without his work, it is very likely that Britain would have lost the War in Europe before Pearl Harbour.
After the war, in 1950 Turing published other famous papers that laid the foundation for computing, and hence all the digital gadgetry that you would like to outlaw for us (though presumably you'd keep the computers you use to edit and create effects for your movies). Turing died in 1954 by biting into an apple he had previously poisoned.
What does this story have to do with you?
Turings Universal Machine means that you cannot have a software or hardware protection scheme that is secure. Whatever scheme you come up with can be simulated by another computer. The computer industry are not opposing your bill because they want to encourage copying, or because they are bloody-minded, they are not opposing you because of your self serving rhetoric about rewarding artists (remember Peggy Lee, Michael?), they are opposing you because what you want is provably impossible. You can only succeed by making all Turing machines illegal.
If Alan Turing had made an animated film involving a poisoned apple in 1936, it would still have copyright protection. He chose a different path, and gave the world the idea of the digital computer. I know whom I repect more.
(Edits and improvements gratefully accepted).
As you are evidently impervious to logical discussion, let me tell you a story.
This is the story of a rebel, a war hero, a persecuted homosexual, and a deep thinker. His life reads like the plot of a far-fetched movie, but if anyone fits your bogeyman image of professors who break code, it is Alan Turing.
In 1936 Turing published a paper on theoretical mathematics, in which he described the Universal Turing machine. It was a simple mechanism that could read symbols from a tape, and write back different symbols or change the tape's direction. He showed that with this general purpose machine, you could simulate any special purpose machine. He had invented the idea of the programmable computer.
Between 1938 and 1945, Turing worked in great secrecy on computing machines that broke codes. These were the first real computers ever made, and the codes they broke were those used by the German Wehrmacht. Without his work, it is very likely that Britain would have lost the War in Europe before Pearl Harbour.
After the war, in 1950 Turing published other famous papers that laid the foundation for computing, and hence all the digital gadgetry that you would like to outlaw for us (though presumably you'd keep the computers you use to edit and create effects for your movies). Turing died in 1954 by biting into an apple he had previously poisoned.
What does this story have to do with you?
Turings Universal Machine means that you cannot have a software or hardware protection scheme that is secure. Whatever scheme you come up with can be simulated by another computer. The computer industry are not opposing your bill because they want to encourage copying, or because they are bloody-minded, they are not opposing you because of your self serving rhetoric about rewarding artists (remember Peggy Lee, Michael?), they are opposing you because what you want is provably impossible. You can only succeed by making all Turing machines illegal.
If Alan Turing had made an animated film involving a poisoned apple in 1936, it would still have copyright protection. He chose a different path, and gave the world the idea of the digital computer. I know whom I repect more.
(Edits and improvements gratefully accepted).
Sterling Words
Bruce Sterling (he who referred to me as part of the "two punk kids" who stayed in his guest room after his post-CFP party) on the state of things Internet:
Okay, so the Net has proved toxic to business and nobody's making any money there. That stopped the profiteering, except for the spammers of course ... hucksters who are methodically bringing net.commerce into such putrid disrepute that it may well never recover. Lack of money, though, is not stopping the innovation. It never did. The Internet now reaches half the population of the USA. It is starting big seismic rumblings in China, Iran, and India, societies that lack their own AOL Time Warner and therefore have some dead-serious uses for cheap global network communication. Worldwide, people use the Net for e-mail. E-mail never had a real business model, but it was one feature everybody always wanted. The Net is becoming the planet's water cooler. It's all about the schmoozing and the gossip.
Whee!
Okay, so the Net has proved toxic to business and nobody's making any money there. That stopped the profiteering, except for the spammers of course ... hucksters who are methodically bringing net.commerce into such putrid disrepute that it may well never recover. Lack of money, though, is not stopping the innovation. It never did. The Internet now reaches half the population of the USA. It is starting big seismic rumblings in China, Iran, and India, societies that lack their own AOL Time Warner and therefore have some dead-serious uses for cheap global network communication. Worldwide, people use the Net for e-mail. E-mail never had a real business model, but it was one feature everybody always wanted. The Net is becoming the planet's water cooler. It's all about the schmoozing and the gossip.
Whee!
Thursday, February 28, 2002
And I'm sorry the aforegoing link now points to some dadaist claptrap that Chris has discovered in his misspent efforts, it wasn't there when I first linked to his page. Just page down a little.
I'd only point out to Chris that if the meaning of the passage he quotes is to be evident, then the meaning it espouses cannot be.
IOW:
"da do do do, da da da da,
is all I want to say to you!"
- The Police.
I'd only point out to Chris that if the meaning of the passage he quotes is to be evident, then the meaning it espouses cannot be.
IOW:
"da do do do, da da da da,
is all I want to say to you!"
- The Police.
I dunno. I think maybe Chris (Locke) is a bit misguided in asking "What did Cluetrain actually say?"
Who cares?
Well, he does, of course, (and you or I might, too) but my point is really that Chris is confronting the outliers of imperial power, the half civilised tribes on the borders of the pax mercantila.
These are not the people who profit most from the mere existence of the imperium, but they are the people who desperately *want* to.
These are the believers in the American Dream, these are the quintessential Joneses, these are the people for whom it simply *must* be true that all glory, honour, and goodness resides in the god of constant consumption, for these are the people who have sold their entire lives to the service of this particular beast.
They have no choice but to believe, and in believing to take up arms against the occasional infidel who comes to threaten their long cherished dream of attaining citizenship in the earthly paradise.
But they are *not* the beast itself. At worst they are its whores, at best its half-willing victims.
If Cluetrain, Gonzo, and Rants and Screeds are assaults on the paradigmatic gates of Rome, then the ripostes of Messrs Dvorak et al are simply the flailing sympathetic galvanic responses of the vassal legions. Engaging with them is not engaging with the beast itself, slaying them does not weaken the beast, nor breach its walls, nor threaten its power.
They do not need to know what Cluetrain says to know that it threatens their comfortable illusions. It is arguable whether it is even desirable for them to actually know what Cluetrain says. As is typically the case with martial religions, the more ignorant they remain the more effective they are as the shock-troops of god. As vassals of the Divine Emperor they know that it is their sacred duty to execute anyone who points out that he has no clothes. (It helps that their sacred duty is in complete congruence with their perceived self interest, of course.) They are not restrained by due process of law, nor by any quaint notions of rules of engagement, for their visceral barbarian emotional response is itself their primary value. It is part and parcel of the terror that holds the world in continuing thrall. The fear of provoking them, even on slim and unwarranted hearsay, is a means to an end that is not theirs.
Don't waste your time or your efforts on them.
Don't waste your words on them.
Don't waste your fear on them.
Who cares?
Well, he does, of course, (and you or I might, too) but my point is really that Chris is confronting the outliers of imperial power, the half civilised tribes on the borders of the pax mercantila.
These are not the people who profit most from the mere existence of the imperium, but they are the people who desperately *want* to.
These are the believers in the American Dream, these are the quintessential Joneses, these are the people for whom it simply *must* be true that all glory, honour, and goodness resides in the god of constant consumption, for these are the people who have sold their entire lives to the service of this particular beast.
They have no choice but to believe, and in believing to take up arms against the occasional infidel who comes to threaten their long cherished dream of attaining citizenship in the earthly paradise.
But they are *not* the beast itself. At worst they are its whores, at best its half-willing victims.
If Cluetrain, Gonzo, and Rants and Screeds are assaults on the paradigmatic gates of Rome, then the ripostes of Messrs Dvorak et al are simply the flailing sympathetic galvanic responses of the vassal legions. Engaging with them is not engaging with the beast itself, slaying them does not weaken the beast, nor breach its walls, nor threaten its power.
They do not need to know what Cluetrain says to know that it threatens their comfortable illusions. It is arguable whether it is even desirable for them to actually know what Cluetrain says. As is typically the case with martial religions, the more ignorant they remain the more effective they are as the shock-troops of god. As vassals of the Divine Emperor they know that it is their sacred duty to execute anyone who points out that he has no clothes. (It helps that their sacred duty is in complete congruence with their perceived self interest, of course.) They are not restrained by due process of law, nor by any quaint notions of rules of engagement, for their visceral barbarian emotional response is itself their primary value. It is part and parcel of the terror that holds the world in continuing thrall. The fear of provoking them, even on slim and unwarranted hearsay, is a means to an end that is not theirs.
Don't waste your time or your efforts on them.
Don't waste your words on them.
Don't waste your fear on them.
Offline Gonzo
As I don't seem to be able to get you worked up about Valenti and Hollings' plan to outlaw any unsanctioned transfer of bits, let me instead point at a couple of articles from the British press that look like Gonzo marketing offline. Craig Brown explains the odd cult of the Aga:
To the question, "What do other people say about your Aga?", Ms Gowing replies: "Whenever I entertain, I have quite a job getting my friends out of the kitchen as the Aga is like a magnet and a real talking point." She reveals: "I have converted quite a few friends to the Aga way of life."
Roger Scruton, the Phliosopher and founder of the Jan Hus foundation, organised some seminars for a tobacco company, in what sounds like a robust Gonzo way, and has been attacked for it in postively Dvorakian terms. Love his business card:
Britain’s leading post-modern rural consultancy, specialists in landscape-maintenance, literary criticism, equitation, hedge-laying, musicology, typesetting, publishing, dry-stone walls, writing, journalism, countryside restoration, museums, composition, pond-management, public affairs, log-cutting, logic-chopping, rare breeds of chicken, sheep, dreams; also hay and straw.
Roger has been Gonzo for ages, and is an old friend of my father. How could he have done this better?
To the question, "What do other people say about your Aga?", Ms Gowing replies: "Whenever I entertain, I have quite a job getting my friends out of the kitchen as the Aga is like a magnet and a real talking point." She reveals: "I have converted quite a few friends to the Aga way of life."
Roger Scruton, the Phliosopher and founder of the Jan Hus foundation, organised some seminars for a tobacco company, in what sounds like a robust Gonzo way, and has been attacked for it in postively Dvorakian terms. Love his business card:
Britain’s leading post-modern rural consultancy, specialists in landscape-maintenance, literary criticism, equitation, hedge-laying, musicology, typesetting, publishing, dry-stone walls, writing, journalism, countryside restoration, museums, composition, pond-management, public affairs, log-cutting, logic-chopping, rare breeds of chicken, sheep, dreams; also hay and straw.
Roger has been Gonzo for ages, and is an old friend of my father. How could he have done this better?
RageBoy is in the motherfuckin' house
You must go read it now. He's b-a-c-k. And he's burnin. Kick it, RB!
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
a note to marek
we've been too long without you. If a group of a dozen or more fine ladies won't get you blogging again, what will?
Exactly
Kevin, this is just what I was talking about in my love of what Mahoney called "amateurish" writing on blogs. I can follow it. I don't need it to be more concise. I want to ride along on the frenzied journey that is this blogger's twisted life. Ya.
For more fun, women of the blog have an extra gathering spot as of today: Blog Sisters, where men can link, but they can't touch.
Come on ladies--let's talk.
For more fun, women of the blog have an extra gathering spot as of today: Blog Sisters, where men can link, but they can't touch.
Come on ladies--let's talk.
Blogjacking
I was zigzagging through blog links while waiting for a compile, and stumbled across this.
Voice in spades. Do you think she'll let him have it back?
It fits in really well with Jeneane's point about Pro's versus amateurs earlier...
Voice in spades. Do you think she'll let him have it back?
It fits in really well with Jeneane's point about Pro's versus amateurs earlier...
The Boob Sings
We interrupt this program for something scary.
You will believe that boobs can sing.
You'll believe it. But you won't want to.
You will believe that boobs can sing.
You'll believe it. But you won't want to.
Yes Jeneane, I'm sure they have. I'm sure that your politicians (like ours) know full well that their every minute of parasitic existence depends on the continued gullibility of a proportion of the general public.
So far, there's precious little evidence that Gary is any different. But I just couldn't bear to see what's on "Gary's page for Kids!" My mind was simply over-boggled by the very thought.
Has he taken "Winning Through Worst Practices" too far, do you think?
So far, there's precious little evidence that Gary is any different. But I just couldn't bear to see what's on "Gary's page for Kids!" My mind was simply over-boggled by the very thought.
Has he taken "Winning Through Worst Practices" too far, do you think?
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
"CM's edit: The link above loads a page with some profanity."
I love this.
I think we should invent some CM's edit: blogstickers.
Something along the lines of:
"CM's edit: The link above loads a page with some irrelevant self-indulgent bullshit by a cheap technocrat whore."
I love this.
I think we should invent some CM's edit: blogstickers.
Something along the lines of:
"CM's edit: The link above loads a page with some irrelevant self-indulgent bullshit by a cheap technocrat whore."
"Ignore this author."
Thanks, Jim Lynch (Community Manager) and Jeneane! Who knew it could be this simple? Having selected the surprisingly comprehensive "ignore" option, henceforth JCD my doorstep will darken no longer.
From: JOHNBEANS 6:32 pm
To: JOHNCDVORAK unread (59 of 60)
4681.59 in reply to 4681.57
Thanks, but I've always thought that writing a column would be like someone who loves to travel opening a tour-guide company -- that doing something for pleasure occasionally and doing it for a living would be radically different experiences. I would expect that most peoples' sense of humor couldn't survive either the deadline or the inevitable criticism. Agree?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it certainly seems so in this case.
To: JOHNCDVORAK unread (59 of 60)
4681.59 in reply to 4681.57
Thanks, but I've always thought that writing a column would be like someone who loves to travel opening a tour-guide company -- that doing something for pleasure occasionally and doing it for a living would be radically different experiences. I would expect that most peoples' sense of humor couldn't survive either the deadline or the inevitable criticism. Agree?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it certainly seems so in this case.
Per Denver, I went and checked out Prof./Doc. Lomborg's site. Lawsuits are less fun and more expensive than an abscessed molar, and the definition of fair use is as lucid as a Dvorak article. It looks like Lomborg copied and displayed the whole Scientific American piece, thus making a fair use argument much tougher. Here's a nifty reference to help illustrate: the "fair use checklist" that Indiana University provides its researchers.* It lists the factors a court is likely to consider in determining whether the copying is a fair use. Note that using a whole work and making it available on the web are big "cons." A case study from the same source also is informative, as it works through hypotheticals involving a professor's reproduction of a magazine article. Where the use is non-profit and the purpose is sufficiently worthy, even wholesale copying can be a fair use - you'd have a tougher time convincing a court, but it could be done. Even so, Being Wrong Loudly can be a remarkably effective legal tactic, especially before a court is involved. The Prof./Doc. probably decided this was not the place to plant his flag and squander his resources. He still gets his digs in without using the whole article.
(*Here are similar faculty guidelines from Bryn Mawr and Vassar.)
(*Here are similar faculty guidelines from Bryn Mawr and Vassar.)
now this is stupid.
since when is being "shrill" a reason to close a discussion thread? Eeeks, these guys really are nerdy whimps. John, Clokers, and Enorlin, ya better watch yourselves. The great and powerful CM is not pleased.
Blogging the Cat
This cat blogs his dog, a fabulous beast! He's also blogged his cat - dead at last. Mundane matters as commonplace and annoying as gum on the shoe in a hot parking lot seem to annoy the salaried critics. So let's look inward again and work on the voice thang. That's what many of us are surely about: finding and expressing and exposing and knowing and allowing ourselves to be known.
Oh! Hernani?
Dvorak is a nobody, a man who believes (as already alluded to below) that because he knows something about how computers work he must therefore know that they *mean*.
A hopeless nutter, in other words, since the conclusion simply cannot be drawn from the prior established facts.
Dvorak is a nobody, a man who believes (as already alluded to below) that because he knows something about how computers work he must therefore know that they *mean*.
A hopeless nutter, in other words, since the conclusion simply cannot be drawn from the prior established facts.
Be Suspicious.
For you cannot go about the public pursuit of passion without being seen as hopelessly romantic and naiively sentimental by those who want to affect a more sophisticated air of "professionalism."
And speaking of sophistication, see its roots in sophistry, for example, to understand that it doesn't mean what sophisticated people think it means. An unintentional and uncharacteristic honesty on their part?
As Jeneane says (sort of) Wear your pathetic romantic unsophisticated labels with pride.
As the Good Book says: you cannot serve God *and* Mammon.
You have both right and obligation to be suspicious of those who claim that you can.
For Denise and Kevin: Scientific American (I think) recently published an executionary diatribe against Bjorn Lomborg, the ex-GreenPeace turned skeptic environmental scientist.
Bjorn used the article to publish (on his own website) a rebuttal, for which SA threatened to sue him for copyright infringement, and he removed the offending piece simply because he can't afford the defense costs.*
Question: Would his use be acceptable under the terms you described, below?
Seems to me that it would, but . . . . .
* Several other publications have since made his response available on their own sites, affectively daring SA to sue them, and thus to confirm their deliberate abandonment of any search for truth, in favour of more mercenary ambition.
For you cannot go about the public pursuit of passion without being seen as hopelessly romantic and naiively sentimental by those who want to affect a more sophisticated air of "professionalism."
And speaking of sophistication, see its roots in sophistry, for example, to understand that it doesn't mean what sophisticated people think it means. An unintentional and uncharacteristic honesty on their part?
As Jeneane says (sort of) Wear your pathetic romantic unsophisticated labels with pride.
As the Good Book says: you cannot serve God *and* Mammon.
You have both right and obligation to be suspicious of those who claim that you can.
For Denise and Kevin: Scientific American (I think) recently published an executionary diatribe against Bjorn Lomborg, the ex-GreenPeace turned skeptic environmental scientist.
Bjorn used the article to publish (on his own website) a rebuttal, for which SA threatened to sue him for copyright infringement, and he removed the offending piece simply because he can't afford the defense costs.*
Question: Would his use be acceptable under the terms you described, below?
Seems to me that it would, but . . . . .
* Several other publications have since made his response available on their own sites, affectively daring SA to sue them, and thus to confirm their deliberate abandonment of any search for truth, in favour of more mercenary ambition.
The Axis of Manic Cussing
The battle between Rageboy and Dvorak continues, with RageBoy's most recent retort to John's name calling. John has labeled us "Very Creepy People," and I for one feel good about it.
Again it comes down to the fact that many blogs are conversations. The office where I work has around 20 people in it. Many of them check out my blog everyday and wonder down the hallway to finish the comments in real time (as they don't converse online). People confuse a blog with a online or offline magazine when they are two different things all together. We need divergence, not convergence with the MSNBC's of the world. Dvorak and other over-touted articles forget that. Canada's National Post waded into the blogging debate last week with this less than profound article. The article misses the point completely. I blogged it and tossed in my two cents here.
Where's the Real Threat?
While this idiot was busy garnering undeserved hits yesterday, a more omonous-to-blogging and over-touted article was busy climbing its way to number 2 on daypop (now at 7). What felt really wrong about this article was what I observed to be its aim: to deter "amateur" writers from blogging. Read my take on the article and my own advice over on allied (after the dorkvak post). Thanks to Mike Golby for being a sounding board and editor.
Propogate if you see it as I do.
Propogate if you see it as I do.
Jack Valenti needs a clue
While we're roasting old media types, have a look at what Jack V has to say. I waded in at some length on my blog, but I'd like to hear what the rest of you think.
And I haven't forgotten that blog archiving tool - I may have something tonight.
And I haven't forgotten that blog archiving tool - I may have something tonight.
John C. Dvorak: Cult of the Cluetrain Manifesto
When you go to a circus, does anyone really care what the clowns say? Dvorak confuses writing about computers to actually understanding how the network has changed the ways that a society interacts. That being said, it was a horribly written column. Someone is slacking this week.
No Piscean Plot
Sorry, Marek. While your Dvorak analysis is both amusing and mostly accurate, I need to set you straight on one point. Maybe you're under thirty-five and therefore don't remember, but there was a time when the Business-as-Usual crowd was swooning over the Erhard Vector, and Dvorak is old enough to have known it well. In fact, some high-tech circles of the day were particularly susceptible, believe it or not.
And the ad scene! My God, the guys in charge of the American Express account AND the US Army account, to name two examples I knew about, were spinning the shit out of said Vector. "Be all that you can be." had EST dripping all over it.
So John C.D. need not have been coerced by any sneaky Pisceans to have played the Werner card. He knew what he was up to. You are too kind to suggest otherwise.
And the ad scene! My God, the guys in charge of the American Express account AND the US Army account, to name two examples I knew about, were spinning the shit out of said Vector. "Be all that you can be." had EST dripping all over it.
So John C.D. need not have been coerced by any sneaky Pisceans to have played the Werner card. He knew what he was up to. You are too kind to suggest otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)