that could almost be cool. twitter stuff in, have people vote on it, and then distribute via text to speech over skype. i could see TC covering that. especially if you added a google map component to indicate where the messages are coming from.

I agree that cool things are happening but what too much hype around stupid things serves to do is create noise so we can’t realize and promote the honest-to-goodness great things going on.

I hope to someday outsource the writing of this blog to Calcutta. Michael Arrington might want to insource a brain from Calcutta too. Truce on.

My issues were my point. Thanks for addressing it. I’m sorry for the personal attacks. They were unwarranted, and I definately don’t have anything against gay people. You get pretty slimy with Duncan and the whole TC crew. I don’t know Duncan, and I agree that he has often grammatical errors in his writing, but who cares?

It’s about the content. I think you’d get a lot more respect if you weren’t so focused on minute details of the English language.

I agree that people drink a lot of Web 2.0 kool-aid. But there’s still a lot of cool stuff going on. And it’s not cool to just just spew shit at all Web 2.0 business just because they’re ad supported.

I propose a truce (a truce between me and you, not you and the blogging world - that’s your own problem).

Like I said, I believe far more people would take you seriously if you toned down the ridiculous attacks on English language usage. All this shit is being powered by stuff from India and China anyway!

2. You are just using the same weak argument that others do. I use logic to deconstruct other businesses. My background does not impact my use of logic. If I said “I think this site is going to be a success” and was giving opinions, then my background would matter.

This begs the question why you can’t debate any of the actual points I or the other writers post on the site? You think that by attacking me personally that helps prove your point? It doesn’t. Many people you and all the other fanboys as worthless. Your inability to argue just reinforces that view.

3. How am I ruining the reading experience? You earlier stated “nobody forces you to read techcrunch. why do you? just stop reading it.” Why do you then hypocritically criticize my comments? By your own argument, you should just stop reading my comments?

I make valid points and use logic which is why people come to TechDumpster and give feedback. I am wrong at times. I admit it, but at least I use logic and data.

4. You do have a choice not to read my comment Piss. I don’t use multiple names - I am always TechDumpster (living in First Life) so just ignore what’s below that if you don’t want to read my comment.

5. No, you totally missed the point regarding non-standard usage. If “irregardless” is an invented term that is non-standard, so is “douchebag”. Do a search on Google for “douchebag” and “douche bag” - there are almost 3x as many results for the former. Heck, it’s even listed in Wikipedia as slang usage.

I addressed all your issues and now the onus is on you to prove that you have a point at all.

*********

nobody forces you to read techcrunch. why do you? just stop reading it.

what exactly have you accomplished in your life besides being a duchebag (at which, admittedly, you are fantastically good)? you seem to take a lot of pride in telling others how wrong they are.

it’s easy to criticize. many of the greatest accomplishments in history were done in the face of ridicule. what have you accomplished and why are you hiding behind a wall?

wanna talk shit? prove that you’re worthy. what gives you the credibility to tell others how much their writing or work sucks?

*********

That is the point you never addressed. What are your qualifications to spew shit on every blog you read. Why do it? What gives you the right to ruin the reading experience for so many other people with your comment spam?

See, you have the option to not visit and read those blogs that you criticize. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work the other way around. If I’m interested in a post and I want to read the comment thread, I have no choice but to encounter your comment spam.

And what are you talking about in terms of non-standard usages? Both of your usages were non-standard. I simply corrected you. These weren’t conflicting corrections on my part. The first was a comment on the archaic usage of a word that arguably may not even exist. The second was a comment on the fact that you wrongly corrected how to spell the term douche bag. Mind you, you corrected me - you should have double checked your correction. And the third, which you didn’t mention, was your lack of proper punctuation.

Now, are you going to address my point, or continue to side step the issue with arbitrary diversions?

Stick to simple words like “regardless.”

Oh, and the quotation marks around “douchebag?” They should be around the period directly adjacent to the word as well. It’s just proper grammar. And while we’re being anal, it’s also two words, “douche bag.”

And as is classic for someone who’s got nothing intelligent to say, you didn’t actually address my point. You just focus on grammar and some peripheral point about your homo sexuality.

Get a life man. Even a first one.

Douche bag.

Arrington, like others of his ilk, believe they have credentials to back them up, which they do. But, logical arguments cannot be denied by intelligent people.

Do these people really need to know what you do or have done inorder to be able to determine what logically constructed arguments look like? I don’t think so, and it is a lesson in obfuscation, “demean the messesnger, demean the message”.

You do tend to go on in a rant-style in the heart of your posts, though logic is at least near by. For some reason that lends you less credibility (”no accounting for taste”).

I think you are exploring an interesting space within blogging: a factually concerned vallleywag. It could be quite compelling.

Sorry for the long comment and the fact that Arrington is now an insider that is as threatened by you as the traditional journalists are/were of him.