I’ve criticized others but I don’t think I’ve “attacked” anybody.

while i’d still say i think you’re a little too quick to attack others and not tolerate similar critical commentary of yourself, i’ll agree i’m perhaps guilty of the same behavior pattern.

if you think i’m attacking as opposed to just criticizing in turn, then my apologies.

- dmc

Given that you have more experience than any of us do in attacking actual readers I think you’d be the most qualified.

re: your idea about posting on the topic of non-anonymity, that sounds like a good suggestion… i’ll work on that one.

peace out,

- dmc

Jay doesn’t get to benefit from this either at a ‘reputational’ or monetary level, nor deal with the detriment of espousing these opinions at a professional level.

Dave, you are so obviously (upfront) engaged in combining your social and business lives, it is crazy to believe you are approaching many of these companies and ideas objectively. You still have input that is relevant, but please realize and observe the fact that you are highly influenced by peers (biz and personal) and do not reflect the entire US or internet user base. As a reader/commenter, I am not part of some witch-hunt, just looking for reason, insight, and discussion.

P.S. “drugs” are not bad in moderation. Coffee and soda contain “drugs” (my degree is in chemistry and I studied under Tom Czech (Nobel ‘89) and an MD, PhD for 2.5 yrs).

i don’t claim to be a great writer (altho my spelling & form is intentional), nor a great designer (i know my use red & bold fonts could blind lab rats permanently). in short, i freely admit my blog sucks wind, except perhaps for the non-profit microfinance stuff i support.

i came across TD upon seeing links from MyBlogLog, and the first thing i noticed was that i was being called a sycophant & a tool… i can take a joke and/or criticism, but abject name-calling from anonymous bloggers doesn’t make for giving me the greatest bedside manner either. if you feel like i was flaming commenters indiscriminately, my apologies. some obviously were ripping on me as hard as the original author, perhaps others not.

while i don’t mind name-calling in fun or the occasional semi-serious joust, it’s pretty obvious that the primary point of this blog is simply to criticize for criticism’s sake. i don’t have a problem with that, and i enjoy reading Uncov & Valleywag thoroughly. i just disagree with combining the name-calling & the anonymity thing.

if you want to criticize anonymously without falling into the gutter on the name-calling, i get that. if you want to lambaste someone openly & sign the posts, i get that too. but forgive me if i feel like the commentary so far has been more unpleasant than logically reasoned.

as i said before, i think the logical part of the initial argument behind calling out my pro-Facebook stance is fair game — in fact, there were a few back-and-forth parts there that were actual reasoned debate. however, i don’t see how you expect anyone to engage in simple debate after LivingInFirstLife’s long list of names. flame inspires flame.

sorry for confusing any ‘innocent commenters’ with the blogger authors… but again, rather difficult to figure out who i’m arguing with when most folks aren’t labeling themselves clearly. and in fact, except for a few folks like aaron who link to real websites with real names, there’s no guarantee the commenters here aren’t simply one or two folks masquerading behind multiple IPs.

again, another good reason for personal disclosure is so people can be counted as real human beings, rather than simply initialed commentary.

@LivingInFirstLife: you’re a reasonably intelligent guy, if perhaps tortured & bitter. perhaps you just need to get laid more often. as to ‘factually backing up your name-calling’, i don’t think you’ve proven anything other than that i have the design sense of your average MySpace teeny-bopper (admitted). on the rest of the points, your circular logic of using your own labels as justification for further labels is pretty juvenile & about as factual as cheney’s tax returns.

if you stay on point, so will i. but if you resort to name-calling, i’ll be right there with ya… bad writing / bad fonts and all.

your turn,

- dmc

Here are the names I called Dave on my original blog post:
- Success (doesn’t sound too awful)
- Sycophant (it’s true, look at his posts on Facebook)
- Shill (also true, see “sycophant”)
- A poor writer (also factually true, see Dave’s lack of control over the English language)
- Idiot (also true, see “sycophant / a poor writer”)
- Sycophantic fool (not provable at this point, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt)
- Lack of design sense (also true, see your blog / color scheme)

I’m not sure what “name calling” hasn’t been factually backed up Dave. Again, drugs are bad for you.

First let me start by saying that I have never heard of you, read any of your blogs, or have any beef with you. If you’re a “big deal” then good for you I guess.

Regardless my point was that bickering over the comfortable vastness of the Internet using or real name or a pen name is no more or less cowardly than the other. And to be honest, if you’re such a “big deal,” what does getting in the face of TechDumpster and its readers accomplish for you? It gives TechDumpster plenty of free publicity, gives their point about you being a tool some credibility (talking trash to READERS of a blog is a pretty toolish thing to do), and gives me something good to read.

You’d be better off cooling your jets and not saying anything at all.