It always amazes me how many people like to dismiss TechDumpster and Living in First Life’s comments and arguments simply because we refuse to disclose who we are. Our anonymity is in fact the primary reason we write what we believe to be one of the most honest blogs in the Web 2.0 world. Here is why:
1. Anonymous bloggers have to use logic and can’t just ride on “I’m XYZ so trust me.” When TechDumpster writes a comment, we have to back it up with logic, data, and thought. When people like Michael Arrington and Paul Graham spew their arguments, they usually fail to use any logic. They manage to run on credibility which is shocking given that people like them are shills and snake oil salesmen. TechDumpster has already put both of them to shame.
2. Non-anonymous bloggers lean towards being overly positive for fear of burning bridges. A great example of this is the pussy fight between Kevin Rose and Jason Calcanis. What a joke! These are competitors yet they sit there and openly jerk each other off. For Christ’s sake, does anyone in the Valley have balls anymore? ValleyWag itself serves a role, but it’s more for comedy than any sort of logic. Everyone else is a joke. Om Malik is a good guy but he’s got no teeth and has to keep good relations to keep his show going. Michael Arrington and Duncan Riley are a bunch of babies who can’t stand criticism or anyone who shows how they write crappy articles and accept payments for articles.
Dave McClure is simply a giant tool who can’t even spell properly. Robert Scoble is a pathetic Apple and Facebook fanboy. Many of the VC bloggers have no teeth either for fear of offending any potential deals.
Simply put, anonymous bloggers have no incentive to suck up.
3. We’re not looking for invitations to stupid Valley circle jerk parties or free invites to the next worthless Web 2.0 startup with a name created by a dumb mommy blogger’s 9-month old shill/son. We don’t care. We don’t attend stupid events to tell each other how great we are. We don’t need love from all the sycophants. We tell the truth and we’re here to stay.
4. No payola or conflict of interest for anonymous bloggers. This is a follow-on from item 2. We don’t accept payments for positive OR negative articles. We don’t use PayPerPost and never will. We are not trying to shill our own start-up. Besides that, we have a B2B start-up so shilling it wouldn’t do anything because we already know there are about 200 people in the US who are going to make a buying decision on our product and they sure don’t care about the next social network for the dogs of mommy bloggers who sleep with Michael Arrington.
Summary:
Most Web 2.0 Bloggers = Dishonest sycophantic suckups with lots of conflicts of interest (a.k.a. crooks - see “Richard Nixon“)
TechDumpster & Intelligent Anonymous Bloggers = The voice of truth.
Anonymity rules!
dude: biggest fucking bit of name-dropping linkbait evar there, dontcha think? why don’t you name-drop some more D-listers like me to see if we’ll drop by and check in… ahem.
- dave ‘last week’s sycophant is this week’s giant tool’ mcclure
ps - smells like nick douglas. or teen spirit, not shur.
@dave, this is nick douglas my ass, but i hope he does start to contribute. he writes quite well.
Besides, you dont address any argument that is made, you just deny it has merit with senseless drivel about link bait. You are loosing crediibility by the second. Do not post stupid ranty replies here that do. not use logic
The point of this blog is not to blow smoke up peoples’ asses, if i understand correctly. You will be held to account for such stupid commentary. It becomes more and more obvious that you just jumped on the paypal bandwagon without any market understanding
oh, j, nixon was a genius, just got out of hand
@ Dave
Wow. It looks like our own readers are showing what a worthless blogger you are. I’m glad you’re D-list rear end checked in though. We look forward to your continuing to prove our point.
dude seriously: fuck off if you can’t take a joke. when you call me a giant tool, expect me to drop by and rip you appropriately.
you are obviously link-baiting / name-dropping, and only because i’m not a real blogebrity do i even bother to notice your pathetic attempts at being relevant. i like the traffic, so i’m happy to waste the bits & brain cells on your pissant blog.
address your argument? what argument? you couldn’t rationalize your way out of a goddamn paper bag, tard, much less posit a well-reasoned hypothesis on blogger anonymity.
…and for someone who was giving me shit about my grammar:
>>loosing crediibility by the second.
my mistake; nick douglas can at least fucking spell.
- DM-to-the-C, rappin’ on your skinny white ass
And you continue to take the bait, Dave.
Jay knows he’s not relevant…yet.
“address your argument? what argument?”
There are four reasons stated above. Pick one and argue against it, or shut up. It is called debate, look it up if need clarification.
Ad hominem attacks are a sign of mental weakness.
Spelling and grammar are not good arguments against a blogger unless they have distribution to merit editors.
Oops, my bad, you think *I* have some affiliation with this site? Wrong. Just a reader and commenter.
@bdb: sorry for mistaking you for someone who actually can spell, has a brain, or the editor of this blog. it seems you are none of the above, and a lower-class entity than this blog owner, hard as that is to believe.
as to debate — i don’t really have a strong opinion on why the puss who writes this blog wants to remain anonymous, except perhaps s/he entertains delusions of FSJ grandeur. fine with me if they want to hide behind some domain proxy’s knees while they bark like a chihuahua. personally, i think when you call someone a dick you should stand behind the words, but that’s just my opinion… dick.
as to debating the points above:
1) sounds good to me. except this blog resorts to equal parts logic & name-calling. their logic isn’t terrible when they use it.
2) criticize a few random bloggers, yawn. call me a tool, double yawn. again, name-calling. what’s to debate? they say i’m a tool; i say i’m not. wow, that was really deep. reminds me of a lame MPFC sketch. i’m sorry, you guys are right. you’re full of logic. or something.
3) i seriously doubt any journalist worth their salt skips valley soirees because they’ve got some high & mighty editorial standards, dumbass — more likely they simply weren’t invited (ah yes, again the benefit of being anonymous… no one gives a flying f*ck about not inviting you), or because they probably can’t afford to pay their own way with the $.57/week they make on AdWords for this craptard excuse for a blog. real journalists GET party invites and they GO so they can pickup the scoop on the A-listers who attend & get a little loose lips as the evening wears on (note: the same rules apply in LA, NY, & DC).
4) no payola, wow. real high standards there. that’s like saying because you don’t get paid to do blowjobs you’re Mother Theresa? spare me the halo made of bullshit & feathers. not getting paid for writing doesn’t mean squat, except that you probably have to bus tables to pay the rent you owe your mom.
good enough for debate for ya?
make a real argument worth pissing about that doesn’t include elementary-school name calling, and perhaps you’ll engage someone in reasoned discourse.
on the other hand, call someone a tool, and i’m happy to drop by and fling monkey turds right back atcha.
- dmc
I actually ignore most of Jay’s ad hominem attacks, kind of funny in a “jerk” kind of way (a guy I knew in high school was the best I’ve seen: even if you were at the butt-end, you had to laugh).
So, I didn’t think you were a tool…..until now.
That may be the worst rebuttal I have ever come across.
-Adsense? Where? Really stupid comment.
-You really think you are cool hanging with “A-list bloggers”? ROFL, what a joke. It is so difficult for you to understand that there are folks that do not care about “valley soirées”, you are blinded. I think it is hilarious that you take pride in being invited to such events like the recent FB frat party.
-Do you really think this blog is an attempt at some journalism? You are missing the point.
-Some of us work for small companies that aren’t consumer focused in any way (eg. B2B), and revealing true identities would jeopardize are positions and/or companies. The truth hurts, and one must minimize the chance of payback. As long as there is logic in the argument, that is all that should concern you; not if you know them, or about something they have done. You aren’t entering into any kind of trust relationship.
-”2. Non-anonymous bloggers lean towards being overly positive for fear of burning bridges.” Please try to address the actual argument being made. Here is the first part of your response, “criticize a few random bloggers, yawn. call me a tool, double yawn. again, name-calling. what’s to debate? they say i’m a tool; i say i’m not. wow, that was really deep.” WTF? You have to be kidding me, right?
-You got payola, but you missed CONFLICT OF INTEREST, how convenient.
Well, at least I now know the truth about you “hat-guy”. All I can say is that you are correct on the “name calling”, it doesn’t add to an argument and gives folks like you a way to easily dismiss the debate. I still think it is funny. TOOL!
@bdb: you & the author started the name-calling, not me. deal with what you dish out, or STFU.
sure anonymity has its purpose; if the author — and also you, who provides a link to a website with no info about any company founders/team on your about us page — if you were just using anonymity as a shield for earnest criticism, perhaps against some fear of industry retribution, that would be supportable. and i get that the author feels that anonymity + no payola gives him/her an unfettered soapbox. but it’s nothing special either; lots of folks in the open don’t accept money either.
however, hiding behind anonymity when you call people names isn’t supportable. that’s just pussy.
if the author wants to have a real debate about specific issues & decides to use anonymity that’s fine.
but as soon as you start name-calling without standing behind your words — as you’re doing in the comments as well — that’s just cowardly & stupid.
- dave mcclure
And I guess name calling people over the Internet is pretty brave and courageous, isn’t it Dave?
dave- Just show me the names I earnestly called you.
@Dave,
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.
This is great stuff. “DMC” getting reasoned down by the readers of TechDumpster.
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.
@aaron / ajax: i don’t claim to be a big deal, nor do i aspire to 2nd-banana to the Arringtons, GigaOms, Scobles, or other Big Deals out there. i write a blog, i have a few readers (that’s me & my mom, maybe a few cats) and occasionally i write something that gets noticed… but not usually. everyone gets their 15 seconds.
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
@dmc, I appreciate your fortitude and my original “take” on you was as you come across in your latest comment. You are hardly alone, in this myspace-world, in taking issue with anonymous web entities. Perhaps you could write a real post with the exact opposite opinion? I would like to see Jay try and write a post that counters this one; I can see some of the arguments.
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).
@bdb: thanks for the thoughtful commentary & feedback
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
[…] fans or readers, as I have criticized Dave McClure for on both TechCrunch and TechDumpster, is not acceptable behavior from a blogger, ever. I didn’t learn that lesson until after I […]
While you’re at it Dave, why don’t you make a post on how unprofessional it is to attack readers, given that you’ve done that on TechCrunch, here, and most recently you’ve attacked me on VentureBeat when I provided constructive criticism
Given that you have more experience than any of us do in attacking actual readers I think you’d be the most qualified.
@aaron: see my comments on your blog.
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
Thank you for the nice comments on my blog.
I’ve criticized others but I don’t think I’ve “attacked” anybody.