>When you write about someone, you are validating what they do -- how you validate that depends on what position you take.
www.tinynibbles.com/blogarch...cord.html

well, that's true to an extent -- you're answering the hail. But, uhm, picking up the phone from the SS and saying "go f**k yourself" is not the same as saying "Jawohl, mein fuhrer!"

(d**n, this is a Godwin, isn't it. Well, don't quote f****g Heidegger if you don't want to deal with Heidegger.)


>You express your position on this validaiton by clearly stating your position. You had a choice: you could have said this is weird and fucked up and linked to Xeni, who is not weird and fucked up.

Uh, he DID say it was weird and f****d up. And he DID link to Xeni, several times, in the past. Just becuase I review a crappy movie today doesn't mean I have to bow down before the throne of Kurosawa every day (Laurie Anderson aside).


She goes on to essentially assert that mentioning/linking to somebody in/from the NYT means you like them.


Oh for f**k's sake, is she serious? Does she really want the NYT to turn into Pollyannaland? "All the News that's Fit FOR NICE PEOPLE" !??!??


And he did disparage the site. So to assert that mentioning somebody (bad publicity is still publicity) is tantamount to liking, WTF does that mean for VB's repetition ad naseum and Xeni initial post in the first place. I mean, BB is far more influential in the field of interest that the NYT. I mean, seriously. Who _doesn't_ roll their eyes at the NYT's attempts to be tech-savy, 6 months late -- he even admits he saw it on MeFi and Wikipedia (?!?) first.

sheesh.