I don't really want to add noise to the signal and would really rather just see some work get done, but I'm still disgusted by what Dave is writing:
...One of UserLand's competitors Kevin Hemenway, the author of AmphetadeskCompetitor? He was originally a customer of yours. Then, just for the fun of it, he made his own implementation of the news aggregation features of your software, and even acknowledged his source of inspiration when he released AmphetaDesk, calling Radio "a wonderful piece of work". AmphetaDesk isn't for sale - it's free and open source. If that makes him a competitor to your selling product, I think you need to work harder or smarter.
...explains on his weblog how he intends to kill me. Even he says it's too harsh; and it may be a joke, if so, it's not funny. I don't see the humor in my own death, esp at the hands of a person like Hemenway. (He also coined the term Jewgregator,Morbus is over the top on a frequent basis, and sometimes too far over the top. This is a known fact - his sense of humor is obviously dark and a bit off kilter. He also produces good working software, and writes useful articles. But three obvious things: 1) He didn't state any intention to kill you - it's just that it seems his mere presence would be enough to set you a-boil. 2) He referred to Kevin Burton's account of meeting you, which depicts you as someone very easily set a-boil. 3) You're providing an example in support of the account.
and calls RSS 2.0 "Hitler" for some reason.)The "some reason" to which you alude is this bit Morbus said in IRC: "I say 'proposed' rather innocently - its more 'shoved down everyone's throat by nazi dictator'... we should code name rss 2.0 'hitler'". There's frustration in there, and his wasn't the only head nodding in the room. Morbus is over the top and says charged things I'd choose not to, but the frustration is real and genuine, and shared by more than one member of the community out here. Yet, you always seem to "take the high road" by focusing on the over-the-top aspect, no matter the degree, ignoring the genuine gripe.
...Bill Kearney has sent me private email about my deathbed, and what he hopes to teach me there, so I've chosen to filter his mail to a place where I never see it.Referring to private email is cheap - it's your word and his.
I tried to come up with a word to describe how I feel about these people, this is what I came up with: monster.What a nasty thing to call potential collaborators and customers. And what a viral, contagious thing, as you later demonstrate with Ben. This doesn't seem very cluetrain-ish.
...Hemenway has crossed that line. What happens next is stuff that will involve the police. I won't stand for these kinds of threats.What threat was made, and when will you be calling the police? And how seriously will they take you? You said yourself that you knew he wasn't seriously threatening you. What stuff "happens next"?
None of this means that RSS 2.0 will be delayed by even one moment.Thus, you avoid having to address the concerns all the "monsters" raise.
I thought competition in the software business in the 80s was rough, but this is so much worse. Competition used to require a certain collegiality and professionalism. It's not true today. Anyone who works with Hemenway or Kearney should be aware that these people are nothing less than monsters, who will stoop to any level to get their way. Their perversion may even be the reason they're involved.But the funny thing about all of this is that most of this isn't business - it's hobby. You've got a business, he's got a hobby, yet somehow he's competing with you. I'm not a businessman by any stretch, but this comparison seems very odd. (Hint: Morbus is not acting as a professional in this context. He can correct me if I've mistakenly assumed this.)
These are people screwing around, trying things, playing with code. And in order for these people to "get their way", they have to be nice to people and convince them to help out. Otherwise, the cats wander off in search of fatter mice. It becomes apparent rather quickly what sort of people they are from just a short bit of interaction with them. And I've seen them "triangulated" as very nice people.
Mr. Hemenway goes by the name Morbus Iff on his weblog, and writes for O'Reilly Associates, and for Ben Hammersley's syndication weblog. Mr. Hammersley is a reporter for the UK Guardian newspaper.
Postscript: Ben Hammersley threatened to sue me if I don't remove the previous paragraph. But every statement is true...Specious reasoning, at best. Yes, Mr. Hammersley invited Morbus to write with him. So, you feel free to splash him with the monster paint by association?
The Guardian requests an apology. For what? They ran a tainted review.Oh, now we see the reason: He didn't plug your product in his review. Though, he did say in the article, "Did you notice how all those programs are free to use?" Perhaps he should have made that more a focus of the article, but he was writing about free programs. I'm neither in his head, nor in the head of any Guardian editor, but maybe they didn't want the article to become free advertising for a commercial product? Who knows. He didn't mention you. So that makes him a monster?
Hammersley is a participant in the debate over the future of syndication technology, yet he wrote a review for the Guardian where that was not disclosed.This is obvious: Many people who write about technology are involved with technology, even helping shape its direction. It's what makes them most qualified to write about it. This argument is starting to sound like politics - from whom did he get his funding? I don't see you complaining when a "participant in the debate" does mention your product in an article.
Now, either Hammersley didn't tell them, or they don't care, or British newspapers run ads without saying they're ads.Or maybe they didn't want to run unpaid ads?
Okay. I'm done. This has distracted me from work for long enough today.shortname=ooobgh