November 16, 2005

Taking off the Pajamas: now, what do you see?

Kevin Alwyrd is present at the revelation of Open Source Media, the erstwhile Pajamas Media, and he's a little distracted (by one of the speakers), but he "still [doesn't] completely get it." He links to Mike Krempasky ("It’s a pretty flashy event - but I don’t think they’ve done much to explain their business to the attendees") and Jeff Jarvis ("Now I’m even more confused").

Jeff Goldstein is live- fake-blogging the event beginning with a trip to the hotel bar:
I found Tim Blair, Roger Simon, and Ed Driscoll bunched around a small table near the restrooms. Ed and Roger were nursing Gibsons, while Tim (who at 5’1" is much shorter than I thought he’d be) was drinking what looked to be IPA out of a pilsner glass inscribed with the legend, "Bloggers Do It In Their Pajamas." "Heh, cool," I said, motioning to Tim’s glass. "You have those made up for the launch?" "What do you think, genius?" Blair asked, not looking up. "I maybe had it printed up special for myself?"
Would you drink a fluid out of something that said "Bloggers Do It In Their Pajamas"? I think of bodily fluids. But no matter, now the bloggers can do it in their Open Source Media. Or as somebody already quipped: Open Sores Media. Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise.

UPDATE: Did they notice the "Open Sores" pun? I see that back in June, Roger L. Simon raised the question of what to rename Pajamas, and "Open Source" came up in the second comment, got repeated a few times, and then drew this:
Open Sores News--
"Band Aiding the World"
So they had to know the joke was there.

But what do you think of the new Open Source site? Is it fun to use and workable? I notice a lot of flabbiness in the writing. The home page currently features this block of text to draw us into the blog opinion on a top news story:
The historic Gaza border deal reached yesterday between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor), brokered by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in marathon negotiations, has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned. Blogger Joshuapundit seems quite unhappy: he says that Israel was pressured by Rice, the Eurooean Union's Javier Solana and Middle East special envoy John Wolfensohn to accept the agreement with little, if any, safeguards. The deal, whose full text can be found at the State Department website, would allow Palestinian authorities to take control of the border between the Gaza strip and Israel, notably in Rafah, and would open links with the West Bank. Both Time and the Washington Post have all the behind the scenes details on how the agreement was reached. War to Mobilize Democracy is "nervous" about security, but notes that the deal will ease the international pressure on Israel; Heavy-Handed Politics write that history makes them simply skeptical. On the other side, Anything They Say not only cautiously welcomes the new situation, but is pleasantly surprised by Rice's deal making skills, at least compared with her "terrible performance as National Security Advisor."
"Has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned"? You'd think they'd write their very first sentence crisply!

And why should anyone care what these bloggers think? Who are they? Unless you're already sold on blogging, the teasers are laughable: "Blogger Joshuapundit seems quite unhappy," "War to Mobilize Democracy is 'nervous,'" Anything They Say "is pleasantly surprised."

There's nothing snappy or exciting in any of that, no sense that these bloggers are likely to come out with anything more interesting than whoever was sitting next to you in the living room where you watched the evening news.

"Eurooean," "Heavy-Handed Politics write" -- so much for professionalizing the image of blogging.

And this on the day when you are asking for attention, trying to hook new people.

ANOTHER UPDATE: If I were an insider to OSM, would I mock them like this? Isn't much of the value of bloggers that we are on the outside? Rolling up together in a group to make money -- is that worth the sacrifice of independence? Everyone who signed on is now stuck with the presentation on that website that we were not able to see when we were asked to sign on to 18-month commitments.

STILL MORE: I'm told Jeff Goldstein wasn't even at the OSM launch, which surprises me, because I began reading it on the OSM home page under their heading "live-blogging." That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service. Aren't ordinary people being asked to trust the OSM portal?

Also, Charles Johnson linked to this post to note my bad taste -- the "fluids" wisecrack -- and this set off his commenters who just started wildly insulting me -- hilariously assuming I'm a big lefty and using lots of bad taste insults against me. How does that make sense? If they are outraged at my bad taste, as Charles suggests they be, then why aren't the comments primly proper? They must be insulting me because they assume I'm a lefty. Ha, ha. Somebody tell Armando! Anyway, Charles's fans end up hurting him on the day when he is trying to make an impression as an elder statesman of blogging, by making his site look all trashy. And the irony is priceless: he is complaining about my bad taste. Yet "semen" and "pus" are both perfectly sound English words, not slang at all, and pointing out literary images is quite high tone.

AND NOW THIS: Wonkette links, and it's not to the semen-pus thing.

THURSDAY MORNING: One day after the launch, Jeff Goldstein's fake-live-blogging is still the only blog post quoted on the home page, under the heading "BEST OF THE BLOGS." In all this time, that's all they've found? The highlighted post ends with this line: "Or as my friend Bill Bixby once said to a French prostitute (god rest his soul), 'bonjour, you plump little tart!'" How they can think it's a good idea to open the site with such writing? Who does that appeal to? And if it didn't appeal to you yesterday morning, but you kept going back to give them another chance, what would you think? The site is stupefyingly inactive and as yet devoid of sharp commentary. There is only this obscure insider humor about the founders of the site getting drunk and talking about a prostitute.


Icepick said...

Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise.

Maybe they can put that in their banner ads!

Incidentally, is that the grossest thing Ann has written on this blog?

Ann Althouse said...

Icepick: I thought it was quite elegant!

Nick said...

Apparently I'm not the only one doubtful of how well OSM will do.

JSU said...

Uh, Ann, you realize that Goldstein's posts are jokes, right?

Icepick said...

It was very elegant, but also disgusting!

The best part of Jarvis's article was this bit, covering one of the OSM panel discussions:

And now they’re entering into a politics panel with the oh-so-fresh question: Who’s a blogger?

Perhaps they should have called it Brigadooon Media.


Icepick said...

Okay, I'm a little confused. Open Sores Media is someone else's crack. Was the line right after that yours, Ann, or someone else's?

Ann Althouse said...

JSU: Well, yeah. But he is actually there, I think.

Verification word: poopk. No kidding!

Icepick: Yes, the last line was mine. Somebody else said "Open Sores Media."

erp said...

Ann, put quotes around Jeff's "live" blogging the launch and If you haven't read his "live" blogging at the Republican presidential convention, you're in for a treat.

Icepick said...

After reading the posts about the festivities in NYC, it sounds like OSM is already just another ossified media institution. Or is that just me?

And looking at their current headline story ( on the new Gaza border deal doesn't help.

The historic Gaza border deal reached yesterday between Israel and the Palestinian Authority .... has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned.

Okay, so the Israeli government and the PA are up for the deal, but now that the blogs are against it, it's doomed to fail!

Right out of the gate, they're more arrogant than the New York Times! Can OSMSelect be far behind?

Anonymous said...

Where did you see the "Open Sores" mention? I've only seen it on a few left wing blogs myself.

Mark Daniels said...

Now, I don't feel as stupid as I did before. When I read the explanation of Open Source Media on their web site, I was completely confused. I listened to their proceedings on RealPlayer for a few moments (it's all I could spare while working on other things) and still didn't get it.

I'm happy to know that I'm not alone.

(Did you allow some fourteen year old access to your blog? That seems to be the likeliest explanation for the last several lines of this post.)

Anonymous said...

Careful Ann, I think you may be violating their copyright:

2. Our Site and all its contents, which includes, but is not limited to, text, graphics, photographs, logos, video and audio content, is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. All individual components of Our Site, including, without limitation, articles, content and other elements comprising Our Site are also copyrighted works. Additionally all of the weblogs linked to by us are likewise protected. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on this site and our linked weblogs.

3. You may not reproduce, distribute, copy, publish, enter into any database, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this site. The only exceptions to this are that you may download material from Our Site for your own personal use, provided such download is limited to making one machine readable copy and/or one print copy that limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. No other use of the content of Our Site is permitted.

Anonymous said...

And I do apologize, I may have just violated their copyright by posting that excerpt here. If the copyright police come by and tackle you, please let me know, I will pay to have your clothes dry cleaned.

Anonymous said...

verification word: fvtuckq.

To which I grumble, tuckq2.

Ann Althouse said...

Quxxo: Thanks. More evidence that they don't quite get blogging.

reader_iam said...

Speaking as a former editor in the "noospaper" biz and current assistant editor of a quarterly foreign-policy journal: If that excerpt cited by Icepick is supposed to be the "lede," I say, "Yuck!"

Even if it's not, what a clunker. It certainly doesn't make ME want to abandon traditional media, despite the flaws.

(And yeah--I know I make lots of typos in my comments for an editor. Somehow, my mindset is different, maybe because doing this strikes me as more like having a conversation, and I have OFTEN said to newbie writers, back in the day, "You don't want to write the way I talk!")

Peter Hoh said...

Just looked at the OSM website. That photo of Condi sure looks bad. Isn't this the crew that went nuts because a USA Today (?) online photo of Condi looked bad?

Ann Althouse said...

Allah: "Jeff isn't at the OSM launch." Well, then I think it's really weird that the OSM home page had a heading saying "live-blogging," under which the text of Jeff's blog post began. That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service, with a completely misleading heading. Does OSM mean to be the Onion or a real news service? I don't see how you can mix these things like that. Ordinary people who don't know these bloggers yet are supposed to start at the OSM portal, right? I had to assume Jeff was really there, much as I could see he was doing some humorous take. You know Tim and Roger and that other guy aren't exactly celebrities. It seems really unprofessional to send us to a post lampooning them, when we the readers don't know or even care who they are.

Icepick said...

GM, wrong thread. That would belong here:

Charlie Martin said...

I've got to say, Ann, that the notion that Charles Johnson and Glenn Reynolds "don't quite get blogging" is just a little jarring.

Unknown said...


I'm with Charlie (Colorado). I'm not sure just how much there is to "get" about blogging, but it's hard to see how Charles and Roger don't have a pretty fair understanding of this black art.

Sissy Willis said...

Hell hath no fury . . .

Ann Althouse said...

Charlie (Colorado) said: "I've got to say, Ann, that the notion that Charles Johnson and Glenn Reynolds "don't quite get blogging" is just a little jarring."

Well, so much of this has been sold on those names, but I don't really think they set up the web page or wrote that block paragraph, or the copyright warning, or put Jeff's fake live-blogging under the heading live-blogging, etc. etc.! I'm pointing to specific things and all you say is but Glenn and Charles are really good. Engage with the actual criticisms, why don't you?

Ann Althouse said...

playah grrl said. "i think OSM is just a way of organizing information..."

Which is why we ought to look at how they are organizing information and talk about whether it's good. As for making money, I make more without them, so I don't feel a sense of lose in that regard. I rejected their offer because I would have lost money on it.

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks, Jason. Well, I'm getting a lot of traffic from that link, so, what the hell? They seem to be slowly figuring out who I am. It's funny that my slightly gross joke upset them, but then the used all the words they could think of to call me names. It's funny that Charles is supposed to be lending gravitas to the OSM project when his site seems like such a cesspool, at least in the comments. And it's really dumb to think that anyone who criticizes OSM must be a lefty. I think there's an awful lot of desperation about the project.

Icepick said...

Comments on the LGF thread are actually more on the clueless side.

Sample: Its nice to know that our political/social opponants keep things on an up-and-up level, intellectually speaking.


Ann Outhouse is a bile stool of the left.

Yep, Ann's one of them crazy left-wingers, maaaan! That's why she voted for Bush and supports an aggresive foreign policy! Un, wait a minute. That's not right. Or, uh, it IS Right, but not, you not, right. Uh, where was that shark again?

And this from one Jammie WearingFool: Does this dumb slut realize the left is well represented at OSM?

I guess not. Typical ill-informed invective from a Berkeley house whore.

The fact that none of Ann's criticism had anything to do with the political slate of the enterprise escaped them. I guess it's pointless to mention that the last sentence managed to get, let me count 'em, SIX things wrong!

1 & 2 & 3: "Typically ill-informed invective..." Well, Ann isn't exactly typical, she isn't ill-informed (See her Alito postings, for example) and her post didn't contain anything worthy of the term invective.

4: Mis-identifies Ann as being from Berkeley.

5 & 6: Mis-identifies Ann's profession and work location.

Yikes, you'd better not tangle with these types again, Ann. The ability to pack that much negative information into that compact a statement is frightening!

Ann Althouse said...

I'm considering putting "Typical ill-informed invective from a Berkeley house whore" in the banner, what do you think?

Charlie Martin said...

I'm sorry, Ann, I guess I mistakenly thought saying they didn't quite get blogging was an actual criticism. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

XWL said...

I'm intrigued by the jobs that a 'Berkeley House' whore would be expected to do.

You'd have to be bisexual, and willing to be transgressed mightily, as well as transgress others aggressively.

You'd have to be comfortable with using, how shall I put this politely, wielding temporary appendages, with both men and women (and bois and grrrls, etc.)

You'd have to be politically aware and refuse to degrade any person of color (unless having you degrade them is some sort of drawn out bit of performance art, then you should allow the acts to be filmed in front of a live audience and broadcast over the school's closed-circuit TV network)

And you'd have to be unionized, cause non-union prostitutes are just plain immoral (whereas union prostitutes are performing a needed social function and should be viewed as the goddesses/gods they truly are)

(that about covers it, I think)

erp said...

Aaron, I just had a dark thought when you mentioned insurance for on-scene journalism -- the reality of life in the 21st century has reared its ugly head.

OSM is an msm wannabe which if it succeeds, will take the light heartedness and silliness out of blogging.

Charlie Martin said...


By the way for the commenters who say that Glenn Reynolds and Charles Johnson are somehow the model bloggers: I guess if calling anyone who disagrees with teh war in Iraq or who questions our leader's assertions in late 2002, early 2003, a traitor (i.e. Glenn) or someone who consistently libels an entire religion of one billion people are the model of good bloggers than I would not want to be a model blogger or want to read any model blogs.

Cincinnatus, I'd like to thank you for such a marvelous model of the straw man argument.

(Oh, and along the same lines, Ann, I'm not quite sure how you got from my finding it jarring to see the assertion that Glenn and Charles don't get blogging to the claim that I said that they're "really good." Could you possibly explain the argument there in a little greater detail?)

Meade said...

Right Wing Bob: Bravo!

Harkonnendog said...

Er, come on Ann- you know that was gross.

"Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise."

There is nothing elegant or pretty about that. I dig your site, and I DON'T agree that you jumped the shark... but you are on a surfboard and there IS a shark nearby...

Just admit you got pwn3d- it is bound to happen to every blogger- and move on. :)

Pete said...

Vying for obscure comment of the day:

Martha Stewart Apprentice begins soon. Can we expect more Apprentice blogging by morning? Please?

Ed said...

Precious... bodily... fluids...

sonicfrog said...

christheprofessor at lgf wrote:

"Well, if she wants to be childish:

Ann Outhouse is a bile bitch.

There, I said it. "

Man, do I feel sorry for any kids this guy is teaching IF he really is a professor. Oh well. One of the good / bad consequences of blogging / trolling is that you are free to express who you really are.

As for Open Source. I'm not sure if I like that term being used in this fashion. As a Linux user and advocate (using SUSE 10.0 even as we speak), open source tends to convey that any one can contribute, copy, and modify the thing as long as:

A) the original author gets credit for their work, and
B) the work in question is not restricted under a standard copyright.

Linux is distributed under the GPL liscence. Written works, such as songs, are published using the Creative Commons liscence. Both of these do not have the restrictions that QUXXO noted, and if you compare the two licenses above with the one that Open Source Media uses, well, it's hard not to conclude that they are not "Open Source" at all.

PS. You should check out the site "Groklaw", which has been documenting the lawsuit between SCO vs IBM... and Novell, and Chrysler, and Autozone, etc. etc. The site get very "lawey". You'll like it.

Meade said...

Hyphenating any word with "-wise" renders inelegant whatever is being written.

Otherwise, swapping semen for pus was damn good comic writing.

Simon Lazarus said...

Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise.

What class.

Must be one who Clinton came on. Yet this one still hasn't cleaned it off her lips.

sonicfrog said...

Damned. I got "Open Source" scooped by KOS.

Ann Althouse said...

Aaron: "There are a ton of legal issues if they ask folk to stay in dangerous locales to report for them but don't offer insurance etc. " Wow! Great fact pattern for a Civil Procedure exam!

Beth said...

Quxxo's quoting the copyright confirmed my initial skepticism -- what on earth is Open Source about this conglomerate? Open Source is just that, open. Anyone who uses products from or enjoys works from Creative Commons knows this. Is this some subtle parody of blogging? Or is this group truly that dense? If so, doesn't that problematize the whole conceit of blogging being more clued in than the MSM?

This may be a jumping the shark moment for blogging.

Thermblog said...

swapping semen for pus

I'm unable to get beyond this. I've tried but Ann said it was "elegant." I think someone swapped her lactic polymers with vinegar. (The cheap, white, generic kind.)

Yr. Fthfl. Svnt. said...

"Yet 'semen' and 'pus' are both perfectly sound English words, not slang at all, and pointing out literary images is quite high tone."

I have no idea what difference it's supposed to make that the two words are not slang, but your use of them is not "high tone" (sic)at all; rather, it's patently vulgar and rude, as any well-raised twelve-year-old would know. You can try to sell it as elegant, but that only speaks to your shallowness; besides, no-one referring to "semen" and "pus" in taking a swipe at another's style and presentation can possibly expect to be taken seriously.

Ann Althouse said...

Don't judge it on the first day? But they had a big launch ceremony, essentially saying: hey, wow, look, look, look. If they didn't want to be looked at, if they wanted to ease into it slowly and get their footing and work out the kinks, what they hell were they doing in the Rainbow Room today? And just think how those guys would have mocked anybody else showing off like that and screwing up!

Beth said...

I revise--a jumping the shark moment for rightwing blogs. It's a bit fun to see the spotlight turn to examining the warts on that side of the blogosphere for a change. I've seen so many claims of the high-minded and level-headed nature of the right, and just in time, here come the Little Green Footballers and Joobo and his ilk to remind us that kneejerk idiocy and thoughtless nastiness are unfortunate human traits, not content to devote themselves to one side of the political spectrum.

amba said...

Sonicfrog: Good point!

Given what "Open Source" really means, their use of it is downright Orwellian!

MisAnDrope said...

Uh, LGF has to impress someone?

And what was the point anyway?

Icepick said...

Strangely, I don't see the purported bitterness on Ann's part. She noticed that other people had been making a joke of the name, and in a fit of wicked inspiration followed through on the joke.

Ann has made some other criticisms. She's just commenting on an issue of the day. Hardly a surprise! But there hasn't been much evidence of rancorousness on her part. (For that go to Dennis the Peasant's site. Now there's a guys grinding an ax.) Now if you want to piss Ann off, tell her that Florida has better weather than Wisconsin: THEN you will see blood spilled!

And BoneUSA, the name thing looks like a disaster. They have completely screwed up by using someone else's copyrighted name. I thought right-wingers were supposed to be fans of property rights. Or is it that they didn't bother to see if someone else was using the name? That doesn't look real good either, given that $3.5M is being sunk into the operation.

So, it appears they're either incompetent, or don't give a damn about who they step on. Not a great list to choose from, is it?

vnjagvet said...

I admire the entrepreneurial spirit shown by the OSM venture.

Like many such enterprises, there are significant pitfalls in trying to be the first.

But you have to start somewhere and be willing to move quickly in order to correct mistakes and to capture a significant marketplace.

OSM should, therefore welcome constructive criticism.

One of the strengths of the Blogosphere is the ability of the audience to assemble a customized daily menu of news and commentary which meets its interest. For example, my daily menu changes with the type of issues in which I have a current interest.

It seems to me that an aggregation of good bloggers all in one place may or may not fit my needs on a daily basis. I will generally check out this site because of the unique Althouse personality and my affinity to the subject matters she chooses.

She is a lawyer as I am. She teaches, I practice. She appreciates the arts as a participant as I appreciate music. Her outlook on legal matters is remarkably similar to mine although she is considerably younger than I am and has a much different background.

I have similarly long admired Roger Simon's blog. He has over the years succeeded there in stimulating civilized comment about controversial issues on his Blog.

He was once a democrat. So was I. He was once a liberal, so was I. Since 9/11, he has reacted to issues of national security in much the same way as I did.

But I think I would be less inclined to visit an aggregation site like OSM to check out the views of Althouse and Simon than I am to visit their individual sites.

I think that is because OSM will not convey their insights in as complete a way as their individual blogs do. Moreover, because their comments attract interesting views, I have an opportunity to react actively to their views rather than merely reading them.

Somehow, that is a more satisfying way to absorb information and formulate my own opinions about things.

I understand why folks would choose to keep their own voices rather than homogenize them on a aggregator like OSM.

I am not sure what these observations mean for the future of OSM, but they do explain why I support the reactions of Althouse and den Beste in declining the opportunity to join this venture at this time, while I also support Roger and Charles in their ambitious endeavor.

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks, Icepick. I think people have latched onto the Ann-must-be-bitter theme because they can't engage on the merits.

Steven, thanks for coming by! Yes, the idea of people needing an organized portal for the internet -- isn't that what AOL was? I like the self-organizing mechanisms of the web. The freedom to link on the basis of what seems good today works well. Pre-linking and then boosting those you've committed to seems so deficient by comparison.

Jeff: About the "live-blogging" title. I read it as their title. I apologize for getting that wrong but have to criticize them for the web design that allowed me to misread it.

Generally, I can't believe I'm getting so much attention for this little post. It's because a lot is at stake, and the hope was that by collecting intimidating names, no one would make fun of them. How dreary!

Ben Regenspan said...

Ick, LGF commenters. You have my sympathies. It's actually pretty safe to say you are a total lefty from their perspective...

Dean said...

FYI - The first of the pun "Open Sores" was introduced by Vincent Flanders back in 1999 on his web site and later appeard in his sequel book, "Son of Web Pages That Suck."

Considering the whiney nature of the people Vincnet was poking fun at - I don't think he'd mind its use in this context (though I'll email him to double check).

Jim C. said...

As to the reasons you did not join OSM, they sound reasonable to me and I don't dispute them. And, of course, the success of OSM is not guaranteed.

"If they are outraged at my bad taste, as Charles suggests they be, then why aren't the comments primly proper?"

Why did you make those, um, biological comments in the first place? Think of the LGF commenters as responding in kind. They go further and are not as polished as you, but you opened the door and that's LGF.

"And the irony is priceless: he is complaining about my bad taste."

The pricelss irony here, as I see it, is your complaining about the response in kind.

LagunaDave said...

I'm only Primordial Ooze in the ecosystem (no blog...) but would it be out of line to suggest that this entire spat is self-defeating and does neither Althouse, LGF or OSM any credit?

Having read some of Ann's comments, both today and in the past, I detect a certain mean-spiritedness. It is certainly not out of bounds to criticize other media - that's what the blogosphere is all about, but it appears to this blog-reader that there is a certain element of mockery and impugning of motives going on which is more likely to generate heat than light. It may well be that Ann has legitimate complaints about her interactions with the proprietors of OSM too. And as others have noted, while LGF is an invaluable archive of information, the LGF commenters (of which I am occasionally one) and the way Charles incites them with his own well-intended, but still unsettling demagogy are often an embarrassment.

Anyway, I hope all concerned will bury the hatchet, agree to disagree (with civility), or do whatever else it takes to stop this from turning into the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. OSM is an interesting experiment, and I wish them well as someone who is tired of being force-fed the MSM's excretions. Constructive criticism from one blogger to others (which Ann did provide, but probably not in the best way) is a good thing.

Charlie Martin said...

Thanks, Icepick. I think people have latched onto the Ann-must-be-bitter theme because they can't engage on the merits.

Oh, Ann, come off it. What "merits" ? You think OSM's site is visually cluttered, you didn't get Jeff Goldstein's joke and you don't like their business model so you didn't sign up. You think a tiny startup ($3.5 million is a tiny startup) shouldn't have typos on the front page. And you think Roger, Glenn, and Charles don't get blogging.

The merits of those criticisms are that some of them aren't silly, but merely banal.

Ann Althouse said...

Oh, Charlie, it's an awful site, and you're admitting it! There is nothing positive to say. You're just proving it.

teh l4m3 said...

Ha. Open Source Media? Sadly, nyet!

Charlie Martin said...

Oh, Charlie, it's an awful site, and you're admitting it! There is nothing positive to say. You're just proving it.

No, Ann, my actual criticism is that you keep snarking about people not responding to your actual criticisms and then you have to resort to misstatement (no, I didn't say Glenn and Charles are "really good", I suggested they had some idea about this whole blogging thing) or silly straw men (no, I didn't "admit its an awful site," I said that your whinging about the site was silly, vapid, and boring) to try and defend your position. I don't actually have a lot to say about OSM, but then I have yet to address anything about OSM at all. I'm addressing your comments.

What is up with this that has you so disturbed?

Palladian said...

You're right, Mr Goldstein, it's shameful that a mere frivolous female dare inflict her criticism, serious or not, upon weighty intellectual men such as yourself and the august editorial board of OSM. This weird little episode just proves my worst suspicions of the danger of projects like OSM: it has, almost overnight, changed some of the bloggers involved into the same defensive, opaque entity as the mainstream media they once skewered so effectively.

Viva L'independence.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeff: It's not your fault that your post has been featured on the home page under "BEST OF THE BLOGS" all this time. And it's still there, like 30 hours nonstop with nothing to replace it. It's incredibly embarrassing, but you surrendered to them the permission to use you that way. Don't you regret it? Would you say so if you did? Hey, you got the money already. What do you care? Come on, why don't you slam them? Admit it, you're kind of pissed off at them by now, letting you twist in the wind, making your quirky, insider humor look weird and out-of-place.

Ann Althouse said...

MartiniPundit: Well put. It's really as simple as that. Those who are trying to make me seem to have some weird vendetta are stretching for their own reasons (kowtowing to powerful linkers you want to like you?). The fact is that it was a bad deal, and seeing how it looks now, I'm glad I'm not in on it. I think I analyzed it well at the time of offer, and, actually, it looks a lot worse than I pictured it. I'm not hot to slam it or I'd say a lot more than I have.

tim maguire said...

I hope it works because I like a lot of the people involved. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We'll see.

But Ann, it's hard for me to accept that you're not overly emotional about this since you didn't merely say you don't think it's a good idea and you're glad you stayed out; rather, you show a barely concealed glee at every mis-step (and of course there are mis-steps. You're not really daft enough to be surprised that a new venture would make some mistakes.) and you must have wasted quite a bit of time following these comments and posting responses.

So don't pretend it's not a big deal to you. If it weren't, you wouldn't be reading this.

That said, anyone who recognizes that the mild mannered, dignified Charles Jonhson smells a bit from the methane oozing out of the swamp pit he calls a comment section can't be all bad.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeff: I'm not referring to what you are doing and can do on your own site. I know they aren't interfering with that. I'm referring to the way they are making you look on their site. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed. I think they are hurting your reputation. And here you are, too flattered to notice.

Ann Althouse said...

Playah: You're just boring me. But, yeah, do go.

Palladian said...

Professor Chris,

Since you're pedantically correcting spelling and grammar, why don't you have a go at playagrrl?

I understand you might not have time for that, if you're the spelling/grammar editor over at the LGF comments section. That's a 40 hour work week, plus overtime.

And playagrrl, if you haven't left yet: You're a match to Den Beste? Grrlfriend, you ain't match enough to light his cigarette.

Norman said...

Just read the pdf letter. Boy, it sure looks like they're off to a poor start, to say the least. Dunno if this points the way to the future, but I don't think it's helping.

To me at least, this osm thing hurts bloggers' images. I now read Instapundit with a touch of cynicism that I didn't have before.

Or maybe just the baby-clean innocence is beginning to wear off the internet.

Mark said...

Ann, I appreciate that you are implacably opposed to OSM, and that's fine, but as one of the participating bloggers, I just want to make one point - I haven't sacrified any independence. I linked to your post and other naysayers, and I feel perfectly free to praise or pan the venture as I see fit. There are legitimate criticisms to make, and you bring up several of them, but lack of independence is not one...

Ann Althouse said...

I'm just big boned: "What is it about OSM that has you so emotional?"

I'm not emotional about it. It's just one of my current topics. If you want to know why I'm interested in it:

1. I've blogged about it before and keep getting linked, so I'm part of a conversation, and I feel I need to keep up my end.

2. It's a conspicuous event that is in one of the general areas that I follow: blogging. It's similar to the way I blogged about HuffPo when it launched.

3. I worry that it is destructive to the enterprise of blogging, which I care a lot about. The continual efforts to shush me or to say I'm crazy in these comments and elsewhere demonstrate the problem. Bloggers have developed a connected interest in each others and this is making them close ranks and lose the spirit of blogging, which is tremendously valuable. (That's the idea that made Roger L. Simon hang up the phone on me, btw.)

4. It's just such a spectacular screw-up. It's horrible, but I can't look away.

LaPrentiss Sampson said...

Lol i love the title and the article makes it worth it!

Herp le Derp said...

Funny to look back at this after all these years and see how silly - and very wrong - Althouse was about nearly everything.

Handcraft Leather said...

I find your article very cognitive and meaningful. Thanks for sharing this information
body slim herbal original
harga body slim herbal asli