<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rise of the Amatuer, The Debate Continues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues</link>
	<description>Journalism is a Process, Not a Product</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:45:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bachir</title>
		<link>http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues/comment-page-1#comment-609</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bachir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues.html#comment-609</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;there is no way for us to ignore it either&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Oh but there IS. Think of all the time that people have spent talking and writing about this idiot. We could spend that time building tools and having conversations instead.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If we &quot;defend&quot; ourselves we implicitly give him power, because it demonstrates that his argument is valid or relevant.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I know that there are those who would argue that if we say nothing, his voice will be the only one that is heard. I feel that those people are projecting one-to-many rules onto the many-to-many space.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>there is no way for us to ignore it either</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh but there IS. Think of all the time that people have spent talking and writing about this idiot. We could spend that time building tools and having conversations instead.</p>
<p>If we &#8220;defend&#8221; ourselves we implicitly give him power, because it demonstrates that his argument is valid or relevant.</p>
<p>I know that there are those who would argue that if we say nothing, his voice will be the only one that is heard. I feel that those people are projecting one-to-many rules onto the many-to-many space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digidave</title>
		<link>http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues/comment-page-1#comment-608</link>
		<dc:creator>Digidave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues.html#comment-608</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;John&lt;br /&gt;
I totally agree -- he is using and abusing the echo chamber of the blogosphere -- and there is no way for us to ignore it either. Silence feels like giving in, but the more we blog about how much we disagree -- the more books he sells.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John<br />
I totally agree &#8212; he is using and abusing the echo chamber of the blogosphere &#8212; and there is no way for us to ignore it either. Silence feels like giving in, but the more we blog about how much we disagree &#8212; the more books he sells.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bachir</title>
		<link>http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues/comment-page-1#comment-607</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bachir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues.html#comment-607</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Dave.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Keen&#039;s business model  is to synthetically polarize an issue and then ride the unpopular end of it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And by mentioning him in any way shape or form, you (and Dan Gilmor and all the other distributed journalism bloggers and that stupid panel at PDF where Keen pretended to agree with me because he knew arguing a real point would dilute/expose the childish character he is playing) are perpetuating this business model.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;(as is, arguably, this comment I am making right now).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sigh.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;-John&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Dave.</p>
<p>Keen&#8217;s business model  is to synthetically polarize an issue and then ride the unpopular end of it.</p>
<p>And by mentioning him in any way shape or form, you (and Dan Gilmor and all the other distributed journalism bloggers and that stupid panel at PDF where Keen pretended to agree with me because he knew arguing a real point would dilute/expose the childish character he is playing) are perpetuating this business model.</p>
<p>(as is, arguably, this comment I am making right now).</p>
<p>Sigh.</p>
<p>-John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digidave</title>
		<link>http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues/comment-page-1#comment-606</link>
		<dc:creator>Digidave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues.html#comment-606</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;WOW!&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;First of all. You are Craig Newmark! Thank&#039;s for leaving a comment. Now I can say that Craig Newmark has read my blog. That alone is cool.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Second: I do remember that moment. In fact, Lessig did a really good job just doing some fact checking on the parts of Keen&#039;s book that focused on him. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;My friend who is trying to organize a wiki-response to Keen&#039;s book is aware of this and is definitly going to dedicate one wave of response only to fact-checking. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Also. ummmm... Thanks for that list you made. I use it all the time.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WOW!</p>
<p>First of all. You are Craig Newmark! Thank&#8217;s for leaving a comment. Now I can say that Craig Newmark has read my blog. That alone is cool.</p>
<p>Second: I do remember that moment. In fact, Lessig did a really good job just doing some fact checking on the parts of Keen&#8217;s book that focused on him. </p>
<p>My friend who is trying to organize a wiki-response to Keen&#8217;s book is aware of this and is definitly going to dedicate one wave of response only to fact-checking. </p>
<p>Also. ummmm&#8230; Thanks for that list you made. I use it all the time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Newmark</title>
		<link>http://blog.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues/comment-page-1#comment-605</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Newmark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digidave.org/2007/06/rise-of-the-amatuer-the-debate-continues.html#comment-605</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Dave, do you remember the moment, on the panel, that I pointed out that it didn&#039;t look like Keen did any fact checking... and he admitted that was the case?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Craig&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, do you remember the moment, on the panel, that I pointed out that it didn&#8217;t look like Keen did any fact checking&#8230; and he admitted that was the case?</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

