I did read the fucking article, you stupid bitch.
Note: I could explain my reasons for thinking the article is a cheap stunt despite “really” being about Web 2.0, but my experience with Robin inclines me to believe it would be a waste of time. If she will assume I didn’t read or understand the article, I’ll just assume she’s stupid and a bitch.
That is un-called for.
All I was trying to do was explain the significance of Time’s decision, and given the tone and brevity of your OP, it seemed to me that you may have read the article, but you didn’t understand Time’s point. So instead of reading and considering my post, which was intended to explain Time’s point, you fire back with an ad hominem attack.
Rather poor form, sport.
Robin
“Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.”- Lev Grossman, Time
You assumed I didn’t read it and understand it, despite the fact I linked to the article and it could be understood by anyone with a third grade education. Time magazine isn’t exactly nuanced or subtle.
The culture here tends to be very quick to be smug and patronizing. I did lash out at you, but I’m so fucking sick of rather banal opinions… that a ridiculous movie is ridiculous, that a novelty album is a novelty album, that a cheap stunt is a cheap stunt… being treated as some kind of character flaw on my part, I lashed out that time.
This isn’t Web 2.0. It’s Web 1.5.
“So, instead of calling the article a cheap stunt, why don’t you trouble yourself to actually read and try to understand it before you criticize it.”
“So instead of reading and considering my post, which was intended to explain Time’s point, you fire back with an ad hominem attack.”
Why do you keep assuming I haven’t read or understood things? Do you assume Time and your own writing are so clever and sophisticated that it’s hard for people to understand, or that they are so masterfully executed, anyone reading them must agree with the authors?
LOL. I actually may, the thought makes me smile.
Everyone is the Time Magazine Person of the Year…except you.
No, but your OP was so thin and your insult so jejune that I couldn’t be sure. Since communications, and, specifically, the New Media that Time was talking about, happens to be my field, I thought I’d take a few minutes to help you understand the significance of the magazine’s choice of Person of the Year.
I can see now that educating you is a wasted effort. I’ll try not to do it again.
Robin
No, you don’t need to summarize Time magazine articles for me. I’ve got a college degree and everything.
Hey, is that any way for two People of the Year to behave?
John, that’s a nice way to mend this rift with humor. I apologize to Ms. Robyn for the swears.
In what, Basket Weaving?
I don’t necessarily agree with Time’s choice but I can certainly see why they’d make such a choice. The personal nature of the internet is revolutionizing the way we find and use information, just as the printing press did 500 years ago. It’s an important topic that affects all of us, and it’s worth taking note of this massive change in the way we can access media.
Perhaps you’re so accustomed to the Internet and its functions that you’re not bright enough to understand its significance?
It might help to apologise for the needless ad hominem attacks and shitting in your own thread as well. Then again, you seem desperate to grow your e-penis, or Penis 2.0 through oneupmanship.
And you! Dog suck. Hey you! Yeah you over there. Cow suck. Where are you guys going? We got some manatees need sucking over here. HEY! HEY! This elephant ain’t gonna suck itself!
I didn’t want to write an essay to explain my position, because my general feeling from the blogosphere is that (a) yeah, we all know that Web 2.0 is a big deal, but (b) Time’s write up wasn’t particularly illuminating, and © the mirror-on-the-cover thing, and calling “You,” the person of the year, was a cheap stunt. Given that we are Internet users, I kind of thought people would just agree that it was a cheap stunt. I didn’t expect anyone to suppose I hadn’t read it and “explain” it to me from their insight as being “in the field” (whatever that means… since we’re presumably all in the field by Time’s definition).
Time’s article is a very light treatment of Web 2.0, filled with the usual assumptions that there is no social class and that we’re all upper middle class consumers who are just making the most out of everything. Their photogenic, fashionable photo montage represents the way they see “us.” It’s exactly the same montage you see in ads for cell phones and high-speed Internet services. The whole spread blurs seamlessly into the ads. There’s practically no information or insight in the story.
But that doesn’t even bother me. I gave up on mainstream news magazines doing real journalism years ago. I posted this pit because the Web 2.0 theme seemed just like an excuse to do the cheap stunt of flattering people while creating buzz. Because, the fact is, “YOU” is not behind Web 2.0. It’s early adopters, and that’s not “you.” Moreover, there’s a power law principle in place… notice that while speciously crediting everyone for participation in Web 2.0, they only mention those A-list bloggers, industry insiders, and pundits they care about, while sneering in typical journalistic fashion at the “stupidity” of the crowd.
What’s funny is that while Robyn professes admiration for her own penetrating insight into the text of the article and her position as being “in the field,” she didn’t seem to see past the banal treatment of Web 2.0 as an excuse to engineer a cheap stunt. She also must not be active in the field, or she’d understand that this is what Web 2.0 is all about… ordinary people calling out big media for their cheap stunts.
In AD 2006, Time chickened out.
How are you gentlemen?
Yeah, I’m sure it’ll really be less of a dick measuring contest after this post.