Comments on: Blog Ethics Reviewed http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/ Blog Tips for Bloggers by the Original Blogging Resource - Blog Bloke Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:33:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Blog Bloke http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-913 Blog Bloke Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:37:00 +0000 http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-913 Hi Liz. I'm not sure if I follow you. What double meaning and link were you referring to? Could you elaborate? It's a Sunday morning and I'm not the brightest kid on campus right now. :)<br/><br/>If you have some insights into the matter I would love to hear them but I want to handle it sensitively as I'm reticent to dredging up old wounds again. What I want most is to end this on a positive note if possible. Hi Liz. I’m not sure if I follow you. What double meaning and link were you referring to? Could you elaborate? It’s a Sunday morning and I’m not the brightest kid on campus right now. :)

If you have some insights into the matter I would love to hear them but I want to handle it sensitively as I’m reticent to dredging up old wounds again. What I want most is to end this on a positive note if possible.

]]> By: Liz Strauss http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-912 Liz Strauss Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:15:00 +0000 http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-912 Dear Blog Bloke,<br/>How disappointed I was to get to the end and have you ask where you link was. That changed the entire story that I just read. <br/><br/>Now I wonder about the purpose behind the story in the first place . . . ambibuity, credibility . . . . I'm distracted by possible double meanings in the comments. All caused by remarks about linking. I thought his was about conten. No link is worth unraveling credibilitiy of a message. Dear Blog Bloke,
How disappointed I was to get to the end and have you ask where you link was. That changed the entire story that I just read.

Now I wonder about the purpose behind the story in the first place . . . ambibuity, credibility . . . . I’m distracted by possible double meanings in the comments. All caused by remarks about linking. I thought his was about conten. No link is worth unraveling credibilitiy of a message.

]]> By: Blog Bloke http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-911 Blog Bloke Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:45:00 +0000 http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-911 After a heated exchange Brian and I have agreed to come to an amicable compromise. Who knows, this could even be the beginning of a beautiful friendship :-)<br /><br />Cheers! After a heated exchange Brian and I have agreed to come to an amicable compromise. Who knows, this could even be the beginning of a beautiful friendship :-)

Cheers!

]]> By: Blog Bloke http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-910 Blog Bloke Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:37:00 +0000 http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-910 Thanks for that clarification Brian. If I understand correctly you admit that your inspiration came from outside sources and I'm happy to see that you have corrected the oversight.<br/><br/>It's possible you may have overreacted and there are better ways to deal with arbitrary commenters. And btw, please don't be shooting the messenger. I merely reiterated my understanding of the conversation.<br /><br />One more thing. At least you got a link from yours truly, but where's mine. An oversight perhaps? Thanks for that clarification Brian. If I understand correctly you admit that your inspiration came from outside sources and I’m happy to see that you have corrected the oversight.

It’s possible you may have overreacted and there are better ways to deal with arbitrary commenters. And btw, please don’t be shooting the messenger. I merely reiterated my understanding of the conversation.

One more thing. At least you got a link from yours truly, but where’s mine. An oversight perhaps?

]]> By: Brian Clark http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-909 Brian Clark Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:45:00 +0000 http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-909 Sorry, that should be Changing Minds instead of Change This. See, mistakes happen without any evil involved, don't they? Sorry, that should be Changing Minds instead of Change This. See, mistakes happen without any evil involved, don’t they?

]]> By: Brian Clark http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-908 Brian Clark Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:44:00 +0000 http://www.blogbloke.com/blog-ethics-reviewed/#comment-908 Hey there. I deleted that guy's comments because they were anonymous, rude, and I thought unobservant, since I do have an attribution link to Change This, which in turn provides attribution to the scores of psychologists and researchers who have contributed to these basic concepts from Psychology 101. My application of those principles to traffic generation is novel as far as I know.<br/><br/>The post was on the front page of Digg that day, and whenever that happens, I get tons of anonymous garbage comments which I kill in moderation. This guy got through, but was no more helpful than the other Digg retards.<br/><br/>After seeing your post, however, I went back and noticed that the Change This link went one level higher than the "needs" section, which has been corrected. In the future you might show the courtesy of an email before you use the word "plagiarism" so lightly. Hey there. I deleted that guy’s comments because they were anonymous, rude, and I thought unobservant, since I do have an attribution link to Change This, which in turn provides attribution to the scores of psychologists and researchers who have contributed to these basic concepts from Psychology 101. My application of those principles to traffic generation is novel as far as I know.

The post was on the front page of Digg that day, and whenever that happens, I get tons of anonymous garbage comments which I kill in moderation. This guy got through, but was no more helpful than the other Digg retards.

After seeing your post, however, I went back and noticed that the Change This link went one level higher than the “needs” section, which has been corrected. In the future you might show the courtesy of an email before you use the word “plagiarism” so lightly.

]]>