58 Comments

1. owl:

Where’s the link? The cardinal rule of blogging.

Nov 19, 2005 - 6:06 pm 2. Terrye:

Roger:

I don’t know what to make of all this, it is very distressing and really kind of strange.

owl, if you don’t I really don’t think we need to tell you.

Nov 19, 2005 - 6:12 pm 3. quickrob:

Hey! Dennis the Menace!!!

Don’t hate the playa, homeboy. HATE THE GAME!

[end homey voice]

ahem.

Nov 19, 2005 - 6:17 pm 4. Buddy Larsen:

I’ve started-up several businesses, and generally, those early meetings are about sensing whether or not the personalities are going to be able to flourish in a relationship that is going to need more flexibility than even marriage. When they dwindle away and none of the parties make an effort at renewal, it’s not the story of a failure, it’s the story of a failure avoided, and the sign of those preliminary meetings having accomplished precisely their highest goal.

Nov 19, 2005 - 6:21 pm 5. Cirrus:

Kenton E. Kelly, CPA, aka Dennis the Peasant, sure is getting a lot of momentary attention for going after OSM in general and Roger L. Simon in particular.

I hope he’s enjoying the brief spotlight because he has committed long-term professional suicide to get it.

From what I understand, he’s a self-employed CPA. That means he’s got to convince individuals and businesses to trust him with their confidential financial information, and being self-employed he’s only got his personal integrity and reputation to recommend him (as opposed to, for instance, a PriceWaterhouse, which has an institutional track record and recourse paths unavailable to clients of independent operators).

He’s shown himself eager to disclose non-public, confidential business information. He may not have been contractually obligated to silence, but there’s something called “ethics” that prevents people of integrity from babbling private information all over the internet. Kelly clearly has shown his position on those ethics.

I can’t see this as ever being a plus for someone in the financial industry.

Kenton E. Kelly of Ohio, CPA, has chosen to destroy his reputation and impugn his own integrity over a potential business partnership that didn’t work out, all for the glory of personal aggrandizement.

Those of us who’ve got some business experience know that similar non-viable situations are more the norm than the exception. And we know enough to keep our mouths shut about them because if we can’t be trusted, we’re toast.

It’s only High School behavior if inexperienced teens are involved. This disgraceful display by Kelly hasn’t got either the novice or youth excuse. It’s just flat-out unprofessional, and for a professional, that’s a fatal mistake.

Nov 19, 2005 - 7:24 pm 6. ajf:

A CPA? Figures. Was wondering what kind of fool would have trouble understanding the difference between a legal business name and trade/service/word mark.

Kelly and Althouse are drowning in envy.

Nov 19, 2005 - 7:34 pm 7. Buddy Larsen:

It’s the essence of tragedy–that which makes one great (in the case of a blogger, great writing and impulsivity) becomes one’s ruin.

Nov 19, 2005 - 7:38 pm 8. MisterB:

Come on! All else that you say may be true. But the joke was not about shooting your dog. It was a joke about your implication that this Dennis the Peasant had made the internet such that it was now no place for your daughter. To say “I also shot his dog” is like saying “I also conspire with the devil.” It’s not about dogicide, it is (rightly or wrongly) about the absurdity of the orginial statement. Those who think the previously pure and wholesome internet has now been sullied beyond repair by the likes of “Dennis the Peasant” will, I suppose, not get the joke. But it’s not like it was some kind of threat. The way the comment is characterized here is likely to mislead those who haven’t seen it.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:13 pm 9. Charlie (Colorado):

It’s probably good that you outed him, at this point. Proving you’re an idiot (hint, Kenton: if it ain’t in writing, it didn’t happen, and a CPA should know this) is one thing — going on to actual threats is another.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:19 pm 10. Buddy Larsen:

In 1987 my Larsen Farms Texas Chevre was the only entry in my mkt area calling itself Texas Chevre. I knew–I checked–that the appellation was entirely too broad to trademark. I deliberately traded that off for the clarity my start-up needed (French-style texas cheese).

Soon enough, inferior (ahem) similarly-named brands were being confused with mine–but to me, that was just the way the ball bounced (or cheese crumbled).

It’s such a common problem, it’s almost the norm, really. I could’ve blown fire at these competitors–but didn’t–never felt the urge to make enemies gratuitously, in a small clubbish niche.

Sure enough, until I sold in 2001, and thanks at least in part to not having been a jerk, I always had more orders than I could fill, and only quit the biz because it had been always been my by-then ex-wife’s desire to be a dairy-goat breeder, I’d never really enjoyed the biz, and got out as soon as over the hump on the offsprings’ college bills. And viz the trademark/DBA, I’m happy to be unashamed of how I handled all that.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:25 pm 11. Buddy Larsen:

Clarification: “Texas Chevre”–not Larsen farms–got aped. Anyone using “Larsen Farms” would’ve gotten the same treatment as my earlier venture got from some jerks in California who objected to my “Mickey Mouse’s Disneyland Goat Cheese” brand.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:43 pm 12. dougf:

I don’t know what to make of all this…—Terrye

Me neither.

However on the ‘name-game’ issue, I do find ‘trademark’ disagreements just plain annoying at the best of times however, and find it remarkably distasteful that a term such as “Open Source” should be the focal point of all this silliness. This is way past ironic don’t you think? Since I can’t believe that Roger is part of some malicious cabal intent on stealing all the fame of Open Source , I have to say that this appears to be some form of other inspired reaction.

For crying out loud here people, what is the intent of the Internet anyway? Is everybody planning on reinventing the dweebiness of Corporatism in a much shorter time frame?

Lawyers !! We need lawyers. Lots and lots and lots of Lawyers.

At this rate we will need a new outlaw Internet just to get away from the old ‘outlaw’ Internet.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:49 pm 13. Buddy Larsen:

ha–nice one, dougf, on that ‘irony’ thing.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:56 pm 14. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

The mental image of French longhorn goats is going to be hard to forget.

Nov 19, 2005 - 9:00 pm 15. dougf:

Ha–nice one, dougf, on that ‘irony’ thing–BL

Thanks Buddy. Much appreciated.

I,m feeling good about things right at this moment in time. And that is because you ask–

Not only did I get a personal e-mail from the proud proprietor of one of the ‘usual suspects’ site, but he was so impressed with my contribution that he deleted his whole post in reprisal. And as you probably know I NEVER use profanity or crudeness so it couldn’t have been that to which he took umbrage.

My first ‘progressive’ e-mail.

Now if only that e-mail hadn’t suggested that I perform a rather unnatural, and I fully believe impossible physical act, I would be aces.

Nov 19, 2005 - 9:25 pm 16. Buddy Larsen:

dougf, re the unnatural act, did he mean the whole thing, monitor, tower, keyboard, all? Jeez, ouch!

Nov 19, 2005 - 9:50 pm 17. DelD:

At this point, the more Dennis the Peasant (er, Kelly Kenton, er whatever) posts, the more astute Roger and Charles look in having avoided going into business with him.

Yeah, his first couple, three posts on the subject were amusing, but now he’s entered complete gibbering, meltdown, wack-job territory.

Nov 19, 2005 - 11:09 pm 18. Michael Babbitt:

I wrote an email to this Dennis guy after reading his rants: Subject: “You need to grow up. .”

Says it all.

BTW, yeah, don’t link to him. There is a time and place for everything — not linking is appropriate for him.

Nov 19, 2005 - 11:52 pm 19. David Thomson:

ìAt this point, the more Dennis the Peasant (er, Kelly Kenton, er whatever) posts, the more astute Roger and Charles look in having avoided going into business with him.î

Absolutely. Roger and Charles dodged a bullet. The odds are that sooner or later Kelly Kenton would make a fool of himself.

A business relationship with such a person will almost assuredly go bad. Does Mr. Kenton have a legitimate beef? I have no way of knowing. However, I can unhesitatingly assert that this is not the way to resolve it.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:09 am 20. Ben Regenspan:

I hope he’s enjoying the brief spotlight because he has committed long-term professional suicide to get it.

You’re forgetting that the only people who care about blogs are bloggers and blog readers. This isn’t all that many people, and it becomes still less when you only consider the number who would pay attention to the OSM circus.

And whether or not even these people would take any of this into account when hiring an accountant is a whole other story…

It’s probably good that you outed him, at this point.

Kelly outed himself.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:14 am 21. Patrick Tyson:

Roger,

I think this post was a mistake. Wise words…

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/01/never_complain.php

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:21 am 22. David:

Roger, I am so sorry that you have to deal with idiots. but that is the nature of start ups. Mr. Kelly, give it up.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:39 am 23. mikem:

Unfortunately there are often people left behind as a business idea gets roughed out, improved upon and more productive individuals make themselves available. It happens a thousand times a day in a free enterprise system and that seems to be what happened here. Dennis is just making juvenile gestures with his self proclaimed revengeful postings. A more adult approach to hurt pride and feelings would be to work smarter and harder, rather than dedicating a portion of your energies to bad mouthing those who chose to use a different idea or to partner with others. As the saying goes, the best revenge is to live well. Living well pretty much excludes revengeful antics like Dennis’.

Sorry you have to put up with this, Roger. I know you guys have a trademark issue to contend with (I think that is a loser for you guys. Better to admit an innocent mistake and come up with a new, equally catchy name.) and you don’t need this. But it is really just about him, not you. Don’t let it distract you.

Best of luck on the new venture. You guys deserve for it to work. If it doesn’t, fear not. The talent will still be there to put together some other way.

Nov 20, 2005 - 3:03 am 24. JamesI:

The OSM site is very light on content. It doesn’t add value to my web surfing experience. The design reminds me of when my daughter tries to pad her homework with whitespace to make it more substantial than it actually is.

You also made the mistake of associating with Charles Johnson, who has managed to make a lot of online enemies because of LGF. Those folks are not going to rest till OSM collapses.

Dennis is a fool for destroying his career, because, at the rate that things are going, OSM is in a pretty weak position already.

I hope you find a radical way of salvaging your position, since the idea is good, but the execution is poor.

Nov 20, 2005 - 6:29 am 25. Alexandra von Maltzan:

I’ve been doing a fair amount of Dennis The Menace Bashing myself for you over at All Things Beautiful Blogging To Differ at Pajamas OSM Media (UPDATED)

“UPDATE NOV.19TH: Dennis the Menace, aka Kenton Kelly, aka Dennis The Peasant has revived the ailing subject one more time of his unfair treatment by OSM. I am not going to link you to his dreary rants but will simply show you Roger Simon’s response.

Kelly, call your broker and cash in all the shares you posess, sell your business, sell your house, sell your wife, AND instigate this lawsuit you keep threatening with, OTHERWISE SHUT THE….UP!

You remind me of Peter Sellers in the famous opening scene of ‘The Party’, where he is an extra who gets shot, and just refuses to die. It is the funniest scene in cinematography today, and you are simply ruining it for me.”

I just cannot believe that Kelly and the whining guys over @ Open Source Media have not stopped bashing this subject, and constantly drumming up publicity.

I called Jeff Jarvis an old bickering fishwife on this subject as well which needless to say did not go down too well. I think I am definitely off his Christmas card list. LOL.

Keep on trucking Roger!

Nov 20, 2005 - 7:10 am 26. Adrianne Truett:

Ben — only bloggers care about blogs? It’s thinking like that — “nobody I know in the Real World will read this” — that has led to quite a few people writing things online that they shouldn’t have been writing, things that eventually cost them their jobs.

Nov 20, 2005 - 7:36 am 27. Charlie (Colorado):

I called Jeff Jarvis an old bickering fishwife on this subject as well which needless to say did not go down too well. I think I am definitely off his Christmas card list. LOL.

Heh. I told Jarvis to grow up; I got banned.

(And why don’t more people note that while Jeff is criticizing, he’s also tied into his own internet startup? If it turns out to be another aggregator, what will that mean?)

Nov 20, 2005 - 7:39 am 28. OCSteve:

Roger:

First of all I have the utmost respect for Charles and yourself, and I wish you luck in this venture. I hope PJM/OSM/new name to come is a success and everything you hope. I am awed at the talent you have managed to coral.

With that said though, I do have to say that the shaky start adds some validity to at least some of what Dennis and others have had to say. Of course there is a lot of back-biting going on, but there are some shreds of truth in there as well. Frankly it would be getting a lot less attention if the pre-launch and launch had been smoother.

-The name snafu (and I still can’t believe that any VC let that get past them).

-The Luke Ford snafu.

-The site was slow on launch day, still is today, and there is little content. Not really much there there. I think there should have been a lot more focus on the site and a lot less on the party. Frankly I found the launch party very strange, with the first speaker bashing blogging, the fashion thing, and Judith Miller?!? Again, I can’t understand a VC letting that go by.

-More than anything else, by signing up 300 bloggers and then dropping the bottom 230 you set yourself up with 230 potential enemies from day one – 230 potentially hostile bloggers for Gods sake.

-Finally, your collective response to the criticism has been mostly like that of the MSM – I’ve seen many comparisons to CBS circling the wagons at the start of RatherGate.

I do want you to succeed, I really do. But I have to say that if you don’t address all this very quickly you are going to lose some of those big names. So please – get in front of the criticism, change the name right now (yeah it’s embarrassing, just do it quick and get it behind you), get the performance issue addressed (spend some of that VC money on hardware, bandwidth, and tech talent).

Most importantly get some original content from some of your stellar writers on that site immediately – we don’t need another news aggregator.

Please take this in the spirit it is intended – I want you to succeed.

Nov 20, 2005 - 8:32 am 29. Ben Regenspan:

Ben — only bloggers care about blogs? It’s thinking like that — “nobody I know in the Real World will read this” — that has led to quite a few people writing things online that they shouldn’t have been writing, things that eventually cost them their jobs

First of all, I said “only bloggers and blog readers”. Second- The cases where someone says something stupid and gets fired occur when the outcry is substantial enough that it crosses over to the real world. Bloggers can try to ruin Kelly’s career, but I don’t see them succeeding with this kind of weak material:

Personally, I liked the part where he suggested I (that post was directed to me) was making the internet unsafe for his daughter.

At least he didn’t mention the fact that I shot his dog two days ago…

Especially when we’re talking about a career that revolves around individual clients who probably don’t take whether or not a CPA has gotten flack for criticizing a blog into account.

Nov 20, 2005 - 8:33 am 30. byrd:

Boy, if I bitched and moaned and started a website every time I was disappointed, I’d…well, I’d…I’d have a lot of websites.

And who’s got that kind of time?

Nov 20, 2005 - 11:34 am 31. Gen. JC Christian, patriot:

It sounds to me like you didn’t offer Mr. Peasant the courtesy of a reach-around. That’s just plain greedy if you ask me.

Nov 20, 2005 - 11:49 am 32. PC14:

Oh I think the big Hollywood promo machine is raging here. Classic Hollyweird, create a big controversy and then milk the publicity. Kenton and Simon are waiting for Safer, Couric, Brokaw, et al to come knocking with the cameras…then the real launch happens.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:02 pm 33. rcade:

When a business relationship goes sour involving a bunch of people who can reach a worldwide audience with a push of a button, it makes sense to do what you can to achieve a clean breakup.

Simon and Johnson had to know they were screwing over Kelly and another partner by working a deal with venture capitalists behind their back.

At this point, now that Simon has helped legitimize Kelly’s criticism by responding to it publicly, the expense to OSM’s credibility has to be higher than what it would have cost to buy his happiness and compensate him for some of his work.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:13 pm 34. Buddy Larsen:

Yup–sho-nuf, we always interpret everything in the terms we best understand.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:14 pm 35. OCSteve:

At this point, now that Simon has helped legitimize Kelly’s criticism by responding to it publicly, the expense to OSM’s credibility has to be higher than what it would have cost to buy his happiness and compensate him for some of his work.

Especially if, as he indicates, it is in the form of expenses run up in a previous version of this. You have 3.5M (3.0M?, 2.7M?) in capital. The guy is beefing about a few thousand in expenses?

More important in my mind ? the 230 bloggers you may have PO?d. There is some hubris here in flouting the power of the blogosphere while not recognizing you just upset a bunch of bloggers who now have incentive to bash you at every opportunity. Do something with them.

I want you to succeed. I really do. Get in front of this stuff.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:42 pm 36. Alexandra von Maltzan:

“Especially if, as he indicates, it is in the form of expenses run up in a previous version of this. You have 3.5M (3.0M?, 2.7M?) in capital. The guy is beefing about a few thousand in expenses?”

I am struggling to understand your comment. What you are suggesting simply doesn’t make any business sense at all. This is not their own money, and to suggest that it is at their disposal is simply ludicrous. It’s romantic to think that a venture capital firm will ever tolerate any previous partner’s expense being paid, whether it’s $20 000 or a few thousand $. It’s simply naive to suggest it.

As far as paying him out of his own pocket is concerned, I don’t see why he should. Many business ideas evolve with number of people and incubate with that number being altered. The risk is always entirely one’s own.

Everyone has a prerogative to evolve an idea to change it and structure it entirely differently especially if that idea was his. If Dennis is suggesting it was primarily his, and the format it has taken now is exactly what he had in mind, I will say that I don’t believe it.

If that were true, his tone of rhetoric would have had stronger arguments than it does presently, and believe me the legal advice he would have had by now would have been that he does not stand a chance in a law suit. Zero chance.

So he now resorts to stalking sites, blogging ad nauseam about it, and showing signs of obsessive compulsive psychotic behavior.

Get a life, and move on. The deal didn’t work out, it will not be the first or the last time.

Nov 20, 2005 - 2:24 pm 37. OCSteve:

I am struggling to understand your comment. What you are suggesting simply doesn’t make any business sense at all. This is not their own money, and to suggest that it is at their disposal is simply ludicrous. It’s romantic to think that a venture capital firm will ever tolerate any previous partner’s expense being paid, whether it’s $20 000 or a few thousand $. It’s simply naive to suggest it.

Not. I have dealt with several VC firms. Paying a couple thousand $ for what could be construed as legitimate expenses would be very preferable to bad publicity prior to launch, and the possibility of lawsuits, real or imagined, hanging over your head. If the guy has receipts, invitations to fly out there, do some travel etc. on behalf of the fledging company ? pay him that for cripes sake. Don?t get into a contest over egos at this stage.

I?m saying that I question the VC more than Roger and Charles at this point. None I have dealt with would have let any of this happen. I?m not saying they (VC) are good guys ? I?m saying that in their own self interest they scrutinize every detail so that none of this stuff happens.

And finally, I am saying they have a much bigger problem with the 230 bloggers they may have PO?d than Dennis. You want to utilize the blogosphere, but then you diss 230 bloggers right before launch?

I say again ? Roger and Charles, I want you to succeed here. Get in front of this stuff!

Nov 20, 2005 - 4:03 pm 38. Solomon:

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Don’t respond and get called arrogant, respond and they claim it’s a “gotcha.” Seen this internet pattern a thousand times.

Just do what you have to do, make the decisions you have to make (yes, even a name change if warranted), sort the good advice from the trolling and realize that ALL of us even tangentially involved want success, MOST of those not involved want the same thing, and the vast majority of people out there on the internet have no clue whatsoever what this tempest in a teapot is all about.

You’ve got quite a brain-trust assembled, I’m sure you’re getting lots of advice and ideas to play around with.

Nov 20, 2005 - 7:06 pm 39. Alexandra von Maltzan:

“I’m saying that I question the VC more than Roger and Charles at this point. None I have dealt with would have let any of this happen. I’m not saying they (VC) are good guys ? I’m saying that in their own self interest they scrutinize every detail so that none of this stuff happens.”

Now we are talking the same language. You and I both know that executive decisions have been made to ignore this and those decisions have come from the VC firm who holds the purse strings.

You also know that legal advice would have been taken on the issue, and again decisions made accordingly.

No one should respond to publicity blackmail, and especially if they have decided that it is something thy can defend if push comes to shove.

If you pay anything at all from a legal stand point you are entering into a formal of admission of liability, whether your reasoning is a result of simply wishing to avoid publicity or not.

You pay receipts of $2 000, you will end up paying a lawsuit damages for $500 000, by the time the other side hires lawyers who will tell him to go for broke.

If you have dealt with VC firms you will know that for this sort of venture $3.5 is not a lot of money. The sort of set up they have and will end up having it is simply ’sex and music money’(just an expression let’s not get stuck there), and most probably the first tranche.

As for the 230: the selection has been made, right or wrong, and I don’t understand why they owe anyone anything. Sour grapes will always exist, and if people dig hard enough they can work themselves into a frenzy over anything. That will never change. So he talked to them about it, and when push came to shove they could not afford 300 and had to reduce to 70. And?

As I said there is not enough money there for more, and if no one understands that, tough luck. It would have been the VC firm’s decision to start with to invest the minimum and see how their money goes. It is a prudent business decision, and quite frankly I think would have little to do with what Charles and Roger wanted it the first place.

An enthusiastic person like Roger will always be misunderstood by people that want to misunderstand him. He can never do anything about that.

Nov 20, 2005 - 10:13 pm 40. Buddy Larsen:

“Sour grapes will always exist, and if people dig hard enough they can work themselves into a frenzy over anything. That will never change.”

Alexandra, if I may say, I like the cut of your jib.

Nov 21, 2005 - 4:03 am 41. Charlie (Colorado):

Buddy, I can’t find any pictures of her jib, but she does look pretty hot in her profile.

And I like the graphics.

That puce color is making my eyes bleed, though.

Nov 21, 2005 - 3:07 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Man, alive–you so right–and thanks for the pointer. A more interesting set of images anywhere on the web, there ain’t. Must return, often!

Nov 21, 2005 - 3:25 pm 43. Politechnical:

What everyone seems to be missing is that from the time a great idea forms till the time it hits the market, it changes dramatically.

The PJ idea is a good one; I’ve had thoughts along those lines for a long time. (No, I’m not claiming IP rights! LOL)

Ultimately, an idea needs talented people in order to thrive. I’m sure Dennis the Peasant is fine in his field, but the highly successful bloggers are successful largely because of their talents.

As a micro-blogger, one of the things that irks me about OSM is the accompanying haughtiness. Yes, we know the big-time guys are in it and basically, us little guys are locked out.

But part of the enthusiasm and goodwill PJ media built was based on the idea everyone was included; the long tail of the blogosphere was going to kick the MSM’s ass.

I guess I’m missing that in OSM. But Roger, Glenn, and Charles have a good team assembled, and eventually they’ll get it right. None of them are ever shy about posting an “Update:” or “Update 2:”.

Nov 21, 2005 - 5:40 pm 44. Alexandra von Maltzan:

Poli,

You should not think that just because they are starting with 70 bloggers and $3,5 mil, that they will end up with 70 bloggers and $3.5 mil. They will need more capital and more bloggers.

They are backed by Aubrey Chernick who is worth $750 mil, and he seems to be fully on board, so don’t think this is the be all and end all. Patience….

If the Rockerfeller Center offices don’t prove to be an expensive commodity, they may just pull through and make it a roaring success, and then get more people on board. But until then, I even think that the 70 was over the top (for a start up). But that’s just me.

Chernick did not accumulate $750 mil by being careless and incompetent, and looking at the first tranche being $3.5 mil he is being conservative if you look at the outgoings they would have incurred already.

Buddy’s comment is very poignant though in relation to Dennis, and from my personal experience made a lot of sense:

“I’ve started-up several businesses, and generally, those early meetings are about sensing whether or not the personalities are going to be able to flourish in a relationship that is going to need more flexibility than even marriage. When they dwindle away and none of the parties make an effort at renewal, it’s not the story of a failure, it’s the story of a failure avoided, and the sign of those preliminary meetings having accomplished precisely their highest goal.”

Nov 21, 2005 - 6:11 pm 45. Politechnical:

Alexandra: I could not agree more with Buddy’s observations on online businesses.

I would actually go beyond it and state something that’s just below the surface: Simon and Johnson did not need Dennis the Peasant.

I, too, have started a number of online businesses, and they haven’t worked- from my own inexperience and lack of qualifications in the areas I pursued. My ideas were and are sound, but if you don’t have technical aptitude (Charles) or connections (Roger), or something else that’s vital to your venture (I’d guess accounting is not crucial to OSM), it’s not going to work.

Now I’ll stop being unfair to Dennis and criticize OSM.

While it’s completely a matter for the lawyers to work out, there may be the perception that Dennis had a part in the creation of the idea behind PJ/OSM. Dennis paints a sympathetic picture, in my view.

Online reputations are important. Whatever the PJ founders are legally able to do and what bloggers in general perceive as standing behind one’s word may be two different things.

How difficult would it have been to reach some kind of agreement with Dennis? I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem to have been tried, and that’s clearly very unfortunate for all concerned.

I did say earlier that OSM will get it right- I do believe that, but version 1.1 needs to be a vast improvement.

Nov 21, 2005 - 6:32 pm 46. Alexandra von Maltzan:

Poli,

An expression I learned having an English education, and the English being obsessed with the act: “Don’t talk about things you know bugger all about”

That unfortunately is what we are ALL doing. We would have to be in a court of law with depositions and affidavits in hand listening to the testimonies of various witnesses, to perhaps even try to figure out what actually happened here. And even then there would be the legal standpoint and our opinion as the jury.

Poli, we do not know if Dennis’ involvement warranted an agreement of any kind. And we never will.

Nov 21, 2005 - 7:31 pm 47. Buddy Larsen:

“And we never will” because a given conversation is remembered differently by both parties. The broad memory, “it was fun” or “it was dreary” is likely shared, but get into technical details and sans a signed-off recap memo the following day, both parties in all honesty will truthfully believe they each heard and said things unmeant and unsaid–and vice-versa. Everyone knows all this of course, but sometimes some folks might choose to forget it, so that for one reason or another they can “work themselves into a frenzy.”

Nov 21, 2005 - 10:57 pm 48. Buddy Larsen:

Always the PS, but, knowing nothing at all of the particular details under (invited, by evidence of this comments section) discussion, my considerable number of years as an adult have convinced me that shysters and backstabbers never ever enjoy a large web of supportive fans and professional contacts who remain loyal through the years and so compose the components of a “career.”

Nov 21, 2005 - 11:12 pm 49. DEagle:

I have to say that I am disappointed with your response regarding Mr. Kelly. After reading his account of events, I would have to say that his grievances seem valid. I would have thought you would do better. Ah well, I was always an optimist regarding human behavior. I still hope OSM becomes what I had hoped for…

Nov 21, 2005 - 11:20 pm 50. DEagle:

Buddy,

Honesty and integrity are always in vogue…

Nov 22, 2005 - 12:46 am 51. Alexandra von Maltzan:

That still sounds like you are not listening. You only know one side of the story, whether it’s personally or through the recounting of someone else.

D the Eagle, Buddy’s point still stands unchalleneged, even if you were Dennis himself. Can you not take a step back and accept that. Perhaps not if you feel too emotional about it .

I wrote a few harsh words about Dennis, and regretted it. Someone pointed out to me that I was not being fair to a certain degree, and they were right. I also did not feel good about bashing a person who already feels afflicted, and deleted that part of my text.

If someone tells me I am not being fair, it sort of hits me in my Achilles heel, and I always review my stance. I don’t always change it, but I will always review it.

It did not however make me change my overall point of view on this particular subject, which remains the same, regardless of the sucess or failure of OSM.

Nov 22, 2005 - 2:46 am 52. DEagle:

Well yes, I don’t know both sides but I can still be discouraged by Simons response. I’m sorry, but his response was childish and portrays a lack of honesty. Hey, we are all just a product of our upbringing.

Nov 22, 2005 - 3:24 am 53. Buddy Larsen:

DEagle, agreed, honesty and integrity are always en vogue, and the attempted public murder of a professional reputation is–among the posited transgressions, and even if en arguendo given truth to all–by far the most serious, and least worthy of any attempted amelioration. IMHO, that is.

Nov 22, 2005 - 3:33 am 54. DEagle:

Darn, that did not come out right. The upbringing was NOT meant toward Simon but to me. I just believe that honesty is paramont.

Nov 22, 2005 - 3:39 am 55. DEagle:

Well, it’s possible that Dennis has exeragerated his position so I will let it go at that. I still do not like Simons post on this and think that it reflects negatively on him. Enough said…

Nov 22, 2005 - 3:45 am 56. Buddy Larsen:

Ugh, us peanut gallery kibbitzers reach for peace pipe, and smoke ‘um.

Nov 22, 2005 - 4:08 am 57. DEagle:

Not informative but Cute! :^)

Nov 22, 2005 - 4:11 am 58. Buddy Larsen:

Aw, shucks…(blush)

Nov 22, 2005 - 5:03 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: