1. Lawrence Krubner on July 26, 2004 9:06 PM writes...

I agree completely with the idea that the NYT put its bias into the headline and the article, and that it views blogs with contempt. However, everytime I've ever (I mean ever) read a news article about something that I myself saw or participated in, I found the article a distorted looking glass, describing an event I superficially recognized but otherwise found alien. There is something about the style of official journalism that distorts everything. I think it is the effort to sound "objective" that leads to these weird distortions. The journalist is not allowed to describe the passions involved in an activity, unless they can first kill that passion with clinical distance. The subjects covered, the people interviewed, need to be reduced to specimens under examination, otherwise the article doesn't "objective". Whether objectivity is something that can really be acheived is, of course, open to question. Personally, I doubt it.

2. Lawrence Krubner on July 26, 2004 9:08 PM writes...

The only time I get journalism that speaks in a way that allows me to recognize events that I participate in is when the article is in a speciality magazine or in a zine which is not trying to be objective. In politics, movement magazines can cover an event and describe it in a way that someone who particpated in the event can recognize the event. Go to a gay rights rally and then read the write up in the Advocate and contrast it to the write up in the New York Times. Which gives the more life-like representation of the event?

3. Lawrence Krubner on July 26, 2004 9:10 PM writes...

I think the answer is for American media outlets to abandon the facade of objectivity and instead openly declare their biases. I admire the media scene in Britain, where every newspaper has a known political bias of which it is proud and willing to defend. And while I disagree with everything reported on Fox News, I am pleased with the direction that Fox News is taking broadcast journalism in America - toward a style where every outlet will be forced to take sides in their political coverage, and abandon any pretense of objectivity.

I don't think the New York Times (or any other human institution) can ever be free of bias, what I would like is for it to be more open about that bias.

[The software wouldn't let me post all this as one comment, I've no idea why. I was forced to post this as 3 comments.]

4. Cynthia Typaldos on July 26, 2004 9:23 PM writes...

Interestingly exactly the same thing happened 9 years ago only the enemy (to the mainstream media) was websites. I was a co-founder of GolfWeb (a website-only publication) and we got press credentials to cover the Pebble Beach National Pro-Am Feb 1995 -- our very first tournament coverage. My co-founder Ed Pattermann wrote the golfing news and I wrote a dumb but kind of cute set of articles on technology in the press room. We were the entire GolfWeb staff at the time.
http://services.golfweb.com/tour/pga/gwtpf1.htm

But guess what? We didn't put Golf Digest (owned by the NYTimes) out of business (although that was certainly our goal and I still think it is a worthy one!).

The battles we went thru over the next few years (1995-1998) to continue to get press passes to the various tournaments was incredible. We mostly won these battles, it was inevitable, and frankly, it was FUN! Ahhh...the good old days when everything was fresh and new.

For more on GolfWeb go to my website www.typaldos.com

GolfWeb was acquired by CBS Sportsline and they changed it beyond recognition (it is now a spokesvehicle for the PGA Tour and nothing more).

Cynthia Typaldos
www.typaldos.com
www.typaldos.blogspot.com
www.cynthia-typaldos.blogspot.com

5. zephoria on July 26, 2004 9:30 PM writes...

Lawrence - i agree.

Objectivity is a foolish modernist notion; it does not exist. Biases are inserted into the most methodical of scientific experiments. It is an ideal, one that is respectable to aim for, but not something that is automatically embedded because of a role. No, bloggers are not objective, but neither are journalists. The difference is that bloggers don't pretend to be objective. When i write a paper in academia, the first thing that i do is state my biases, my perspective; i am reflexive about my role in observation, the limitations of my approach. This doesn't diminish my work, nor does it excuse my errors, but it situates the material that i am presenting. I believe this to be critical for any writer. More importantly, i believe that readers need to be aware of the inherent biases. I think that blog readers are far more attuned to this than journalism readers because our society has given journalists a "high-brow" role.

The point is that you get different information from different people and it's foolish to think that there is a "truth." For example, Fox News is only a perspective with a lot of money backing it; it is no more objective than any blogger.

6. bill on July 27, 2004 12:39 AM writes...

Don't you think you're just over-reacting to the Times story? I mean, really. If you think that innocuous article about blogging was "horrifying and demeaning", you have a really really low threshold for injury.

7. Sean Murphy on July 27, 2004 12:44 AM writes...

It's interesting to contrast the NYT article with Beantown becomes Blogtown in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, which highlights a different set of bloggers and reaches a very different conclusion:

Pay attention to these savvy computer mavens, for their postings are one of the most interesting ways in which the Internet is empowering people and shaping political coverage.

[...]

It will always be possible for someone to point to many of the millions of amateur bloggers and dismiss them as nerdy faddists and their work as largely trivial. Most bloggers will burn out and move on to something else. But a handful are slowly building a shadow media infrastructure that will become a significant component of the media in the 21st century. There might not be much news at this year's Democratic convention, but a real story can be found in the bloggers who are making their debut this week at a major national political conclave.

8. rhymer rigby on July 27, 2004 8:03 AM writes...

I'd didn't think the piece was especially critical. Besides if bloggers criticise the mainstream media, as they do, sometimes ad tedium, the mainstream media should be allowed a right of reply. Anyhow, isn't getting quite so squeaky over the whole thing a tiny bit self obsessed, not, incidentally, a charge I've ever heard levelled at bloggers before.

Whatever, I don't think the NYT's that scared. While people get their news from a variety of sources these days (and, yes, I know, blogs do sometimes break stories) blogs only tend to be the news source of choice for....other bloggers.

9. Cait on July 27, 2004 9:17 AM writes...

Slightly wafting the topic away but:

"By framing bloggers as diarists, the NYTimes is demanding that the reader see blogs as petty, childish and self-absorbed"

I don't see an overt use of the word "diary" but I want to ask the question - which I have asked before to a small group of friends and found *extremely* negative responses, what is the problem with being called a diarist?

Everyone seems to be half dead with the latest "MyDoom" today, however, I managed to find one definition: "a book with a separate space or page for each day, in which you write down your future arrangements, meetings, etc. or one used to record your thoughts and feelings or what has happened on that day:"

It seems to me that the word "blog" technologises to coin a ridiculous term something which has been practiced for millenia in different mediums. The word in itself does not insert the qualification of discussion generation or trackback, so ... well... to put it plainly - why denegrate the term diarist, when what 'blog' software does is generate the opportunity for auto and communal diarying online (with comments)? Why is the term "blog" seen to be superior to the term diary, when it is diaries which have provided us with rich social history and one would hope, will continue to do so in an incredibly accessible form now that these DB driven sites exist?

10. haha on July 27, 2004 10:08 AM writes...

>By framing bloggers as diarists, the NYTimes is demanding that the reader see blogs as petty, childish and self-absorbed.

but bloggers ARE self-absorbed! that's the whole POINT of blogs.

11. pragmatist on July 27, 2004 10:12 AM writes...

Lawrence Krubner wrote:

"...everytime I've ever (I mean ever)
read a news article about something
that I myself saw or participated in,
I found the article a distorted looking
glass ..."

I agree completely. Left-wing "Journalists"
have the biggest con game going these days.
They have little interest in other than
producing headlines so they can make more
money. Not that there is anything wrong
with that.

But Left-wing "Journalists" are morally
incapable of being honest about it.

Interestingly, those on the right are
proud of their biases and trumpet them
whenever they can. One may not agree
with them on specifics, but at least
no one can doubt their honesty.

12. Jon on July 27, 2004 10:15 AM writes...

I suppose this is all a question of semantics. As a kid I kept an extensive journal (hardcopy) and would be outraged when people would ask me what I was writing "in my diary". When I hear the word diary I envision a pink plastic covered Hello Kitty notebook with a miniature lock and key under the pillow of a twelve year old. It seems infantile. However, you can read a "journal" by Nin, Ginsberg or Miller et al but not their "diaries". So naturally you associate serious/significant writing, or "real writing", with the word journal. I think blog is the the next step in this evolution. The word blog is now associated with the cool new technological world that we're all becoming part of. In my mind journal still carries more weight than blog (because of the association with historically talented writers) but as time goes on and more and more significant work appears on blogs, the term will gain more respect.

13. Derek on July 27, 2004 10:16 AM writes...

Look at me!! I'm a boring blogger! The rest of the world knows how pointless my blog is!! Boo-fucking-hoo!!

You really are a pretentious twat aren't you? No, 'blogging' is not journalism despite your delusional fantasies of grandeur. 'Blogging' is the act of talking boring, inane, bull and hoping other people will read it.

14. ken on July 27, 2004 10:18 AM writes...

I do think the Times has a condescending attitude about bloggers, but as a copy editor myself, I think the headline was more a result of the old "let's assume the readers are from a different planet" rule. The Times considers itself a national paper and, whether bloggers like it or not, there are a lot of people in this country who don't know what a blog is, so a headline stating that "bloggers are part of the convention press" might leave some readers nonplussed, while web diarist is probably the shortest most efficient way to explain what a blogger is for headline purposes.

15. q on July 27, 2004 10:24 AM writes...

I think this post is a terrific example of why most blogs are considered "petty, childish and self-absorbed."

16. James on July 27, 2004 10:26 AM writes...

What's the problem with being called a diarist? I guess that depends on whether one thinks of Pepys or of the old stereotype of the purple prose of the teenage [PC=OFF]girl[PC=ON]'s diary.

17. Ross Mayfield on July 27, 2004 10:28 AM writes...

Since we aren't being held to the same standard as journalists, perhaps if there isn't news to cover at the convention, the bloggers should make news.

18. rod on July 27, 2004 10:42 AM writes...

I'm a reporter for a big city paper. I think blogs are invaluable and necessary on about 50 levels. When I do national work, I think blogs are an important source of alternative commentary and analysis that I cant get from the typical rote sources.

They also keep me honest--I know if I sscrew up, someone wil fact check my ass in a NY moment. which is good.

To be fair, if I was a machine democratic hack reporter, as many are, i would be running scared.

19. David Weinberger on July 27, 2004 10:51 AM writes...

Blogging this Convention has helped convince me more than ever that looking bloggers-as-journalists is the wrong lens. I am so not a journalist. I'm not a low-brow, amateur, subjective or wannabe journalist. I'm just not a journalist. Nor am I a diarist, not that there's anything wrong with that.

What complicates matters is that there's a handful of bloggers who _are_ journalists in every sense of the term. and lord love 'em for what they're doing. But the focus on them distorts what the rest of us are doing, IMO.

20. John Mendenhall on July 27, 2004 10:54 AM writes...

I can read a blog in 3 minutes for free and wonder, "Gee, do you suppose that's true?"

I can read the NY Times--or my local paper--for a significant charge, in an hour, and wonder--"Gee, do you suppose that's true?"

It is my experience that I can figure out what's true and what's not, and what's meaningful and what's not,by exposing myself to many sources. (Ed: I think I should say "by allowing myself exposure to...")

The news editor of the New York Times or my local paper is some guy who may or may not be as smart as me, as honest as me, or as respectful of others as me. He has been, in my lifetime, absolutely, 100% unable to explain anything I know a whole lot about honestly, fairly, or completely; furthermore, he has been absolutely outraged and offended that anybody might think so, obliterating any chance that this major shortcoming of Big News might be reversed.

From this, I surmise he can report nothing honestly, fairly, or completely, save perhaps what's up in the newsroom, or the smallish world that revolves around it. About which, frankly, I don't give a s***.

Didn't the Times get caught having the same "man in the street" interviewed 79 times in one year or something? That's so lazily corrupt there's no point in regarding anybody associated with it as a "professional" of any kind. That is hackery. That's like a funcionario standing there silently with his hand out, not even bothering to pretend the mordida is anything but the mordida.

On the other hand, blogs don't do good obits.

21. linda seebach on July 27, 2004 10:55 AM writes...

So the NYTimes writes a dismissive article about blogging and the WSJ writes an upbeat one, and the original post starts off on "the press" and "mainstream media." The Journal is every bit as much "the press" as the Times; the press, let alone the media, is no more a monolith than the blogosphere.

A sentence that begins "Journalists ..." is likewise a facile generalization that is meaningless without qualifiers or numbers attached.

22. moptop on July 27, 2004 11:01 AM writes...

Derek,
Did somebody force you to read this blog? Just curious.

I think it is pretty obvious that the side with the better argument is always going to do better in the blog world, which right now happens to be the 'Right'. That is why the WSJ loves them and NYT hates them. Perhaps, if a new set of facts come to light, the partisan press will embrace blogs more. The problem with blogs from their perspective is the lack of monopoly. It is impossible to use a blog to shout down the opposition. It has traditionaly been possible to use the NYT megaphone for that purpose. The left is out of practice making arguments to a thinking opposition.

23. Mullah Mohammed Goldstein on July 27, 2004 11:14 AM writes...

Derek,

You're a douche. That is all.

24. TomCom on July 27, 2004 11:21 AM writes...

I think that most of us with some regard for truth & the principle of proportionality grew up thinking, feeling, hoping that the NYT was something different from the rest of the Media, which we knew was still like the twits described in "The Front Page", "Citizen Kane", or "Sweet Smell of Success". It's tough to accept that those twits had higher standards than today's NYT.

And it's easy now to dismiss bloggers as we did the Orson Wells, Burt Lancaster, & Cary Grant's characters.

And, John Mendenhall, even the NYT Obits have been corrupted. They find some obscure movie bit player whom nobody can remember & give him/her 1,000 words of pretentious prose because he/she was BLACKLISTED, ya see.

So leave us with our childhood fantasies of the NYT, please.

25. Permanent4 on July 27, 2004 11:26 AM writes...

The Times is just bitter because blogs have been showing up ahead of them in Google searches lately.

26. John Kerry (bush lite) on July 27, 2004 11:57 AM writes...

"blogs as petty, childish and self-absorbed."

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

27. Dacotti on July 27, 2004 12:01 PM writes...

The NYT, and most of our largest media outlets for that matter, should aspire to the level of "diarists". At least the term lends the impression of impartial reteling of history in the making. The NYT, et. al., have reinvented themselves as real-time revisionists who's woefully slanted "news" has created the demand for the very outlet that they decry.

28. zephoria on July 27, 2004 12:06 PM writes...

Cait - i don't think that a diarist is an inherently negatively connoted word, but when used by the press to express a competitive phenomenon, it references the childlike element of journaling. In fact, you will often see a usage shift where adult diarists refer to journaling, not diarying because of the assumptions embedded in that term often refer to the 13 year old teenage girl with a locked down diary.

Ken - the NYTimes has used "blog" in its headlines before. They have also talked about amateur journalists. There are two different metaphors about what blogging is and they both fail. Referencing it as journaling is naive at best.

David - i totally agree... blogging is a totally separate phenomenon that needs to be treated as such, not referenced to metaphors.

29. Gabriel on July 27, 2004 12:15 PM writes...

is this the same NYTimes that was pushing Dick Cheney replacment rumors in an attempt to hype a non-story? Give me a break.

30. dick on July 27, 2004 12:33 PM writes...

I think part of the problem is that there are too many single newspaper towns out there. In the "good old days" when there a lot of newspapers, you could find your liberal views in one paper and you correct views in another (did I show my bias there???). The newspapers also had their own news bureaus around the globe or were linked with news bureaus. Now you get the news reported from AP or Reuters and regurgitated by the local paper with o changes. You get the original bias and only one bias in a city. If you agree with the bias, then you consider it fair and unbiased. If you don't agree with the bias, then you bitch a lot. For years until the arrival on the scene of Fox, we conservatives could only bitch because almost all the news was biased to the left. Now we finally have an alternate view of the news and "they" don't like it. Talk radio helps out here too.

The weblogs, when added to the mix, allow us to see a better view of the news. If you read a mix of them, you get a capsule of the news from the left, another capsule of the news from the right, and a whole lot of opinions, backed up or not, on the news. Put it altogether and I think you can come up with a pretty fair outlook on what really is going on with experts all the way on both sides. As a resident of New York, the NY Times is running scared because of losing market share and profitability and having their credibility in question because of Jayson Blair and others. Having their columnists becoming questionable because of their misquoting and twisting the words of people and getting caught at it just makes it worse. I think that is why they are putting out articles like this one. There are too many people out there now who realize that this "emperor" has no clothes and they don't like it. They are too used to being treated as the final source of stories and when people question them validly they don't know how to react.

31. dick on July 27, 2004 12:35 PM writes...

I think part of the problem is that there are too many single newspaper towns out there. In the "good old days" when there a lot of newspapers, you could find your liberal views in one paper and your correct views in another (did I show my bias there???). The newspapers also had their own news bureaus around the globe or were linked with news bureaus. Now you get the news reported from AP or Reuters and regurgitated by the local paper with o changes. You get the original bias and only one bias in a city. If you agree with the bias, then you consider it fair and unbiased. If you don't agree with the bias, then you bitch a lot. For years until the arrival on the scene of Fox, we conservatives could only bitch because almost all the news was biased to the left. Now we finally have an alternate view of the news and "they" don't like it. Talk radio helps out here too.

The weblogs, when added to the mix, allow us to see a better view of the news. If you read a mix of them, you get a capsule of the news from the left, another capsule of the news from the right, and a whole lot of opinions, backed up or not, on the news. Put it altogether and I think you can come up with a pretty fair outlook on what really is going on with experts all the way on both sides. As a resident of New York, the NY Times is running scared because of losing market share and profitability and having their credibility in question because of Jayson Blair and others. Having their columnists becoming questionable because of their misquoting and twisting the words of people and getting caught at it just makes it worse. I think that is why they are putting out articles like this one. There are too many people out there now who realize that this "emperor" has no clothes and they don't like it. They are too used to being treated as the final source of stories and when people question them validly they don't know how to react.

32. Anne Haight on July 27, 2004 12:57 PM writes...

Honestly it amuses me to think that I would be naive regarding the internet and the world at large. As someone who practically teethed on personal computers, and as an "early adopter" of technology, I'm pretty jaded about the internet's ability to shock me.

I'm also not a 14-year-old who thinks that everyone who uses AIM is a fellow teenager, asking Age/Sex/Location of everyone I meet.

I think mainsteams journalist (and maybe lots of people generally speaking) fail to recognize a distinction between blogs and diaries (aka LiveJournal masturbation about what they had to eat that morning and their cat's trip to the vet).

Granted, many blogs merge the two to some extent. A good number, however (like mine) focus on political and social commentary and news item exposure. Occasionally I manage to do some firsthand journalism by contacting primary sources.

My blog serves as a location for opinion commentary, exposure of underreported items that I think are important, and philosophical investigations into underlying principles of the aforementioned.

Sure, there is a certain off-the-cuff informality to it. But I make some effort to link source material when I make statements of fact, and I try to ensure that facts presented are actually correct (unlike some mainsteam journalists these days).

I also freely admit my biases where applicable, and they are apparent from reading the blog anyway.

33. Jeff Strickler on July 27, 2004 1:32 PM writes...

Shaping our experiences by putting words on them, helps keep each of us sane. Many times I just mutter to myself:"oooh - bad smell." The next day's newspaper gives an explanation for the origin of that smell, why it occurred, and who might be responsible. But there are at least 8 blogs out there looking at this odor in ways analytic, aesthetic, global, conspiritorial, political, bombastic, comforting, etc. sharing their insights. Within minutes of an event, it can be commented on, then framing the vigorous on-line discussion which usually follows. Favorite blogs become part of our daily experience, the electronic community - the Web.
The fact that one person can potentially reach a huge audience, with a readership far higher than most newspapers, at minimal cost is the new phenomenon. Added to the proliferation of new digital cameras - it's possible that (given bandwidth enough) blogs will scoop news stories with pictures, by virtue of instant publication. It probably already has. Blogs have already altered the national dialog by keeping issues alive until news-hungry 24-hour media fall over them - giving them larger play.
Unlike any diary or journal, you can respond to a blog. When you do respond, you join the conversation and often find a community of like-minded, opinionated, human beings (that being all you can know from their "handles") - a sort of neighborhood of values.
It's all about sharing of insights, really, and "that's a good thing." Sure, some of it's dung, but like all insights, reflects the speaker best. Nobody seems to be making much money so take it for it's worth to you.
As far as threatening The New York Times, I can tell you I subscribe here in Seattle to the Sunday and daily editions for excellent coverage and writing, from a breadth and perspective I value and can trust. I even prefer the paper edition, folding those large sheets, accidentally coming across stories I wouldn't have thought to look for in the on-line edition.
But blogs have added the dimension of the response. That's new, and we're still learning how to use it to build communities and political movements.

34. Christine Culbertson on July 27, 2004 2:27 PM writes...

I do see your point about the bias of showing a picture of the youngest convention blogger as a subliminal message that all blog writers are young, inexperienced, and naive. I find it interesting, however, that the rest of the writers showcased are highly educated professionals-- a criminal defense lawyer, a journalism professor, and a librarian who more or less prove that those who write blogs are not a bunch of barefoot hot-aired wind bags who make the Unibomber's treatise look like a pamphlet. Kind of defeats the purpose when you back up your argument with people who prove otherwise, doesn’t it?

As for the comments on media bias, those who say it has always been there are correct. In the days before television, when people actually read and (gasp) formed their own opinion about political matters, they all knew which newspaper was published by which ideology. It has only been television who swears they are unbiased, and honestly, how can they be? The station owners have their own beliefs and agendas like everyone else, and like it or not it will show up somehow.

In the age of picking political candidates in a focus grouped, politically correct atmosphere where our options are weighed more on camera appeal than substance, of course the “legitimate’ media is going to be threatened by the emergence of a group who’s reader viewership threatens their own. But look at it this way-- if they are voicing concern over these “diarists” in the mainstream, then we must be doing something right.

35. Christine Culbertson on July 27, 2004 2:28 PM writes...

I do see your point about the bias of showing a picture of the youngest convention blogger as a subliminal message that all blog writers are young, inexperienced, and naive. I find it interesting, however, that the rest of the writers showcased are highly educated professionals-- a criminal defense lawyer, a journalism professor, and a librarian who more or less prove that those who write blogs are not a bunch of barefoot hot-aired wind bags who make the Unibomber's treatise look like a pamphlet. Kind of defeats the purpose when you back up your argument with people who prove otherwise, doesn’t it?

As for the comments on media bias, those who say it has always been there are correct. In the days before television, when people actually read and (gasp) formed their own opinion about political matters, they all knew which newspaper was published by which ideology. It has only been television who swears they are unbiased, and honestly, how can they be? The station owners have their own beliefs and agendas like everyone else, and like it or not it will show up somehow.

In the age of picking political candidates in a focus grouped, politically correct atmosphere where our options are weighed more on camera appeal than substance, of course the “legitimate’ media is going to be threatened by the emergence of a group who’s reader viewership threatens their own. But look at it this way-- if they are voicing concern over these “diarists” in the mainstream arena, then we must be doing something right.

36. moptop on July 27, 2004 2:41 PM writes...

You can 'trust' the NYT for 'depth and breadth' of coverage? Then, as even their own omnbudsman said in Sunday's edition, 'you have been reading the paper with your eyes closed'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html

The NYT will never give you the whole story, but if you are a liberal Democrat, they will give you the comforting cocoon of information carefully filtered to never disturb your biases. The will give you, in their own words, "all the news they see fit to print". After all, who decides what is 'fit to print'? Well they do!

That's what I mean about blogs. You can try to assert the authority of a source, but if you can't back it up, you can't force your assertion to be respected. You are of course free to use self admittedly one-side source as your sole source for news, just don't be surprised if you are constantly trounced in debate by those who are better informed.

37. M. Simon on July 27, 2004 4:10 PM writes...

So the NYT gets blogging wrong.

And this will make what difference?

38. Chuck Olsen on July 27, 2004 4:48 PM writes...

"Let's assume the readers are from a different planet"

That's precisely it - the problem isn't so much the pretense of objectivity, but generality.

I think you're overreacting a bit. Which is fine. :-) You have a good criticism of the headline and picture, but the article itself isn't so bad.

When I blogged the Minnesota state convention this spring, I felt very much like Dave Weinberger described. I had the keys to the car, but wasn't sure where to drive. I got into a small Edwards press conference with the "real" press, but I felt out of place and didn't ask him anything. My girlfriend Lori was a delegate, and I spent most of my time documenting her experience and the utter confusion of being a first-time delegate.

Unless you're already a journalist who happens to blog, I think the first-hand personal accounts - "write what you know" - might be the best approach for bloggers.

39. Pam Stumpf on July 27, 2004 6:01 PM writes...

on demeaning bloggers: thevyt...
and all the comments...

Gosh, I'm just a 'reader' who got fed up with the same old top news stories with little substance and too much shine. Then happen to catch on a little to this 'blogging' thing. So, I'm not much of a writer, don't know that my opinion matters much, and sometimes others' opinions don't matter either. But I enjoy different viewpoints and styles of writing (people). So it's fun. When the writing and comments degenerate to less than my interest I move on. Keep it up folks, it's great! IMHO. (I'm kinda shy too, so it's even kinda scary writing a little comment)

40. Dave on August 7, 2004 5:16 PM writes...

Lots of buzz about nothing