Re: An example

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Dave Winer (
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 10:47:43 PDT

So now, do you want to know what I really think instead of your fantasy of
what I think?

First, the post to the decentralization list was part of a discussion about
big companies fucking little ones.

If you don't get that, you can never understand the statement.

And if you think big companies don't fuck little ones, wait a few years,
you'll learn about that. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Now if you ask me what I really think about Dan and the other non-O'Reilly
authors, and even the O'Reilly author, I don't think you thought about it
very much. I read Rael's article and it has the "proposal" word all over it.
I think Rael was probably trying, best as he could, to play fair. I listened
to the radio show and I heard others who are much more sophisticated in the
back-stabbing method of software development than you or I are. What was all
that business about the blink tag and the browser wars? What the hell does
that have to do with RSS?

In other words, there's a mixture of cynicism and naivete, and some good
engineering and design, but it doesn't happen to be the engineering and
design that I think should have the RSS name on it.

That's what I really think, and I know it may well be fantasy, and something
else that's important, it doesn't matter. The circumstances speak pretty
well for themselves. There *was* a marketing campaign. There were varying
degrees of fairness. Mostly it was unfair to the readers and developers who
don't agree with your direction. Did O'Reilly use its market power to force
its decision? Clearly they did.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <>
To: "Dave Winer" <>
Cc: "FoRK" <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: An example

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
> > >>sinister puppetmasters at O'Reilly about all that.
> >
> > Dan, this is a serious issue for me, and I wish you wouldn't treat it
> > sarcasm.
> Maybe you didn't notice, but your various claims w.r.t. O'Reilly
> and the RSS 1.0 proposal pretty much imply that the 9 out of 10
> non-O'Reilly authors of are either
> actively part of this alleged campaign against you, or have
> somehow been tricked into it without realising. ("Doh! how could I have
> been so blind? RSS 1.0p wasn't about an extensible site summary
> data format for the 21st century, it was about hounding Dave
> Winer". C'mon now... really... is that what you think...?)
> d

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 10:57:17 PDT