News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:TechCrunch50: $3.5 million x Disingenuous by maxklein on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @05:15AM (#280229)
Is Duncan Riley bitter about something? Say what you may, Riley did put out a few articles in his techcrunch days that were not that great. And the name of his techcrunch clone kind of sucks.

I'm no fan of either of them, but I don't think it's appropriate to publicly write a bunch of weak arguments against someone trying to make money by selling a service that people obviously think is useful.

Re:TechCrunch50: $3.5 million x Disingenuous by ojbyrne on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @07:16AM (#280271)
I think its "appropriate" to say whatever the hell you want on your own blog. And I think that Michael Arrington has put out more than a few articles that were "not that great."
Re:TechCrunch50: $3.5 million x Disingenuous by maxklein on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @07:35AM (#280283)
Duncan Riley is the Jon Katz of the second Bubble.
Re:TechCrunch50: $3.5 million x Disingenuous by ojbyrne on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @08:08AM (#280297)
I'm laughing at the fact that I understand your analogy, but I don't think its true. In my opinion, the punditocracy could use a little bile aimed its way, because it's fat, insiderish, and generally has become what it sought to overthrow. Jon Katz had no bile - he was more of a Steve Gillmor, did too much drugs, irrelevant hippie type.

Of course, I (mostly) love valleywag, too.

Re:TechCrunch50: $3.5 million x Disingenuous by maxklein on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @08:45AM (#280314)
I'm glad you understand. I was afraid that I was the only one left from those good old days.