You seem to have missed the point of the article and instead fixated on the "azine" part. Unfortunate.

How is that unfortunate? Do you really think that I'd be poised to launch the next Earth-shattering blogazine, if only I understood the subtle point of this article? Or were you just trying to be clever, without demonstrating any insight of your own?

> How is that unfortunate?

Because your comments may dissuade people from reading the article who may otherwise enjoy it.

> Do you really think that I'd be poised to launch the next Earth-shattering blogazine, if only I understood the subtle point of this article?

No.

> Or were you just trying to be clever, without demonstrating any insight of your own?

No.

My initial comment was only intended to remind people that it was in fact a blogazine that was declaring the death of blogs and the rise of blogazines. I don't mean to dissuade anyone from actually reading the article for themselves, we just need to be aware of whose opinions we're listening to.

If you're going to criticize someone for "missing the point" you should at a minimum explain what it is they don't get, that way you demonstrate that it is not you who has missed the point

smashingmagazine.com is NOT a "blogazine" as defined by the article. This one post is the exception.

So smashingmagazine.com, the blog/magazine, is not a "blogazine" as defined by...them? Thanks for your insight.

Correct.