Holy wow, Steve. So ... um ... this is what I miss when I actually work on a Wednesday? O_o

Steve -

I have to admit, when I read your blog, and then his response I thought "ooooooooh, Steve's in trou-ble".

But then I read and re-read his blog and came to the same conclusion you did. He was short-winded and unclear.

I have many geek pubs that I prefer to read on paper. When I get an extensive 'read-me' on patching or upgrades online, I prefer to print them so I can highlight important commands, tag them and keep them close at hand. If what I'm doing takes out my firewall so I can't get to the Internet, having a tech-note online doesn't help me so much.

If you guys are meeting behind the big slide to settle this thing once and for all, let me know - I'll distract the principal.

Rebecca:

So far, no word on any kind of physical confrontation. But Crescenzo Communications is in full training mode, just in case.

Only two margaritas at lunch for me, today. And only one after dinner drink tonight.

That is what passes for full training mode here at Crescenzo Communications.

I'll be ready for the big slide.

Steve

Steve, bravo...nice response to all the craziness of yesterday. I had the same thought as Rebecca...what if you misread the original post? But I too read the original post on his site again and I think your original analysis was correct based on what he wrote.

He comes across in that post sounding like a man with no use for print. If he really has this massive library at home, it is doubly surprising then that he ever wrote the original post! How could he not have referenced his sometime enjoyment of print in some small way? But the fact is, he did not and got upset when your post shed light on that oversight on his part.

Then he had to go small and petty with the pictures of you. Whatever...take your toys and go home I say to him! (I guess I should watch it or I will be next!)

Anyway, I'm a gal who loves the accessibility and speed of the Internet, but give me a good old-fashioned book, newsletter, or magazine any day. I recently bought a large purse/shoulder bag and was delighted to find I could easily carry my favorite magazine and a book with me at all times!

Keep your dukes up and your dignity intact, Steve!

Sonya . . . you don't have any pictures of yourself floating around the internet, do you? If you do, get them off RIGHT NOW. The Coffee is on out there, watching, and looking.

The one good thing to come from that this misunderstanding is that I now know how to put direct links in my blog.

See that link up there in that item? To Allan's blog? I can do that, now.

I feel like a Big Boy Blogger today. Next up: Trackbacks!!!!

Steve C.

Yes, I saw the link and was very proud of you! Way to take a negative and turn it into something positive.

You go blogger!

Glad to see we're on the same page (pun intended) regarding editors and the lack thereof on blogs, Steve. (See my post to yesterday's blog.) I know my writing is always better, more clear and focused after going through my editor's hands.

I'm always aghast when a writer wants to know when the editor will quit editing his or her writing. The answer, of course, is never. As a friend of mine points out, even Hemingway had an editor.

Steve, don't conform for our benefit. You're all about being your own man and we respect you for it.
When I first stumbled across this blogspat (as John Wagner puts it) between you and Allan, I thought you were against trackbacks and linking for some reason.

And that is generally a problem with blogging, I agree: assumption. Assumption that if you find someone posting intelligently that they know about the common blogging tricks/technologies. Assumption that if you read one post on a blog you've read more of the author.

Pressure on blog posting is a personal thing (seeing as very few, if any, get paid by the post or at all for their blogging efforts). What's worse, sending out the wrong message or a late message? In the current climate of the blogosphere both are just as bad so you make a choice or compromise.

Like Rebecca implies, it would have been very hard to read through your post and not see a storm brewing.
The masturbation thing, the pencil thing, bringing perverts into it... all the while discrediting Allan's post.

Either way, I hope you both can resolve this matter. Contrasting points of view is one of the blogosphere's finer assets, but much better discussed when not resorting to personal attacks.

Dan:

Thanks for the insightful post. And you're right . . . I don't want to act the innocent, here. I certainly was being provocative with my post . . . anytime the word pervert comes into play, you're asking for it.

I deserve everything I get/got, funny pictures and captions included.

But this whole trackback thing is completely new to me. I get the sense that not offering them (including them? asking for them? I don't know!) is against protocol . . . the real-world equivalent of sucker punching them in the back of the neck and then running away.

But I had no idea . . .

Steve C.

Trackbacks, schmackbacks.

There's nothing wrong with being a little lo-tech sometimes. One of the things I enjoy about your blog is the lack of choices. I read it, I see the comments, I add my own or just harumph and I move on. (The hyperlink though is good, especially since it allows us to easily rewind to the start of the sticks and stones.)

My point is take it at your own speed, Charlie Brown. Don't let Java Joe pressure you into getting all techno-nerdy if you're not ready.

Kathy . . . want to hear something funny. One of the great folks at Ragan who help me with this blog just e-mailed me. Here was her comment:

"As for the trackbacks, they were on your blog, but they were all porn. So we took them down."

So what the hell am I supposed to do about that?

I'm off the trackbacks. It was out of ignorance, but now it's part of the Crescenzo Communications philosophy.

Steve C.

Wow, you really are in training! Only one after dinner drink?

All of your trackbacks linked to porn? That's FANTASTIC. It must be your constant comparison to masturbation that attracts the web spiders to you. Good times.

At least some good came out of this, you know how to insert hyperlinks in your blog. One step further into geekdom. Well done.

Steve:

With all due respect -- because I love your blog and enjoy your take on corporate communication -- the problem here was not so much Allan's comment about print (generic rant), but your response, which was directed AT someone (him).

Nor is just a blog issue. It could just have easily been an e-mail issue or a bulletin board issue or what have you.

Bottom line: You could have written something like "here's a guy who doesn't read printed materials but I do and here's why" and left it at that.

Why do I care? Because you guys are both well-respected communicators and you probably have more in common than you realize ... that is, the desire to move our profession forward.

John:

Your post made me go back and look at it all again . . . and I have to say, you're right. I did make it personal.

I didn't mean to. But I did. I should have kept it at the level of print vs. online, or whether print was dying, or whatever.

My bad. Alan then went and made it even MORE personal . . . but I did fire the first shot.

I just hope some of the good discussion that came out of it isn't lost in all the snipping that also went on. I think we brought out some good things.

Steve C.

Well, this certainly has been fun watching the hue and cry over Allan's perceived attack on the status quo.

It's reminiscent of the extreme angst that greeted me, Shel, Charles, Shinbach, Rudnick, (remember the "Techno-Mafia" label you hung on us?) circa 1995 when we had the audacity to suggest that online information and communications would dramatically change professional communicator's roles and require new skills, mindsets and viewpoints.

I can still see the several hundred IABC members at the '95 conference storming out of Jeff Hallett's presentation on the emerging impact of computer-mediated information and communication in a fury that his remarks were a total waste of their time and had no relevance to their careers.

BTW, although I didn't know Allan was such a bookworm I understood exactly the point he was trying to make, albeit crypticly delivered. I think it was a bit of a stretch to cast his remarks akin to advocating book burning, but then provoking controversy doesn't hurt in generating traffic does it?

Ah, Craig . . . the days of the Technology Mafia . . . remember those? You guys barnstorming around the country trying to get people to understand the difference between e-mail and a listserve, and Compuserve and the Internet.

You know what . . . as I've been sitting here giving this thing one last thought, I finally figured out what Allan was up to.

He wasn't trying to bash print. He was trying, in a roundabout way, to bash Communication World.

But the way he did it sort of dragged all of print down with it.

Now that I have it straight in my head, I can move on to more important things.

Steve

Steve:

If your trackback links were all porn, are you SURE you don't know how to do them? This sounds like a really big coincidence.

The sniping that went on it part of the disassociation factor of the internet. I'm sure if you and Allan were in the same room, you'd act differently. But put folks in front of a keyboard and there's something a bit dehumanizing about it. I've seen the nicest people in the workplace fire off snarky email they immediately regret. It's awfully easy to forget that there's a living, breathing, feeling person at the receipt address of that email and they're going to react (perhaps angrily) to what you just typed.

Take it with a grain of salt. It did make for some good drama yesterday. Maybe ya'll could go on celebrity boxing together?

YEAH!

I think Steve could whip Danny Bonaduce's ass! Now Tonya Harding might be another story....

>>Ah, Craig . . . the days of the Technology Mafia . . . remember those?<<

If you want a nostalgic trip down memory lane, check out the below which recalls some poignant events of the PRSIG, the precursor of all online PR & Communcations.

http://collaborativepr.editme.com/prsigreunionoverview

Troublemaker. :)

Steve - This came up in your Employee Comms Master Class where we talked about balance. You are spot on spot on spot on. Way to go for bringing this thorny issue up. Maybe we should all enlist the aid of a second set of eyes before hitting the "post" button.

And where would that second pair of eyes be found, "ABG"? And, if it is not to be found, should the finger stay off the "post" button?

You apparently think editors and editorial boards count for something -- but if that's true, tabloids are ipso facto superior to blogs. We know that ain't true!

So who edits Desirable Roasted Coffee? Well, I try to. And many of the hundreds of readers who read DRC each day let fly with their comments -- good and bad. Many more send private comments.

It's not perfect, but I get edited pretty heavily.

Since blog readers vote with their feet, every day, I'm pleased to see my circulation figures increasing every month. My virtual editorial board does a pretty good job.

If you would like to track the influence of PR blogs, you can stop by PubSub's list:

http://www.pubsub.com/lists/pr.php

You might find some PR thinkers who aren't Luddites.

Allan, I dont know if I agree with your logic here. When the "many hundreds of readers...let fly with their comments" - well, that's not pre-publish editing, that's post publishing critique. Even if it influences what and how you write going forward, it's still not editing...and it would affect your credibility as an independent voice to boot.

That your circulation figures go up every month is a fine accomplishment to be sure, but again is not indicative of quality or worth - I would refer to those very, very popular tabloids you mention in your note.

-Neruda

You know, I volunteer to buy you a drink, Alan. Because you could CLEARLY use one. (I will send you my phone number so you can take me up on it.)

I am not a fan of ed boards and Pollyanna journalism. I am NOT a propagandist or apologist for the regime. I am hardly recommending a scheme of prior restraint.

That being said, I do have second sets of eyes -- folks I trust to read my stuff (in addition to the dreaded and leaden ed board) before I go to press. They are not hard to find. Sometimes, I completely disagree with them. Other times, they bring up good points.

Post away however you choose, although I wish you would get some review before posting a sentence like, "You might find some PR thinkers who aren't Luddites." I never suggested anything of the kind. - Amy