Saturday, February 21, 2004

Telegraph: "Dr Dean told his aides that Sen Edwards would be 'the stronger candidate' to beat President Bush." 

Rick has a big story, but it's gone unnoticed by other blogs (not here) and he's been exchanging email with a reporter from the NY Times, so it's likely to break there. Let's make sure he gets credit.  

Jon Udell: "Steve Gillmor told me that he's feeling overwhelmed by thousands of unread items in NetNewsWire." 

The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau is syndicating their publications; via LibraryStuff. 

Keeping the meme of editing your friends' pictures, Don Hopkins revised the Dutch Masters pic with a new gesture from me and Marc Canter. 

Rogers Cadenhead: "A good weblog is a conversation among friends that you can't tear yourself away from." 

NY Times: In Politics, the Web Is a Parallel World With Its Own Rules. 

Julie Leung: How I got a geek boyfriend. 

What's the scoop on microphones for PCs?  

Adam Gaffin rounds up reviews of the new Yahoo search. 

Dowbrigade yearns to blog the conventions. Me too. Should we have a session on blogging the conventions on April 10? I think so. I've asked Sanford Dickert from the Kerry campaign to come to the conference. He should be able to help, as should our new friends at Shorenstein. 

Mike Walsh's report on the KSG talk we attended on Thursday. 

In San Francisco, a judge has ruled that gay marriages may continue.  

Chris doesn't like the picture on Scripting 

I guess Chris Gulker is a great photo editor and I'm not. But Chris's criticism of the banner photo is based on some missing and incorrect data.

1. That was the only picture I have of that meeting. I have no idea how I got it, I just tripped across it in the archive and thought it was interesting and still do.

2. I don't think of those people as alpha males. Where did you get the idea that I do??

3. It's the flaws that make it interesting. That's why I like to read weblogs. They're genuine. I don't look like an actor, I wasn't posed for the shot, that's me as I probably look 99 percent of the time. If you don't like it, then you probably don't like me.

4. Okay you may be a better photo editor than I am. So what? Does that mean I shouldn't play, explore, experiment, learn, have fun? Just because you're better than I am? That's 20th Century thinking. This is the century of amateur journalism, Garage Band, digital cameras, etc etc.

5. I also like it because it makes Bucks look like an Old Master painting, and makes it look like we're engaged in deep interesting thought. But if you knew what was being discussed and how it turned out, you might think it's a bit ironic.

6. It wasn't a "publicity picture" -- it was just a picture. Like this.

See there's all that depth there that you didn't see. That's why it's art. You obviously felt a need to be critical, and that's okay. But given what you know now, what would you change about your critique?

BTW, I'm also a writer in addition to the things you list.