You know those hats that hold four beer cans, with tubing running into a drunk's mouth? That's me with a barrel of brandy tied to my neck. Funny, perhaps, but certainly not cute.

Wealth Bondage called me on letting my readers affect me just the other day. I deserved it.

http://www.wealthbondage.com/2002/10/17.html#a731

Phil, I have never seen one of those hats, but now have a strong wish to see a photo of you in one...

Dorothea, thanks for pointing that out! I missed it and shame on me because that was an excellent post. "Unless you feel "relationship strain" when you write, you are always already a Hack". Must update my post to include.

You are right Shelley - what you write is none of my business and you should not be affected by the approval or disapproval of your readers. My comment was made more out of concern than disapproval. So much of the web is full of people bickering and opinionating - I guess I just got spooked when someone I respect appeared to be doing the same.

I understand Euan, and I'm glad you said what you did. It forced me into looking at myself, as a writer more closely. And that's a goodness.

And thanks for your comment on 'respect' -- as long as you keep your eyes firmly on my feet of clay, I'll try not to bicker too much. But opinionate, now...

I would never challenge your right to say whatever you want on your weblog, but I would suggest that trying to change Dave Winer's viewpoint, particularly publicly, is probably a waste of time, Shelley.

Most of choose to our own windmills to attack, and the only real question is how we choose to expend our energy.

As one of your "synchophants," I thought about offering some encouragement, but instead I chose to complement your piece on the deers because I personally thought it a better expenditure of energy. I suspect Euan would think so, too, though I hestitate to speak for anyone but myself.

You are so right, Loren, and I thank you deeply for that comment. There's that "I wrote something unusual and beautiful, and no one is saying anything" reaction at times. I am learning to take personal satisfaction from these works; learning to be tranquil about reaction, or lack thereof. (And boy, that ain't easy.)

The posting with Dave actually has a long complex story behind it, which I won't go into. Let's say, I had to do it. And now it's done. There is much of what Dorothea said in that posting.

I especially want to do more with Babble Meadow (and this has nothing to do with the popularity). I know the original one was related to programming languages, but the concept behind it just grabbed me by the throat and choked me. "I am you" it said as it threw me to the ground, stomping on my head, squeezing my heart and my lungs until I had a choice: a heart beat or a breath, but not both.

See what I mean?

Beware, Bb - looks like Babble Meadow might become your own equivalent of Chris' 'RageBoy' alter-ego...

Not that I'd complain, of course... :-} :-}

Best wishes - and many thanks for _all_ your writing!

The posting with Dave actually has a long complex story behind it, which I won't go into.

This is absolute nonsense. Shelley you are a journalist who covers technology that my company is involved in. If there's some complex story here, you'd better disclose it or stop covering my company.

Interesting post from Dave, particularly in the context of the multi-blog threads regarding bloggers-as-journalists and compensation-for-blogging. I would agree that Shelley is a journalist, and I would agree that she sometimes covers Dave's company's efforts... but how much of that writing is personal journalizing via blog posting? Everybody is entitled to an opinion, even journalists, although there seems to be some freaky injunction against "real" journalists so much as registering as members of a political party in order to maintain the impression (illusion?) of objectivity.

Anyway, it sounds from Dave's comment like he expects as some kind of commercial entitlement that a blogger (Shelley) will elaborate her experiences and opinions on demand... which might be a legitimate expectation if someone (Dave, or a third party) was paying someone (Shelley) for her work as it relates to Userland products and services.

Otherwise it would seem that Shelley simply has the same responsibility that we all do to tell the truth (or to refrain from further comment) as she understands it in her own time and space. And Dave has rights too, but these rights don't include blog-posts on demand. Do they? (WHere can I get one of those hats? I'll swap you a cheesehead hat for it.)

Jeeezz, that Dave Whiner, oops, "Winer," guy is hard to ignore, isn't he?

Not too surprising that he doesn't have comments on his site, huh?

Tom, it's good to see you around again. You've been away awhile. Frank, you too. Sounds like you have the makings of a dandy posting from your comment.

As for the whole journalism thing, I'm a writer, not a journalist. Speaking of which, Loren, I have a magical story that you're just going to love. I think Dorothea will like it, too.

Promise to post in next couple of days.

Wow, I was mentioned by name. /applaud self
By the way, just call me Trick. The whole "lord" thing was stuck on there because my name is usually taken. Softcore fantasy buff I am.

Shelley, the words you write make sense. If that's not a reason for support, I don't know what is. It's rare enough to find that on this great big creation we call the internet.

Dave, chill bro. You give the impression of someone in desperate search of conflict. I can understand the enjoyment of matching your will and logic and all that with another, but stirring it up intentionally is not "friendly".

Laters everyone.

Odd twist to things, isn't it Dave.

Everybody wears different hats at different times in different venues. Just like everyone runs their weblogs as they personally decide to.

Is Shelley a journalist? Definitely! Um, sometimes she is, that is. WHen she gets _paid_ to write a review of a product you produce (usually published in one form of media or another by a third party) she is _not_ a writer but a journalist. And she most definitely has a responsibility to declare any pertinent background or bias to her readers.

But here - just like a JOURNALIST writing an EDITORIAL for a newspaper that is published on the editorial page - she has no such responsibilities. And she most definiely is NOT wearing the hat of a journalist.

It all comes down to the implied expectations of the reader, sir.

Dave, you posted many, many times in your weblog about this new style of 'reporting'. You rightly celebrated it! Certainly you understand this new flavor of media (it really is not a new 'form' of media so I'm trying to indicate that in my choice of words).

You have the right to manage your weblog any way you choose. Down to now allowing public comments on your posts. Shelley has the right to manage her's just the same. Down to trying to communicate her opinions in a posting.

You also have no responsibility whatsoever to allow public comment on your weblog. Just like she has no responsibility whatsoever to give background to why she posts what she does.