Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["j. alfred prufrock" <ifoufo AT yahoo.com>]

Steven Champeon wrote:
> It's pathetic. O'Reilly should boycott Amazon. But it seems as though
> Tim is showing a blind eye to some of Amazon's worst abuses, due to
> some deft maneuvering by Bezos.

ditto.

if that "interview" was a balanced presentation, then i'm chopped liver.

if it's ranting to go on about a boycott, then rant on. the cluetrain
reference was apt. i don't think tim's influence was used in the
interview to any great effect except to demonstrate once again that the
conversation of the market is a bunch of mealy-mouthed bs when
vocalized. satan can get behind me; i choose not to converse with that
kind of new age crap. when people start talking about the in terms of
'logic of the marketplace', you know you are in for a very big snow job.

the conversation of the marketplace is spoken in dollars. your dollars
speak just as loudly, if not more so, when they stay in your pocket.
boycotts are our most effective rhetorical device in such a
conversation. we can accept flimsy excuses from bezos until the cows
come home, but there will be no effect in that.

not only did bezos play the little thug vs big thug non sequitor, he
claims -leaving out- the shopping cart confirmation step is the proper
"reframing" for viewing his patent as an innovation, clearly showing
that he's patented vapor.

apparently, npr fell for the bezos line this morning. their piece spoke
favorably of the patent as necessary to protect amazon from the
predatory barnes and noble, who had copied amazon's site byte for byte.

people will fall for anything in the name of discourse and dialogue.

as for little thugs, the little thug within will rant right on by not
purchasing anything, much less everything, from amazon.com.

chris calloway