onocoffee wrote:[snip] because of a certain post on said blog that was critical of a previous barista competition. Any truth to these discussions?[snip]
Aldo1 wrote:I know at one point Rich was sitting out in the convention center cafe area watching the competition and chatting rather than having to sit still and be quiet inside of the competition area. (a tough task for him).
Rich Westerfield wrote:I gotta say, while the live feed was great, the chat room was brilliant. Even when there were feed glitches, we could entertain ourselves quite nicely.
nick wrote:I resent the insinuation of "strictly insider perspective," Jay.
nick wrote:Jay, you yourself are free to provide or facilitate as "critical" or "third-party viewpoint" as you wish.
nick wrote:Apparently there wasn't sufficient muckraking for your tastes. That wasn't the point of the blog. However, the blog team was trying to be as fair as they could.
nick wrote:Thanks Jay, for taking something that I and others saw as a great step in the right direction, and shitting on it. I guess this is what you believe is "what this community needs."
nick wrote:I had preliminary discussions with Ben Szobody about joining the blog team. When the list of people was finalized, the fact that certain SCAA member(s) were angered by Ben's certain specific blog post(s) came up, and to try to minimize controversy about the blog project, we didn't include him on the final list.
nick wrote:Ben was understanding.
Aldo1 wrote:fwiw, I didn't read jay's post as critical of the successes of the effort.
bz wrote:of course, i got a lot of private support from industry/competition people for my previous criticism and stand by what i said then. it was easily a majority view.
bz wrote:what "insiders" need to ask is what they want coverage to look like. who should be on the team? who should do color commentary in the future? should there be an independent, journalistic perspective in your trade pubs, or not? and what are you going to DO with all of us fanboys out there, blabbing like we do?
Erin Meister wrote:...even as an "actual journalist." Does that mean I'm just some robot with a press pass that isn't capable of absorbing the event and being critical of it when and where it's appropriate? Hopefully the answer to that will be apparent once I write my individual account on my personal blog.
Peter G wrote:As for Ben, his TMZ-style rapidfire snark may have not worked in this context. The bloggers seemed to be celebrating and exploring the event, and Ben's trademark conspiracy theories, open -ended speculation, and direct criticism might have added an unpleasant dimension to the coverage. At the end of the day, it's a matter of style, and the SCAA owns the blog, so they get to decide who to invite to do it.
Peter G wrote:No controversy here, try again Jay. You'll find some shit to stir up somewhere, I wager!
bz wrote:.....jay is correct when he realizes the distinction between private blogging and my professional life -- mostly politics and investigative writing in buttoned down, tenuous political environments. you might say, "that's the opposite of how you blog." exactly. the coffee blog has always been a release, a way to gleefully WRITE BADLY. as many big words and obscure references as i want. knee-jerk reactionism, snark and poor jokes.....[/size]
onocoffee wrote:Whew - ask a simple question, go back to working the bar for a day and this is the resulting discussion???
onocoffee wrote:Resent it all you want, I didn't "insinuate" anything.
onocoffee wrote:Since I was a competitor...
onocoffee wrote:I recognize that fact.
onocoffee wrote:I'm finding
onocoffee wrote:I posed
onocoffee wrote:Don't worry Peter, we're talking about the SCAA - there's always going to be controversy. I guarantee it.
Robert Goble wrote:...the bz "character" is a powerfully destructive writing form...
nick wrote:B.S. The insinuation was that the blog was lacking because it didn't include what YOU, after the fact, decided what it lacks.
nick wrote:Here we go again with the, "I hereby absolve myself because I was too busy" defense.
nick wrote:You don't want facts. You want fiction.
nick wrote:No. Muckraking. Rack up your own "mucks" if it suits you.
nick wrote:You are? Where?
nick wrote:And you looked lovely holding that beer.
nick wrote:Yes, really.
nick wrote:What do you mean "about?" You're the one who brought this up, Jay!
nick wrote:Now you just sound like Zachary.
nick wrote:Enough with this.
nick wrote:Use it every day.
nick wrote:You sure do guarantee it Jay.
onocoffee wrote:The bottom line is that some people had mentioned that Szobody was asked and then removed from the panel. I'm asking here if that was true. It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer and not some big hoopla as you're trying to make it out to be.
Mark Prince wrote:not the least of which are Jon and Matt, who, IMO, should be given honourary "scaa blogger" titles for really making the chat room awesome.
Matt Riddle wrote:If that's the case, why didn't you just call Nick and ask him, avoiding the possibility of "hoopla"?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests