1 response so far ↓

• 1 Steve Griffiths // Jun 29, 2007 at 11:40 am

  Possibly not related (can't watch the video at work :) ), but I came across Duncan Riley's blasting of the APC mag today, and posted a nice little follow-up.
  I guess my only problem with bloggers (I'm not one - yet) as a generalization is that a large proportion feel that they need to flame other bloggers or have other targets to have something worthwhile to blog about. Duncan's early June post is a classic example, where he appeared to have nothing interesting to write about, so whipped up a short entry about his perception on what he believes were shortcomings of the mag and it's staff (whilst incriminating himself on his seeming issue with English…).
  If he didn't like the mag or it's content, fine, buy something else. If he believes he's been offended by someone, let him take it up with them, great. But I didn't feel he was actually that insightful on his topic of choice, or in fact quoting the facts. This may be considered okay in terms of etiquette, I'm not sure, but I have to say I felt like I wasted a few minutes of my life reading a worthless dialogue, which is not what I wanted to see.
  Is this really what blogging should be all about? Are there any "rules" on what to blog about? Possibly not, but I have to argue the case for content worthwhile reading, of being at least a little informative (preferably factually), and maybe just little subjective.
  Sorry, rant done. Cheers.

Leave a Comment