Desperate Hummerdrivers

Check out Amanda Congdon’s Emmy-award-winner today as the desperate housewife of the energy crisis.

  • Charles Smith
  • Charles Smith
  • Korutenshi

    Sexy desperate housewife talking about hummers…it’s too much for my feeble male mind.

  • Jeff,

    Come on man. Tell us what you really think!

    Desparate HummerDrivers: 3 comments
    Lotta Water Under that Bridge: 6 comments
    Bye-bye Now: 22 comments
    Recovery 2.0: 3 comments
    The 4th 11th: 8 comments
    Sell out: 15 comments
    White eKnight: 14 comments
    Recovery 2.0 – A date to meet: (yawn, 3 comments)

    Total comments for last 8 posts: 74 comments

    Stop The Cover-Up Now: 146 comments (and counting)

    You should be paying me a commission for all those hits.

    It’s about the CONVERSATION man. THIMK.

  • Update:

    Stop the Cover-Up Now: 178 comments (and counting)

    My Record (here): Mourning … 211 comments

  • And half of them are from you talking to yourself.

  • Okay Jeff,

    I won’t comment any more on your site. There are plenty of competitors who appreciate the number of comments that my conversations with fellow readers generate (I understand they call this phenomenon “traffic.”)

    You don’t seem to get that a blog is a conversation. You want to denigrate the very people who participate the most in your conversation.

    Good luck with your echo chamber.

    I’m certain your advertisers will thank you.

  • My, my, righto, can dish, can’t take.

  • Jeff,

    With all due respect, this isn’t about whether one can “dish” or “take.”

    It’s about someone who claims to understand, and profit off, and sell his expertise, his knowledge of the “new media.”

    When someone comes along and increases your traffic 100-fold on a given post, you denigrate that person as having hijacked the thread. You say that the new media is “all about the conversation” but you never seem to engage in the converation that your readers are having, except to make snipey, childish comments about them.

    When readers point out errors in your “facts” you frequently ignore them. Unless, as with your 9/11 Commission post, even casual readers sitting at home in their pajamas catch you.

    Who is your ombudsman? You sir, ARE the mainstream media, but you are frequently as unaccountable as the New York Times.

    For example, one of your posts contains this sentencnce, which you put forward as a fact: “FEMA also tried to order that the press not take pictures of bodies.”

    You know full well that did not occur. You cannot point to a single source for this alleged fact. But you refuse to retract it.

    The entire basis of that post is bogus.

    So, snipe if you will about who can “dish” and who can “take.”

    I’ll gladly take the traffic I bring to your site elsewhere as the quality here has diminished in direct proportion to the number of appearances you make on CNN.

  • Right0:
    Lighten up, man. You tweak me and I can’t tweak you? You try to tell me what I should and shlouldn’t be writing about? This is my blog. You want to rule a world, then by all means get your own blog! And, yes, I do hear from people who object when a few people take over a thread. I do not enter into the discussion in comments much because I’ve had my say and it’s an opportunity for others to say what they like. But people complain to me when they feel they can’t get a word in edgewise.
    I’m serious: get a blog and link to it!

  • Jeff,

    Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns.

    One click, and you would know that I already have a blog. (Wow!)

    It’s linked on every comment.

    I have no readers. (Really, you were about to point that out, right, so as to create a connection between the content I produce and the number of readers I have.)

    Six to eight blogs dominate the bulk of the traffic on the internet. They’ve become the power-brokers and profiteers of the “new media.” They use this fame to do what you’ve done: get jobs in the MSM, appear on CNN, sell consulting about “new media.”

    A few links from Instapundit, or Michelle, or Powerline, is what is required to get the number of readers that would impress you. You are the gatekeepers, the “new editors” of the “new media,” not much different from the New York Times editors who decide whose letter gets published on Sunday.

    Except you’re accountable to nobody when you have your facts 180-degrees out of line with realityOnly you decide whether bogus facts get corrected (I noticed that you conveniently haven’t responded, twice, to my assertion that you have your facts wrong on FEMA “ordering” the press not to photograph bodies.

    You have no ombudsmen, no readers representatives. Only readers in pajamas who can fact-check you just as easily as you fact-check others.

    I don’t blog for a living. I’m not trying to sell anyone anything. I blog because I like to write and I write for a very tiny audience of people who discover my blog.

    I enjoy also the “conversation.” The people who complained to you that they “can’t get a word in edgewise” are only complaining because I suspect, they want to control the message. I participate in the conversation. They have all the space that your servers can handle to “get a word in edgewise.” There is no editor preventing them from speaking, no end-of-roll newsprint to run out of, no break to commercial.

    They are complaining, of course, because they want you to shut me off.

    And you helped them succeed.

    You’ve helped them stifle the conversation; to the detriment of the conversation, your traffic and thus, the quality of your blog.


    You won.

  • Eileen

    Please stick around, RightNumberOne. You’ve made a lot of intelligent contributions to the conversations around here, and I’d like to hear more.

    And JJ, a few times in the last two weeks you’ve chastised your conservative commenters. Usually you’re pretty good about letting everyone have their say. As RN1 says, nobody that I know of is unable to get a word in edgewise. All they have to do is type and hit the submit button.

    Meanwhile, congratulations on your new endeavors.

  • What happened to Rocketboom? When I pull it up, I just get an error message.

  • Eileen,

    Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately, after this final post, I doubt Jeff Jarvis will ever let me comment on his site again. It’s just the kind of guy I think he is.

    In the comments to Jeff’s post entitled “The Scandal of Katrina,” I warned Mr. Jarvis that the story of an elderly nursing home resident making frantic phone calls over 5 days before being left to drown just didn’t ring true.

    He was passing the story off as an indictment, a “scandal” and later accussed the federal government of a “cover up.”

    Jeff responded to my words of warning by denigrating me as some sort of comment troll, accusing me of hijacking his threads.

    I direct your attention to this story on MSNBC today:

    Other, more responsible bloggers, picked up Jeff’s slack.

    Aarron Broussard made up the entire affair. Jeff fell for it hook, line and sinker. He, I believed, let his emotions cloud his editorial judgement; a sin many in the mainstream media are guilty of these days.

    I’ve posted my final comment to that thread encouraging Jeff to revisit that post.

    I doubt seriously that he will. He appears to have made up his mind that Michael Brown is the man to be blamed. And President Bush. So, I take him to task for it here to set the record straight:

    Eileen, again, thanks for your kind words. I’m glad someone thought I was offering valuable commentary.