Back in April, Hynes described Strumpette as "noise" and "a celebration of all that holds our industry back from truly becoming trusted advisors to the leaders of industry". I didn't say anything then but I'll say it now, "Fuck you, Aedhmar." Excuse me but, if anything holds us "back from truly becoming trusted advisors" it's you and a few other "leaders" in PR today and where you've taken us. We were trusted; and now we're not.

As to "noise"... let's compare notes. You wanna dance Aedhmar?! You wanna piece of me?! Bring it on sister!!

Okay okay... that was pure trash talk and a little personal. But she started that, too! Here, perhaps it would be best to step back and calmly tell you the whole story from the beginning.

For those of you not in PR, 'Aedhmar' Hynes is the CEO of Text 100 International, which according to their website, is the fourth largest tech PR firm in the world. Aedhmar oversees revenues of approximately $60 million, along with a staff of 475 in 28 offices throughout North America, Asia and Europe. She is, they are, BIG, as far as PR firms go. Anyway... to be "in" with the tech "in crowd," last February Aedhmar decided to join the "conversation" with her blog, Monday Morning.

Well, that kind of bio will surely trigger blips on my radar. Give me a BIG celebrity in PR... and I will give you a better than even chance of finding a well-groomed self-important empty suit (skirt in this case). Keep in mind, PR builds façades by trade. Granted albeit odd, aluminum siding is certainly a talent... but not one of any substance regrettably. There's typically not a lot of there there. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The irony is that the facade is essentially a cover, a lie.

Anyway, our scrap started pretty innocuously actually. I offered an objective critique of Aedhmar's writing. Note: it wasn't personal. On June 3, I posted a comment to an article she posted titled "The Tide is Turning."

Aedhmar,

FYI: I just ran your piece here through Bullfighter, a writing analysis tool. Diagnosis: "It's teetering on the edge of unclear. The overall meaning remains discernible, but it becomes possible to lose oneself in corollary thoughts, which may be worth exploration, but which can also detract from the core point of the written article."

Regards,

- Amanda Chapel

PS Started to read further down the page. This sentence is a keeper. What a doozie:

"With the help of a digital immigrant and a native, John Seely Brown and Aaron Uhrmacher, the thrust of our argument was that there is a very real danger that the change in communications we are currently witnessing is misunderstood as merely a manifestation of the proliferation of progressive technology or new forms of communications such as blogging and citizen journalism, when in actuality we're witnessing a profound shift in social behavior enabled by more sophisticated technology and driven by digital natives who are growing up in a world different to our own (those digital immigrants among us!)."

Diagnosis: "You overwhelmingly embrace obfuscation and don't want the reader to understand anything you have to say. Your writing lavishes a preponderance of dependent clauses and compound negatives upon the reader, whose cognitive load not infrequently exceeds the purported benefit of the substance of the article. Syntax incorporates numerous collections of items juxtaposed or in series that demand persistence and not a little unqualified expertise on the part of all intended recipients of the author's communications. In fact, such machinations inevitably prove detrimental to comprehension and sabotage the imparting of any and all knowledge. Your condition is irreversible."

And Aedhmar responded:

'Amanda', you have a point here and your comment first made me laugh about myself. Without doubt I certainly could have been clearer in some cases, but then this is a blog and not a corporate earnings statement. It seems justifiable to me that I sometimes think out loud without going through a lengthy editing process which might polish up the prose but would probably lose the authenticity of my thoughts. That said, I will strive for more clarity in the interest of my readers even though most of them seem to get it so far.

But then 'Aedhmar' goes on the defensive and actually takes a leap of logic right out the window:

The one problem I do have with your comment is that you connect a valid observation with an unnecessary offence by saying that I would obfuscate intentionally so that my readers don't understand what I have to say. In truth it is you who is obfuscating intentionally by not revealing who you are. And it seems that hiding your identity gives you the right to offend others. You claim that you hold up the mirror to the PR industry. I disagree. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Your many good observations are diluted by the offensive nature in which you deliver them. As a result people just end up feeling offended and so it's not surprising that they don't want you in their community. For my part - I thank you for reading my blog and appreciate the critique where it was constructive. But I will also add that I have no intention of responding to any further comments unless you say who you are and you comment rather than offend.

And my response to her set the record straight:

Criticism is always taken as offensive by those being criticized. That's human nature.

With regard to my comment, no offense was inferred or implied. Both the "diagnosis" and the word "obfuscation" were totally generated by the software. I only quoted.

With regard to your writing, whether a blog or a corporate earnings statement, if your aim is to communicate and you expect to be understood, clear writing is essential. You know that Aedhmar. Some of the best writers in the English language have been Irish for Christ's sake.

Lastly, as to my identity, I am Amanda Chapel. The context of that is not in some bogus crafted PR credentials. The context of that is in my words exclusively; as it should be.

Kind regards,

- Amanda

On then on June 19, to another post titled "Technology Futures," I commented:

Aedhmar,

"It's important that we consider our role as consultants in effectively communicating the implications of these changes and its probably time we got involved in the debate."?

First off, if your writing is any indication, we are in serious trouble. :) As in your last post, I again ran this through a writing analysis application and the diagnosis was/is: "You like to hear yourself write. Despairing of the thought of bringing a sentence to a close with something as demeaningly ordinary as a simple period, you shower readers with gratuitous, interminable and often weighty if not impossibly labyrinthine prose. Meaning lingers, albeit awash in a thick tide of metaphor and exposition that threatens to drown the writer's message. Seek help."

Excuse me but: What do you really think and what are you trying to say, Sparky?

Actually, I am being purely rhetorical there. Frankly, I am a little put off by PR people with opinions on just about anything other than PR. Not to be too condescending but... what do you know really?

Kind regards,

- Amanda Chapel

To which Aedhmar replied:

Amanda, you chose not to comply with the rules of engagement I set in an earlier comment. As a result, this will mark the end of our conversation. I also won't allow you to make any further comments on this blog. You like to see yourself as the advocate of words, but the way YOU use words disqualifies you from an open dialogue. Your provocations on my blog are only minor examples of your vicious game. You have also attacked other respected individuals even though your attacks were baseless. I won't let something like that happen here. I am not the first to ban you from the dialogue, and I certainly won't be the last.

RULED A KNOCKOUT IN THE SECOND ROUND!

No, not me. It's Aedhmar who's lost the bout. She quit. She was knocked down twice and threw in the towel.

See... the "conversation" is messy by nature. It is a catfight. There are no rules, per se. As such, good communicators know two things 1) people aren't always going to just agree with you; and 2) the ONLY way to survive is to reach out to incorporate the criticism and build consensus with the critic. No more, no less.

But unfortunately, Aedhmar and the majority of PR blogger elite are only capable of fostering agreement. That makes them an easy target. It is HUGELY ironic that they are the primary evangelists of corporate blogging.

Anyway, I wrote Aedhmar a thoughtful follow-up note. I told her that banning is a sign of weakness and that ironically underscores my point. I also reminded her, "the expert," that this is the internet. You can't ban diddley here really. And the title of CEO? Forget it. It's meaningless here as everyone including Aedhmar puts their panties on one leg at a time. And finally, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS ON THE NET is one's convictions, the strength of one's case and how one ultimately chooses the right words to express it.

Undefeated.

- Amanda Chapel