In response to your note... in order of appearance:
1. I'd like to first point out what inspired your reaction. Shel, you empathize with Phil Gomes greatly. We merely brought attention to a key phrase in your characterization of his/Edelman's work: “Gomes gives a case study of how Edelman used MySpace. It got word of mouth going and it was transparent in the effort.” We asked two essential questions: Did the people being used and manipulated think Edelman was being transparent? And, why aren’t you (Shel) asking that question?
2. People that are satirized never find satire humorous. Sorry. That said, the majority of our audience finds our commentary compelling, poignant and often amusing. That's all.
That said, other than blatant boosterism, what value does your journal bring? Let's compare notes.
3. As to "stale," I certainly understand and partially agree. The subject matter, PR, is quite limited. As such, so is our repertoire for poking fun. You can only toss a midget so many times.
4. With regard to cheapening ourselves with any "stunt," excuse me but... we ARE PR! We do stunts! Now, hold yourself up to the same standard.
5. As to me being in the shadows... PR practices in the shadows by definition. Think about it.
6. An "obsession" with Edelman?! Hardly. We wish they'd shut up. Edelman and their Me2Revolution farce have staked their claim as "leaders" in all things Web-PR 2.0. As such, they're an easy target. Frankly, they are our most prolific contributors ironically. As to our negative characterizations of that firm, see KD Paines' analysis: "PR's Reputation Continues to Suffer in the Blogosphere." Edelman leads the dubious band by a long shot. Apparently, we are not alone in our skepticism.
7. With regard to transparency, WE ARE NOT SELLING ANYTHING! We are only asking our audience to think and question. As such, we have NO obligation to be "transparent." Whereas, you do.
8. Relationship? With you? Funny. Someone asked the other day if I'd entertain a relationship with an older man. I responded that I love older men, i.e. ones well established, sitting on at least 5 boards, with country estates, no kids and a history of heart disease. :)