-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Connolly [mailto:bconnolly@furthermore.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:41 AM
To: 'Mark Ragan'
Cc: 'David Murray'
Subject: Banned from the Blogosphere

Mark,

Just again watched "Banned from the Blogosphere." I had the pleasure of talking to David Murray about it yesterday. Thought I'd also copy you on my thoughts.

What a mess! A cluster of bald assertions based on hysterical crap. Total nonsense that in the end makes you and Ragan only look small and bush league. Jesus.

Here are just a few of the issues and fallacies:

1. The demonization of lawyers and corporate policy. HELLO! A corporation is a legal entity first and foremost. Lawyers will ALWAYS have the last word. That's the system. When we move away from law as the foundation, that dollar that you have in your pocket won't be worth shit.

2. The fundamental misunderstanding of the whys, wherefores, tradition and value of anonymity. Here: people communicate in two basic ways, i.e. they either make a case or spout an opinion. The case stands on the merits of the argument; and an opinion is worthless by definition, i.e. like opinions, everyone has an asshole.

That said, what juniors always throw in here is the ridiculous assertion that putting your name on something is somehow connected with character. TOTAL CRAP! Shakespeare diddling his housemaid has zero to do with his writing. ZERO!

As we said on Strumpette many times, an intellectual transaction is based on the cards that are showing. Forcing transparency is tyrannical. Period. Caveat Emptor. If you don't like what's showing, don't buy it.

3. The absolute ridiculous assertion that communications people (whoever they are) are "smarter than." You folks got into "smart companies" and "dumb companies." With all due respect, I venture to guess that except for maybe you, NO ONE who ever worked for Ragan is/was qualified to make that judgment. "Companies that don't get it are going to be left behind," says who... a senior editor at a trade pub? C'mon. She has trouble balancing her own checkbook.

4. As to which way corporate control of the blogosphere is going to go, I suggest you track the sale of shredders and IT systems/software that shreds old email. Even the Feds let you off the hook after so many years. You are suggesting/advocating indelibility. Completely unrealistic, impractical, inhuman... flat out wrong.

5. The erroneous assertion that engagement with the Web mob is a good strategy. Nonsense. It depends totally on where and what the disease is. A blanket statement that having fringe lunatics to dinner is just plain ludicrous.

Bottom line: your assertion is based on the ridiculous belief that ALL conversation is good. NO. Furthermore, companies don't want conversation; they want articulation. We don't want to extend the sales cycle; we want to streamline it. Are there exceptions? Sure. MyRagan's goal is to maximize conversation because time spent by readers on your site is a measure of success. THAT'S MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of the quality and value of those conversations. You know that.

6. The erroneous assertion that since "everybody's doin' it," we must, too. C'mon. Lots of kids like drugs! What other popular, disruptive and potentially destructive activities are you going to suggest?

7. The erroneous assertion that it's banning people from the world... more hysterical crap. NO. The role of a manager is to optimize the time spent by reports on doing work. That's all. As much as we love Shel Holtz, I am guessing the distraction of a faux tête-à-tête with him in Second Life is likely just that... a frivilous distraction.

8. As to how do you hold this at bay? How do you hold smoking at bay in a corporation? C'mon Mark. I'm guessing that Ragan's policies hold a lot of things at bay.

9. Ihatestarbucks.com is good? Are you kidding me?!

And 10., "if we don't trust them now, why do they work for you?" Do you have any idea the level of corporate theft in America? What world does the Ragan editorial staff live in?

Anyway, David insisted that I meet these items with counter argument. No. In debate, it's your job to make a case; not your audience 's job to make a counter case. The point is that this video was/is a low point. I certainly understand the nature of your audience and that they eat this stuff up. BUT you are doing them a great disservice.

Sincerely,

Brian Connolly