Thursday, February 06, 2003


As always, Joshua Murray's comments shed light on a subject in a clean, concise matter.

--> Perhaps I am wrong, but this criticism appears to be a
-->bit off topic. Blood is, after all, focused on the writing
-->aspect of a weblog, and not so much the technical
-->aspects of how to run your own blog server, create
-->your own template, etc. Including this information may
-->have been interesting, but again, the book is aimed at
-->presenting a new writing space to writers, in the
-->simplest – or, shall I say, the most practical – manner.

Clear, and to the point. It made me think of things I had missed in the article.

Jessica, too, had something I had missed in her review of bernstienmeetsblood -->Last I checked a “unique view of the world” could also
-->be construed as an opinion…and if one comments on
-->the world, couldn’t this be in regards to recent world
-->events or status, or in the non-journalistic sense,
-->news? They both appear to be saying that a weblog
-->consists of content, and then the author’s reaction to
-->that content.

Most people in the class thought Bernstein was being rather mean, and unneccisarily so. Jason, however, had some nice things to say about Bernsteins critique of Blood:
-->Berstein statement about the romantic aspects of
-->blogging gave me a personal justifcation for allowing
-->voyeuristic users to take a peak at my life and

I am glad to see both sides were so thuroughly represented, and I enjoyed reading the essays.

| <$BlogCommentDeleteIcon$>