SPARK IT UP !!!
They believe that this summit does not fit their needs as bloggers and believe that in taking the idea to the bloggers themselves they will have a better understanding of what is important to the blogger and what will further the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The lineup for this year's event came from those who were at last year's. The entire format, agenda, and speaker lineup of this year's event is based on all of the feedback: comment forms, blog entries, e-mails, and follow-up interviews with attendees.
Last year's event had an agenda pulled out of thin air. This year's is based entirely on input from dozens of bloggers. Neither Kilo nor Alton nor Ben were at last year's event, so their input was not received; I can understand the origins of their false impression that bloggers were not consulted, but the opposite is true.
Can you share Chad's input with us please?
Brian Patton's?
Waldo, I am very new at this blogging stuff but I am always amazed at just how quickly ideas get passed around from blog to blog. I do not understand why ideas were not presented and explored throughout the Virginia blogosphere before the planning got underway this year. "Neither Kilo nor Alton nor Ben were at last year's event, so their input was not received" You are right that they were not in attendence last year but I find it rather excusionary on your part to not include such fine writers in the planning process. Perhaps you choose to cater to those who hold your views??? You have a great evening of debauchery and know that there are many excellent bloggers who are pursuing a way to better present Virginia in a postive light.
Can you share Chad's input with us please?
I can provide his public input (http://vaconservative.com/archives/2005/08/28/
impressions-on-the-blog-summit/), yes -- private communications are just that -- private.
Brian Patton's?
Ditto. (http://brianpatton.org/2005/08/27/back-from-
charlottesville/)
Same for Shaun (http://www.shaunkenney.com/2005/08/blog-summit-
report.htm), CR (http://theredstater.blogspot.com/2005/08/summit-
on-blogging-and-democracy-in.html), and Ross (http://www.haduken.com/2005/08/va-political-
bloggers-summit/).
I could keep going.
Perhaps you choose to cater to those who hold your views?
Erm. No. I receive input from those who choose to provide it. Carl, for example, is fundamentally opposed to it (he boycotted it last year, too), describing the fundamental goal of the event ("to promote commonwealth over partisanship") as "a waste of time" and "not for me, or anyone." That's cool -- that's his business. But why consult somebody who is opposed to the fundamental mission of the event? What would be the point? It'd be like Del. Rob Bell, my representative, asking me for advice on his reelection campaign -- I wouldn't expect him to do so, and it wouldn't occur to me to be upset if he failed to.
Dozens and dozens of people, the majority of whom are bloggers, were consulted in the planning of this event. Those bloggers who were not consulted feel upset. I can understand that. But that doesn't mean that nobody was consulted, just that they weren't. Norm explains this better than I can.
Name me one Blogger from SWVA who was consulted.
I just named two.
This is getting a little silly, isn't it?
I have spoke with both...lets get silly.
I'm confused. There are the URLs -- I wrote them down for you. You can see quite plainly that they comment on the goings-on of the event, describing their perception of it. In the days and weeks after the event, they and others continued to write about and critique the event on blogs and via e-mail.
I really can't see what else there is to be discussed here. I've linked to the blog entries. There it is. You're fundamentally opposed to the Blog Summit, as you wrote in August of last year. That's fine -- that's certainly your right, and I don't object. But let's not pretend that jumping through any hoops is going to make that any different.
If you consider year old posts the same thing as making contact with bloggers in SWVA that is weak Waldo.
You in insinuate you have spoken to bloggers down here, but I have yet to read one post saying that is so.
Next, I have not read anything Kilo has written saying the thing in Martinsville had to be at the same time as Sorenson. I have read Ben asking for input about dates. It seems to me you are the one blowing this out of shape. Kilo said this
"I am all for having a summit during Sorenson, After Sorenson, as long as Martinsville is the spot."
Get that- "a summit"
So please explain just what the hell is your problem with a summit in Martinsville? I dont like the agenda at Sorenson and will not attend. If I dont like what is offered at Martinsville I will not attend.
Waldo,
I made my first post about moving Sorenson and you replied that it could not be done. That was fine and well understood. Next was Ben's call as to what dates to try to hold one at Mville. I did and do not care as what the date is. Same as Sorenson or different. Makes not a horse hair difference to me and should not to you. Your asking me what is the problem , I am asking you the same thing. It is true that I thought all that non partisan goal stuff is b/s last year. I still think it is today. We are all partisan and two days at Sorenson will not change that. You rely on those who attended last year to set the agenda. I would ask why not reach out to those who did not attend last year and ask for their input, but that is just me. What Ben and Alton and myself wanted was in no way to damage Sorenson. Those who want to attend Sorenson will. Those who want to attend Mville will. Those who want to attend both are free to do so. I find it ironic that freedom of choice has stirred such controversy. The Wise Girl was right it her comment saying
"Neither Kilo nor Alton nor Ben were at last year's event, so their input was not received" You are right that they were not in attendance last year but I find it rather exclusionary on your part to not include such fine writers in the planning process.”
She could of left me out of that. That statement is exactly what Ben, Alton and me do not want. That is why we are asking ALL bloggers for input on a conference at Mville. Not by emails or past participation but by open posts for all to read and reply. Then take that input and do the best we can to have a great conference for bloggers, set up by bloggers.
"We are all partisan and two days at Sorenson will not change that. "
I don't think Waldo is looking for people to sing "Koombaya" (sp?) after the conference and never have political disagreements again. I think it might be the fact that they want to put partisanship aside for the day or weekend and have a discussion. I think that's a noble cause.
"Those who want to attend Sorenson will. Those who want to attend Mville will. Those who want to attend both are free to do so. I find it ironic that freedom of choice has stirred such controversy."
Unless the two conferences are on the same date? Because if they are, people cannot attend both.
If they are on the same date Bob it is because that is what the feedback from bloggers asked for. Ben asked what dates it should be held. I see no problem with giving bloggers the option to choose.
"we are asking ALL bloggers for input on a conference at Mville. Not by emails or past participation but by open posts for all to read and reply. Then take that input and do the best we can to have a great conference for bloggers, set up by bloggers."
No one should have a problem with that. That is THE WAY it should be.
Commenting by HaloScan
