A Revolution is the Solution
Ok Vonage isn't spyware scum But i bet they know some i have seen a few Reports on Vonage and they do some very strange stuff for people who are Quote not involved in Spyware
I think that someone that pays a company(direct revenew) that is known for misleading pratices is guilty.
keep the great work Ben, your an inspiration to all of us that are concerned about scumware and its future implications.
someone must follow the money trail ....and it aint Dave......sad sad....
Scumware i like it lol
Most interesting that, as with many other bloggers, you have completely missed my main point, which was actually about how bloggers don't pay attention to details and how stories are reported and written about even when they are incongruent with the facts themselves.
My reference to spyware scum wasn't in relationship to Ben, but to how everyone ELSE was reporting what he had done research on. I surmise you skimmed my piece too fast to catch that nuance?
Finally, rest assured, I am the LAST person to ever defend any sort of spyware or adware and as I state in one of my followup comments, if indeed Vonage continued to do business with a known adware company, they deserve any sort of negative publicity that can be dished out.
"My reference to spyware scum wasn't in relationship to Ben, but to how everyone ELSE was reporting what he had done research on. I surmise you skimmed my piece too fast to catch that nuance?"
It's not really my problem that the most natural reading of "of" is actually "by" - it's yours, and as the author of the blog posting its up to you to make sure your title is as clear as possible. In this case, it isn't, distorting the overall picture of the piece as a result, inferring a subtext of "naughty Ben" when combined with certain elements from your blog article whether you meant it or not (and I'm guessing "not"). If you put up a rather loaded title that can (and will) be completely misread, don't be surprised when it actually happens.
i went to look to see what the fuss was about and i have to say on this ocasion, i agree with the camp that says the title does distort the overall tone of the piece. to be fair Dave, you do not clarify (as you would reasonably expect) in the opening paragraph (or anywhere else for that matter) specifically what you mean when you say "the distortions of ben edeman". Having "subtle nuances" in a blog entry is perfectly acceptable - however, ive yet to see how including nuances in a *title* is beneficial in any way, especially as the title should be the primary indicator of what one should expect in the authors thoughts ahead. i'm all for subtlety, but a title should be straight down the line and lay it out for the reader. having them play guessing games with one is bound to end in disaster, especially as (in the context of the piece) you start questioning mr edlemans "spotting tactics" in the second half by saying
"What I don't see explained is how he "observes" Vonage buying specific ad space through given companies."
and making some of the text bold. by doing so, you emphasise the questioning of mr edelmans discoveries and combined with the title, thats the lasting impression one takes away from your writeup.
Wait, I read something like 40+ blogs a day on everything from arts to technology...I haven't got TIME to "get" a nuance from a blog...ANY blog, this one included. you seem to be confusing blogging with Dh Lawrence. many people do indeed "skim blogs" because ultimately, theyre just blog posts, however great the author thinks they might be. and those people might be skimming 40 or more a day, so they havent got time to pore over every nook and cranny.
if a blog entry is done well, it should convey the same meaning in 5 minutes or 50. if it doesnt, then i humbly suggest you might have goofed this time. the confusion in evidence from some of the posters on your blog would seem to suggest this 
I dont see dave following any money trails just slinging stuff at research. i see edelman doing following the trails. i know porter does it.
dave taylor just riding the wave to get what he is getting here. attention.
hi ,
Dave i didnt mean to say that you support spyware but the title of your page is very direct and if you´re following the blogue trail then your title is a bad example - if someone reads the title thinks that Ben is some amateur and doesnt nows whats doing as well as shooting direct acusations to some company that serve ads - this is misleading and im talking on my behalf because what Ben is doing as well as paperghost as well as all the people arouond the world that in some manner try to fight spyware , because this is a matter of extreme importance involving big names in the industry in the good but must important in the bad side of it. If a company like Disney pays 180solutions to serve ads ....
we need people that follow the money trail and expose these bad pratices and that the companys involved be held responsible , if it is disney or vonage - doesnt matter - its dirty as hell and their names must go Public.
bloggers don't pay attention to details .. Excuse me but do any of these guys get Paid for what they do? Well as it happens most dont Blogging is pretty much a part time thing and im sure even professional reporters skimm read at times
Commenting by HaloScan
