Re: can someone please explain what this blog tagging this is all about?

On Jan 16, 12:01 pm, hpuxrac <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 7:16 pm, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 2:37 pm, dizw..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Well, sorry you feel that way, but your comments about blog
> > > aggregators clearly indicate you don't use them and you don't
> > > understand them. If you did, you wouldn't say things like "just switch
> > > to another one" because you would know that what affects one affects
> > > them all, by their very nature. Sorry, but them's the facts. What I
> > > was trying to say is, don't try and build too much of a case of such
> > > very shaky foundations, If you don't understand what happened to OraNA
> > > and why it's significant, that's fine: nothing wrong in not using a
> > > service you have no use for. But it's probably not such a good idea to
> > > make pronouncements about someone's behaviour when you don't (appear
> > > to) know much about the actual reality that has given rise to that
> > > behaviour.
>
> I am another one that doesn't use news readers or blog aggregators
> apparently. Suits me just fine thanks. So to me anyhow it's not
> significant.

My sincere apologies. I have just read this last sentence again and realised I missed the "to me", which changes the meaning a lot. Please ignore the first paragraph of my earlier response (well, you can ignore all of it if you like, of course, but I suggest you ignore *especially* the first paragraph!).

I still wish people who don't feel themselves affected could nevertheless summon up a smidgen of concern on altruistic and empathetic grounds, though! Received on Tue Jan 15 2008 - 20:27:59 CST