Thanks for this: And the winner is...
I'll have to check but I have a vague notion I submitted, and paid money to do so. Or was it for the main site on the Webbies?
Makes you think. All's fair and all, and certainly if it's still the best then it deserves the accolade.
But who decides? And who checks? And who judges the judges?
Maybe they just got that Ch 5 production company to handle it, pocketed the saving and decided to just go with what worked before with a few tweaks.
My faith in the workings of awards shows is about on a par with TV contests.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
It's not just what you say, but how you say it... and to whom
You know it makes sense
It is yet another example of an organisation realising the benefits clear communication can have on both its profits and public relations.
Not so engaging can also have a conspicuously deleterious influence should one be seriously committed in seeking to influence the widest audience demographic to a positive and proactive outcome.*
I've seen it a lot lately... often right here.
* Writing all funny may be great and all to impress mates in the boozer at the Ivy, but it's well worth giving it the old literary (as opposed to Glasgee') KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) if you really want to move masses of the masses.
It is yet another example of an organisation realising the benefits clear communication can have on both its profits and public relations.
Not so engaging can also have a conspicuously deleterious influence should one be seriously committed in seeking to influence the widest audience demographic to a positive and proactive outcome.*
I've seen it a lot lately... often right here.
* Writing all funny may be great and all to impress mates in the boozer at the Ivy, but it's well worth giving it the old literary (as opposed to Glasgee') KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) if you really want to move masses of the masses.
One flew into one's cuckoo nest
Charles does a lot of good. Until he opens his mouth
Sadly we are in a culture (sic) where everything is pretty much decided by what is popular, embodied by the celeb du jour: pumped up, allowed to float and then shot down by the media, who get what they need on the way up, along (which is usually boring and hence doesn't get permitted to last very long) and down.
In entertainment the process is measured in months. Pols can get away with a few years, especially if they persist in staying in office though that darn democratic vote thing.
Royals are different to one and one. They are locked in for the long haul, by an odd combo of historical precedent, loadsamunny, oodles of space to hide away in... and a a slight problem of what else can be done with them.
Over the centuries a rough plan has evolved and become established, and 'don't ask, don't tell' has served well, even outside these shores. Simply for being, they can lob up, open a napalm factory in Saudi and the whole world press goes 'Wooooo'.
The problems kick in when they start wanting to start behaving and actually do behave and get caught out like normal folk... only without the grubby down sides.
Of late there have been quite a few deeds that have done awfully well to give the royal poppemoffsti enough ammo and opportunity to bag a fair brace.
But the newest and greatest Royal flaw to this arrangement working as intended has been to want to mouth 'orf. And do it in public via the gutter press (ie: all of them - sorry, but you know it's true:).
Often this can and has been used by those who know people who know people to swing a a good cause higher up the ratings list, and thus the earning league. Even the odd slow moving, rich consumer goods range.
But the trouble with created idols, especially high profile regal ones, is that when they are proven only human, the lustre is all the more damaging for being seen as flawed as normal folk. And when those some would place above us on a pedestal with no real substance come crashing down, they can end up doing a lot more damage than any good achieved whilst floating around 'up there'. Being rich may be aspirational, but it's not exactly a worthwhile job description to be taken seriously by those who really know how and can do.
It's a bit like the Red Arrows. Awesome as you crane your neck to catch a glimpse. A rush of national pride as they do their thing. Probably well worth the investment in terms of national ROI.
But if they come too close to the ground and, heaven forfend, fail to stay a touch above it, it can prove... less than optimal.
Sadly we are in a culture (sic) where everything is pretty much decided by what is popular, embodied by the celeb du jour: pumped up, allowed to float and then shot down by the media, who get what they need on the way up, along (which is usually boring and hence doesn't get permitted to last very long) and down.
In entertainment the process is measured in months. Pols can get away with a few years, especially if they persist in staying in office though that darn democratic vote thing.
Royals are different to one and one. They are locked in for the long haul, by an odd combo of historical precedent, loadsamunny, oodles of space to hide away in... and a a slight problem of what else can be done with them.
Over the centuries a rough plan has evolved and become established, and 'don't ask, don't tell' has served well, even outside these shores. Simply for being, they can lob up, open a napalm factory in Saudi and the whole world press goes 'Wooooo'.
The problems kick in when they start wanting to start behaving and actually do behave and get caught out like normal folk... only without the grubby down sides.
Of late there have been quite a few deeds that have done awfully well to give the royal poppemoffsti enough ammo and opportunity to bag a fair brace.
But the newest and greatest Royal flaw to this arrangement working as intended has been to want to mouth 'orf. And do it in public via the gutter press (ie: all of them - sorry, but you know it's true:).
Often this can and has been used by those who know people who know people to swing a a good cause higher up the ratings list, and thus the earning league. Even the odd slow moving, rich consumer goods range.
But the trouble with created idols, especially high profile regal ones, is that when they are proven only human, the lustre is all the more damaging for being seen as flawed as normal folk. And when those some would place above us on a pedestal with no real substance come crashing down, they can end up doing a lot more damage than any good achieved whilst floating around 'up there'. Being rich may be aspirational, but it's not exactly a worthwhile job description to be taken seriously by those who really know how and can do.
It's a bit like the Red Arrows. Awesome as you crane your neck to catch a glimpse. A rush of national pride as they do their thing. Probably well worth the investment in terms of national ROI.
But if they come too close to the ground and, heaven forfend, fail to stay a touch above it, it can prove... less than optimal.
It's not just what you say, but who hears it that matters most
Scenes from the denialist denoument
All very well 'n good.
For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.
I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.
He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.
Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
(with a few tweaks)
I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.
Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'
All very well 'n good.
For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.
I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.
He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.
Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
(with a few tweaks)
I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.
Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'
Priorities
Newsnight Friday
Newsnight Monday
Not too impressed. How predictable the choices of twofer. How flip the bouffant. How deep the doo-doo we're getting into. Some interesting posts, though.
I type as I watch Monday's GW/CC (they are different, I am told) piece on my PC (shame such a large chunk was missing for copyright reasons. It would have been interesting to see what the BBC editted out of an edit), with this morning's BBC Breakfast summary numberfest still ringing in my ears. Don't know about the EU, but our own bonny lads and lasses are gettting into a froth enough simply in Londonland.
Targets every year or 5, depending on who is in power and hence needs time to make sure the numbers 'fit'.
Sorting things out by 2050 (I rather thought the IPCC report suggested that may be a tad late, but there we go, it's good to meet a target rather than solve an actual problem when your index-linked is based on it).
There were the usual, if highly sensible, suspects.
When I were was a lad it was cycle to work, share a bath with a friend and put on an extra jummy.
They all still apply (except the bath one... just hope shower cubicles will be big enough for the new plan).
But now it's insulation - fully endorse that one, and in fact have suggested a plan of my own: here, bulbs and standby.
The last two also make good sense, but the details still seem a bit vague. And after the road pricing farce my ears get attuned to words like 'suggest', 'encourage', 'make', etc, especially when they morph into 'we'll fine you if you don't'.
Like 4x4s, these items were and indeed are on sale legally, and possibly even generate VAT in the process. So I do wonder who bears the cost of them being taken away and replaced which, in the case of bulbs, means swapping a 20p effort for a £3 one. Not to mention, in some more stylish cases, the fittings too.
Standby button offing is just plain common sense, but I stand ready to see how Messrs Philips, Sony, LG, etc, get on board with the UK government's plans, in the great global scheme of things. I guess they will, because they'll have to. But again, will that mean I have a salaried and pensioned army of red dot monitors turning up on my doorstep to demand I scrap my perfectly good old TV and buy a new eco-one, with no concerns as to the manufacturing costs in terms of enviROI? Even though I do get up and switch it all off at night at the socket?
Funnily enough, in the same slot it was announced that there was a German outfit about to build a new coal fired power station. But not to worry, its emissions will be... 'better'.
Now, I don't know about your domestic output and how close to a personal 20% reduction you're meeting, but it all rather paled into insignificance when some environmental experts were wheeled out for their 2p worth.
Tony Juniper of FoE was as helpful as a director/spokesperson of a major charitable corporation can be, but what did make me pay attention was the long-haired, but seemingly un-named individual who advised that 2/3 of the energy from our power stations is wasted.
Now, that seems quite a lot. Almost 67% in fact. And despite living and breathing this stuff for a while I'd never heard it before.
And vs. all the other stuff being wittered on about it seems, if true, to be something much more worthy of the talking head's attention in comparison to most I have had served up by our media of late.
For what it's worth, what our media and scientific community IS worth in terms of climate debate may be followed to some degree starting here.
It's an interesting discussion. I think my most relevant contribution as it applies here was this:
'I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.'
Newsnight Monday
Not too impressed. How predictable the choices of twofer. How flip the bouffant. How deep the doo-doo we're getting into. Some interesting posts, though.
I type as I watch Monday's GW/CC (they are different, I am told) piece on my PC (shame such a large chunk was missing for copyright reasons. It would have been interesting to see what the BBC editted out of an edit), with this morning's BBC Breakfast summary numberfest still ringing in my ears. Don't know about the EU, but our own bonny lads and lasses are gettting into a froth enough simply in Londonland.
Targets every year or 5, depending on who is in power and hence needs time to make sure the numbers 'fit'.
Sorting things out by 2050 (I rather thought the IPCC report suggested that may be a tad late, but there we go, it's good to meet a target rather than solve an actual problem when your index-linked is based on it).
There were the usual, if highly sensible, suspects.
When I were was a lad it was cycle to work, share a bath with a friend and put on an extra jummy.
They all still apply (except the bath one... just hope shower cubicles will be big enough for the new plan).
But now it's insulation - fully endorse that one, and in fact have suggested a plan of my own: here, bulbs and standby.
The last two also make good sense, but the details still seem a bit vague. And after the road pricing farce my ears get attuned to words like 'suggest', 'encourage', 'make', etc, especially when they morph into 'we'll fine you if you don't'.
Like 4x4s, these items were and indeed are on sale legally, and possibly even generate VAT in the process. So I do wonder who bears the cost of them being taken away and replaced which, in the case of bulbs, means swapping a 20p effort for a £3 one. Not to mention, in some more stylish cases, the fittings too.
Standby button offing is just plain common sense, but I stand ready to see how Messrs Philips, Sony, LG, etc, get on board with the UK government's plans, in the great global scheme of things. I guess they will, because they'll have to. But again, will that mean I have a salaried and pensioned army of red dot monitors turning up on my doorstep to demand I scrap my perfectly good old TV and buy a new eco-one, with no concerns as to the manufacturing costs in terms of enviROI? Even though I do get up and switch it all off at night at the socket?
Funnily enough, in the same slot it was announced that there was a German outfit about to build a new coal fired power station. But not to worry, its emissions will be... 'better'.
Now, I don't know about your domestic output and how close to a personal 20% reduction you're meeting, but it all rather paled into insignificance when some environmental experts were wheeled out for their 2p worth.
Tony Juniper of FoE was as helpful as a director/spokesperson of a major charitable corporation can be, but what did make me pay attention was the long-haired, but seemingly un-named individual who advised that 2/3 of the energy from our power stations is wasted.
Now, that seems quite a lot. Almost 67% in fact. And despite living and breathing this stuff for a while I'd never heard it before.
And vs. all the other stuff being wittered on about it seems, if true, to be something much more worthy of the talking head's attention in comparison to most I have had served up by our media of late.
For what it's worth, what our media and scientific community IS worth in terms of climate debate may be followed to some degree starting here.
It's an interesting discussion. I think my most relevant contribution as it applies here was this:
'I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.'
With a little help from our friends!
I am again indebted to Junkketeer Peter for not only pointing out the opportunity (which I immediately grabbed - now can I count it as 'coverage' in our ABOUT section?), but now kindly sharing the fact that we did score a mention (if not as submitted) in a Guardian online piece on reuse: Reuse it or lose it
Before going any further, may I appeal to any and all who may stumble across such a chance of promo for the site and/or a mention in the media to send it in this way. I am already struggling to catch up with just the last few days after my recent adventures. So any really helpful stuff flagged up is appreciated!
A quick comment on what we shared our glory with.
I was pleased to note that we were about the only non-individual (actually 'we' are, but it may be fair to say that 'I' am a bit more dedicated time-wise than most, if not 'professional'... yet) site in there. I say pleased only selfishly in terms of our commercial and even reputational prospects. It just seems odd and a tad sad that all the major funded Govt and Quango efforts seldom get mentioned? I'd like to think it's guys like us, FreeCycle and others who are talking to the public in ways they can, and obviously do relate to ( a couple of great new URLs for me to invite on the site today!).
Maybe they should just leave it too us... and help out a bit with some funds. Just a thought...
Before going any further, may I appeal to any and all who may stumble across such a chance of promo for the site and/or a mention in the media to send it in this way. I am already struggling to catch up with just the last few days after my recent adventures. So any really helpful stuff flagged up is appreciated!
A quick comment on what we shared our glory with.
I was pleased to note that we were about the only non-individual (actually 'we' are, but it may be fair to say that 'I' am a bit more dedicated time-wise than most, if not 'professional'... yet) site in there. I say pleased only selfishly in terms of our commercial and even reputational prospects. It just seems odd and a tad sad that all the major funded Govt and Quango efforts seldom get mentioned? I'd like to think it's guys like us, FreeCycle and others who are talking to the public in ways they can, and obviously do relate to ( a couple of great new URLs for me to invite on the site today!).
Maybe they should just leave it too us... and help out a bit with some funds. Just a thought...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)