It appears sometimes the people I write about actually read this blog. Who knew?
[ Also on InfoWorld: See where it all started in "AOL swallows TechCrunch -- but can they keep it down?" | For a humorous take on the tech industry's shenanigans, subscribe to Robert X. Cringely's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]
Strangely for someone so immersed into the world-o-blogs, there's no way to comment on MG's own post, so I'm reduced to doing it here. (For people who are uninterested in the squabbles between two HTML-stained wretches, my apologies. I'll return to bashing Apple/Microsoft/Google/Facebook in a future post, I promise.)
Mr. MG accuses me of "asshattery." Me, I call it a fedora. But if you want to call it an asshat, that's fine.
First, though, I have to ask: MG? No first name? Are you trying to one-up the film director McG, or is your first name really Mortimer and you're just too embarrassed to admit it? If you suddenly decide to become a rapper, will you change it to Emmgee?
OK, I'm done now.
First MG takes exception to my characterization of TechCrunch as a "post first and ask questions later" blog and for its fondness for publishing any rumors that cross its transom. Apparently, I am wrong in this. As MG points out, TechCrunch only publishes some of the unfounded rumors that cross its transom. Notes From the Field regrets the error.
I also used the "Google about to acquire Digg" story as an example where TechCrunch got it wrong. Siegler writes:
Secondly, the fact that the article cites Google buying Digg as one of the rumors we "intercoursed the pooch" on is interesting. The reality is that the deal was inches away from happening. Anyone with any semblance of a connection in Silicon Valley knows this to be the case. It’s hardly a secret. Google walked away at the last second. These things happen. So who is screwing what pooch here?
The assertion that TechCrunch was only writing about that deal because we write about every rumor that comes our way is pathetic. The details were accurate, the deal just fell through.
So, in other words, TechCrunch was right in saying Google was about to buy Digg for $200 million even though it never happened, because it almost happened, even though Digg's CEO issued a very direct denial saying that it didn't almost happen. But of course, that just makes it more true, doesn't it?