This is verging on downright bizarre.
I’ve been spammed twice now by BlogWorldExpo or people saying they are representing BlogWorldExpo.
I was told the first email was sent by an over-zealous PR company, which I accept. The company was authorized by the BlogWorldExpo folks to send the emails, so although they may not have sent them directly they still bare some responsibility. To date I’ve received apologies and I’ve accepted them, but now this Rick Calvert fellow is denying the spam. Bizarre, he would have been far better off just saying sorry, the PR company shouldn’t have done that etc, instead of attacking me.
Even more bizarre is that the post he refers to isn’t on TechCrunch. It was deemed uninteresting and taken down less than 5 minutes after it went up. Calvert links to a spam blog that scrapped the TC post and deems me in the wrong because I didn’t correct the post. WTF? How I’m suppose to correct a spam blog is beyond me, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good ol’ fashioned lynching.
I’ve received another spam email, claiming to be from BlogWorld Staff. I’ve never mentioned that before today because I really didn’t care. Again for Rick’s sake: I corresponded with a couple of people involved with BlogWorldExpo, received apologies and had a good yarn, zero hard feelings at all until today.
As for the rumor on Twitter it was just that: I rumor on my Twitter stream I heard. If I thought it was important or serious I would have posted it on a blog, not just put it on Twitter. I received a number of emails from people telling me that it wasn’t true, which I did and still accept at face value: again, some perspective, it was so minor a thing that I’m still struggling with the fact that I’ve come under attack over it. I heard it, I was told that it wasn’t true, and I’ve never so much as said boo about it again until today, so you’d think that was the end of story.
The personal attacks in the comment stream are perhaps even more bizarre, given they deal with a post that is NOT live and was deemed to be uninteresting in the bigger scheme of news that day, or over subsequent days. As someone who writes on topical news I was simply trying to present a fact, and that was that I had received a spam email from someone claiming to represent BlogWorldExpo. As noted above I’ve since been told that this was a PR company (although Calvert claims it’s an exhibitor now, which is different to what I was told…unless the two are the same) and I thought was the end of the story. People make mistakes, and this email was sent in error: I’m totally cool with that, which makes Rick’s attack more bizarre. People suggesting that I’m posting for notoriety or attention shows more about their insular, sad lives than it does about me. I’d rather write a post on censorship in China that is extensively quoted in the MSM, including TV, than a convention I’m not involved in. Or about a great new startup with a promising product, or the latest in Second Life and virtual worlds, or break the latest VC deal. BlogWorldExpo may sound great, but it’s not the center of the universe to me, as many in that community aren’t to me full stop. I’m not slighting the many good people in blogging (there are heaps of them) but some in the blogging community become very self obsessed and self important when at the end of the day there is much more in the world. Over the last 12 months I’ve opened myself to new people and ideas, and I still believe I’m a far better person for that.
I’d also note that the comment I left on his blog has either been deleted or is stuck in a moderation queue. Unlike Rick I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it’s in moderation and hasn’t been deleted, so I look forward to seeing my response published.
Post note: The irony of saying I don’t care then writing a long post about it isn’t lost on me. This post is only written as I was asked in an email titled “media enquiry” to comment on it. I do respond to emails but if others are blowing this up as well I want to be on the record. Indeed, if it wasn’t for the email I would never have known about the post from Calvert.
First let me apologize for not realizing the post only exists on a scraper blog now. My only defense is it was past 3 am in the morning and this was the second time you had questioned the integrity of the show which means me. I will update my post as soon as I finish leaving this comment acknowledging my mistake.
Second you have mentioned several times that your comments about our event (“we pull speakers at sponsors request, and we intentionally spam people) are unimportant to you like this comment “BlogWorldExpo may sound great, but it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not the center of the universe to me”.
I can respect that but I would hope that you could respect my position that this event has taken up the majority of my waking hours for over a year now. I have invested all of time and lots of my own personal money into it so when someone I don’t know questions my integrity I take it personally.
Third I wish you could point out exactly where I attacked you. All I did was post your own words as well as mine and asked why you woudn”t contact me directly when you have some question about our intentions or actions. I think I have shown myself to be responsive if nothing else.
Did you actually read the post? Did you actually read the apology I wrote at the end of it?
The only one making accusations is you, (you just did it again claiming my motivations to be self promotion) and in your own words about something that means very little to you. I am simply defending myself, my show, and my good name.
Those things may be meaningless to you but to me they mean a hell of a lot.
Sincerely,
Rick Calvert
CEO & Co-founder
BlogWorld & New Media Expo
ps. I did find it funny that your comment was caught by our new comment spam blocker. It has now been published.
Duncan,
It doesn’t matter that your post is no longer on Tech Crunch – it was posted and everyone who knows how these things work knows that Arrington demanded you remove it because he is speaking there. You seem to base your defense on several times saying that “Even more bizarre is that the post he refers to isn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t on TechCrunch. It was deemed uninteresting and taken down less than 5 minutes after it went up.” The fact of the matter is IT WAS ON TECHCRUNCH.com and you of all people should know that even if it goes up for 30 seconds and the RSS feed is updated, it goes into many, many people’s aggregators and onto all of the spam blogs for all the search engines to index.
Take responsibility for the fact that you DID write a post that DID end up on TechCrunch for the world to see and was ultimately censored – the 5 minute part is meaningless because it still ended up everywhere and can still be viewed on dozens of splogs.
That’s the beauty of it all ain’t it Duncan – you can’t bring back a bullet you’ve already pulled the trigger on these days – no matter how you try to spin it.
Duncan – You really are delusional. You say you heard a “rumor” on Twitter that your speaking spot had been canceled. Yet you knew you hadn’t been invited to speak because, well, you hadn’t been invited to speak. How in the world then is it a “rumor” that your spot had been canceled? You’re a linkbaiter – plain and simple.
Also, you say on the other blog “If this was a major issue (which it never was) I would have blogged it: I didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t and to this date I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve done nothing more than repeat a rumor someone told me on my Twitter stream that is read by maybe no more than a couple of hundred people, most of whom I know..”
YOU DID BLOG IT ON TECHCRUNCH.COM which is read by nearly a million people via RSS according to their own Feedburner chicklet. It doesn’t matter that it was taken down – it went into the RSS feed and was read by probably hundreds of thousands of people.
So stop your foolish nonsense of repeating “rumors” and denying the blog post. Get some accountability and quit hiding under a rock.
You posted it, you wrote it, and now it’s out there. Deal with it like a mature adult. After reading several other posts of yours though, it’s obvious you have serious issues dealing with all types of people when you don’t get the attention you feel you deserve.
Now THAT’s sad.
Sorry, Dillon, exactly *who* is “delusional” here? (By the way, delusion is a psychiatric term, I trust you’re not making a judgement call on Duncan’s mental state?)
Dillon
It’s you who is delusional because as I’ve noted in the post: this is something from nothing. I’ve never claimed (that I am aware of) that I was offered a speaking spot or otherwise at this conference: I simply heard that I wasn’t invited to the conference, and again, if I thought it something major I’d be posting it on a blog, not repeating it along with 100 other things I hear, see and do on Twitter every day.
Rick has asked for an apology: I’m sorry Rick that I posted a rumor someone told me on Twitter. Again, I’m still surprised that it’s become such a big deal. Someone needs to pass around some chill pills here.
As for responsibility for what I’ve written about spam: I take full responsibility because it’s true. I’ve received two spam emails from people claiming to be involved in BlogWorldExpo (one was signed “for BlogWorldExpo” the other came from “BlogWorldExpo staff”). I’ve since been told that these were either (or both) sent in error or by people who shouldn’t have sent them, and I’ve long since privately accepted that. Again though: how am I suppose to correct a public record that doesn’t exist? I’ve settled the issue privately, accepted apologies, and moved on, until I was accused of lying by Rick Calvert! And what exactly is there to settle: people did wrong, apologies were given, everything was fine…until now.
BTW Rick: accusing me of lying constitutes a personal attack in this country, even if it doesn’t in yours.
Thank you for leaving the comment on the blogworld blog Duncan. Apology accepted.
OK the delusional part may have been a bit much. My mistake.
But just keep in mind Duncan: it may not have been a major deal to you to repeat a rumor that you were, in effect, “uninvited” from speaking, but it’s the equivalent of accusing a magazine that they buried a story because an advertiser told them to – a very unethical offense in the publishing industry. Or, even more appropriate, it is the equivalent of a reader accusing you of not posting an item on your blog that would be unfavorable to Google because you run Google ads on your blog.
By propagating a rumor that, in effect, said the event organizer has canceled a speaker because a sponsor asked them to do so, is a direct attack on the integrity of the conference and the organizer. This is why you have seen such a strong reaction.