March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« This evening | Main | How-to video »

Oct 21, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Anglico

Sure seemed like a success to me. I was only there for about three hours, but was awesome. Good energy. Good people. Much generosity. Perfect ingredients for a sustainable future.

Preston Earle

Yes, Ed, it was a great conference. I attended for the first time and really enjoyed it.

I'd like to see the conference appeal to a broader political spectrum. It seemed to me all speakers (OK, except Tom Lassiter and maybe Billy Jones) were proudly "progressive" and not hesitant to make snide anti-conservative remarks. One or two would be OK, but not every speaker. I came to learn about blogging, not politics.

I plan to attend next year and hope the partnership with BlogHer will not give the conference a narrow political focus.

Preston Earle
www.sawdustforbrains.blogspot.com

Ed Cone

Preston, thanks for coming, and for the review. Glad to see you're blogging.

I found the panel on Disagreement disappointing for its one-note politics. I was surprised that you and I were the only people to speak up during the session to challenge the speakers, and I didn't find their responses to the challenges very enlightening. It would be great to get more diversity onto that kind of panel -- we tried and failed to do so this year. We need the help of our community to improve the programming.

That said, I have no interest in imposing some phony cable-news "balance" on the conference. People need to speak up for themselves, and if they aren't willing to speak outside of their own echo chambers then a wider audience isn't going to hear them.

Bubba

"I'd like to see the conference appeal to a broader political spectrum. It seemed to me all speakers (OK, except Tom Lassiter and maybe Billy Jones) were proudly 'progressive' and not hesitant to make snide anti-conservative remarks. One or two would be OK, but not every speaker. I came to learn about blogging, not politics."

Your comment speaks volumes......

Bubba

"......then a wider audience isn't going to hear them."

Is it a requirement that some bloggers care about "a wider audience isn't going to hear them"?

James

I was one of the proudly progressive session leaders. I made a few political comments that related to specific technical points, but mostly we talked about the assigned topic: better blogging.

As far as I know every speaker volunteered to participate. Were any speakers turned down because of their political points of view?


David Wharton

Preston: Sue Polinsky was searching for conservative bloggers earlier in the planning stages of the conferences, and asked me a couple of times to give her suggestions to broaden the panel.

I gave her some names, but none of them panned out.

Bubba

"I gave her some names, but none of them panned out."

For what reasons did they not pan out?

Preston Earle

As a new attendee, I didn't know what to expect from a political perspective. I know Ed's viewpoint and when both Ruby Sinreich and Chris Rabb made what I thought were inappropriate anti-Bush remarks in the "We Agree to Disagree" session, I guess I got a little sensitive to the political viewpoint of presenters.

Jim, I didn't think your comments were all that inappropriate, and I really enjoyed your presentation and its insight. I liked your description of "attack, attack, pat on the back".

Ed, I agree that the answer isn't cable-news "balance". But consideration for attendees dictates either a non-partisan approach or at least some representation of the other side.

David, I'm glad the organizers at least made some effort at balance.

Preston Earle

Lenslinger

For the record, I was a presenter (however ancillary) and foisted no political bromides whatsoever. In fact, I'm quite apolitical - which is a nice way of saying I think ALL you people are crazy. Good times...

David Wharton

Why didn't they pan out? Not sure. I understand that Glenn Reynolds didn't respond to e-mails.

Why don't you ask Sue if you can organize a panel for next year? I'm 99% sure she'd say "yes."

Fec

The incessant use of the words "Quicktime" and "Mac" in the video session and the repeated suggestion that we use them made me and my PC friends bristle with envy and hate. Well, not really.

Jayne

I enjoyed the conference, but I will add that I like the think-tank stuff. For me, what was so great about it was that it took me out of my normal section of the blogosphere.

Ed Cone

Until pretty late in the game we thought we had Mary Katherine Ham lined up for the panel with Chris, but she had to go to her grandma's birthday party this weekend.

That was the only panel out of a couple of dozen that really involved political points of view as part of its content, and the only one that I've heard anyone question on the grounds of politics. And as I've said here and elsewhere, it was a disappointment to me: a panel about disagreement without disagreement built in, or enough pushback from the audience. I wouldn't call it a complete failure -- Chris and Ruby are too smart and entertaining for that -- but I don't think it did what we wanted it to do.

It's telling how much positive response the conference is generating from people who actually attended it, with a good portion of the sniping coming from people who did not attend and did not involve themselves in the planning of the event.

The CA

David, Sue isn't aware that any conservative bloggers exist. Well, she's probably heard of some, but probably thinks they are pretty nasty people who might taint things. After all, they are conservatives first and foremost, one dimensional one trick ponies with nothing to add but conservative politics, and who wants that?

Ed says:

"People need to speak up for themselves, and if they aren't willing to speak outside of their own echo chambers then a wider audience isn't going to hear them."

Yes, and when people take that advice (on this blog anyway) look how they are attacked and ridiculed? The duality between words and deeds is astounding. If CS is getting a reputation for having a progressive bent to the exclusion of others, it may have something to do with the people in charge having the crappy attitude about conservatives behind the scenes. It's one thing to claim such fairness and tolerance at a press conference, etc., but quite another to see how the people making such claims actually operate on the blogs. How do you expect conservatives to believe they will be given a fair shake at CS when the same people in charge treat conservatives so shabbily on a daily basis in the blogs?

Nobody is sniping Ed. What you are getting from some people above is from people who were there and from some of us who dared predict it. So if the doors are wide open for participation in the INITIAL PLANNING STAGES, I'm volunteering. I won't bring a partisan rant to CS, but I will insist on some balance across the board. I hope that isn't asking to much. Unfortunately, we live in a world today where a lot of progressives seem to believe that a call for fairness and balance is a partisan request. How intolerant is that?

Lenslinger

CA,

Not being all that political, I got no dog in this fight. I do however know the ConvergeSouth organizers and have yet to detect an overt, nefarious and clandestine agenda to to turn the Earth to the left. I know for certain Sue, Andy, Sean and others busted their humps to get people involved, politics notwithstanding. Was it a perfectly balanced event that achieved cyberspace nirvana? Of course not. But it WAS a viable gathering of people unafraid to put their faces where their on-line personas are.

You however, seem content to talk out of your ass about a happening you did not attend and seem hell-bent on disparaging. Why is that? Is there no sporting event on this weekend to bide your time. No family members or flower gardens that would benefit from your energies? Don't get me wrong - I couldn't care less how you spend your time but this obsession with CS and its zany cast of characters is w-a-y past the point of obsession. At least one gets the feeling Ben Holder ENJOYS playing devil's advocate. You sir, seem to be on the verge of a coronary. I find that odd.

Might you not look to Cara Michelle as a role model. She tempers her conservative views with a calm earnestness that makes folk stop and really consider her stance. You, on the other hand, bring to mind the term 'restraining order'. Rethink your approach. Perhaps you'll do you side some good. As for your promised involvement of next year's gathering, I'm reminded of my rather rustic father - who would no doubt advise you to 'shit, or get off the pot.'

Me - I'd never say that.

Jeffrey Sykes

Sam:

What Stewart said.

Jeff

Fec

Sam, there were sprouts and avocado on the sandwich, but you can take them off.

David Wharton

"David, Sue isn't aware that any conservative bloggers exist. Well, she's probably heard of some, but probably thinks they are pretty nasty people who might taint things. After all, they are conservatives first and foremost, one dimensional one trick ponies with nothing to add but conservative politics, and who wants that?"

Sam, Sue realized she didn't know much about righty bloggers, reached out to someone she thought did know, and worked to get them to participate.

But you, knowing nothing about what she did, and knowing nothing about how she relates personally to people who disagree with her politically, accuse her of narrow and malicious thoughts here in public.

Screw that. Sue is my friend. She has shown me and my family nothing but the most extraordinary personal warmth and generosity -- especially to my son, who is so conservative he makes you look like a piker.

Apologize.

Tom Lassiter

The solution to this fuss is simple.

Next year, invite Rush Limbaugh. He's a huge (no pun intended) tekkie and a Mac person.

Mickey McLean

As a conservative who attended the inaugural conference two years ago (and was even a presenter), I knew if I came back this year I would likely be subjected to a left-leaning agenda from many of the presenters, mainly because the people who organize the event and the people they attract to it are mostly on the left. However, I try my best to overlook this aspect of the conference in order to learn more about this ever-changing world of New Media. (Can't beat the fact that it's free, and I could roll out of bed and be there in 10 minutes.)

For the most part, I found the presenters' snide remarks, especially the agreeing disagreement panel, humorous. And it just reinforced my opinion of how closed-minded the supposedly open-minded left can be.

And why, Ed, would you expect more people to speak up when the vast majority of those in attendance agree with them and see nothing wrong with their comments? But thank you for speaking up in our defense. After their disingenuous response to you, I saw no need to push it any further.

That said, those unnecessary remarks do detract from the event and will keep some people from coming back. I know that Sue works hard and tries her best, but the organizers are going to have to decide whether CovergeSouth truly is "Creativity on the web for all people" or "Creativity on the web for only those people on the left." I am glad to hear that you tried to get Mary Katharine. In fact, Ed, the next time I saw you I was going to suggest that you go after her for next year (she has spoken at past BlogHer events, btw). How about Hugh Hewitt? Of course if you start bringing in people like that, the "open-minded" libs will likely start staying home. (Hmmmm ...)

And, Preston (good to see you again after all these years), it could have been worse: The Current TV folks could've put up an Al Gore for President banner. ;-)

And while we're talking about this, the presenters could clean up their language a bit, too. But, of course, this is more indicative of the coarsening of our culture as a whole than it is of this specific conference.

The CA

There will be no apology from me forthcoming. I have nothing to apologize for. Asking that more diverse voices be included at the planning phase is nothing to apologize for. Laughing at the notion that Sue couldn't find any conservatives is nothing to apologize for. She knows we exist.

Cara Michelle, whom I have been directed to emulate- wrote on her blog that there was some ideological imbalance and remarks she didn't care for. Others have noted same. Have they received and apology? Should they apologize?

This isn't about Sue personally or anyone else personally. This isn't about tearing down the event. It is about questioning whether the common bent of the organizers has effected the program, and it has to some degree. It is also about trying to prevent that from being the case in the future by adding more diverse voices in the planning stage and decision making process. But rather than actually commit to doing that, it is much easier to attack me.

That's fine, I'm used to it. I can work with Sue, Ed or anyone else. But clearly, they can't work with me. Why? Because I committed the sin of accusing them of having an ideology and raising the possibility that same ideology might skew the program and by suggesting a change in the future.

I suspect that once again, we will see an open invitation that isn't really open. At least not to some people. I'm volunteering now for next year, but do you think they are going to take me up on it? Don't hold your breath. The excuses will be predictable and highly hypocritical.

And Lenslinger, in the past 4 days I drove 500 miles to Cleveland, went to the ALCS game at Jacobs Field, blogged on same live, wrote several new posts, went to the West Side Market, drove 500 miles back, wrote some more posts, worked on one of my cars for a few hours, put together some furniture, spent all day Sunday in Martinsville at the NASCAR race, watched the ALCS on t.v., and also have two kids and a lot of pets. Hardly obsessing over this subject.

I don't need to "rethink my approach" because we've been down this road before and that really means to play defense all the time. What exactly needs rethinking? Really, answer that question.

Many of my concerns have been validated by others including Cara. So maybe by making this about me and my crappy attitude, one hopes those concerns will get lost in the mix.

And Wharton, I'm not attacking Sue, but I have seen how she has responded to people she doesn't agree with in the past. I've had no personal dealings with her, but judging by the statement that she couldn't find any conservatives, that tells me a lot about how she feels about people she doesn't agree with. At least locally. The only good conservatives are ones that don't fight back.

The CA

Add Mickey McLean to the list of rabid nuts who need to "rethink" their approach for suggesting possible bias at CS and a way to fix that reality/perception.

Or you can keep trying to discredit me...it's easier than acknowledging I may have a point.

David Wharton

Sam wrote,

Sue isn't aware that any conservative bloggers exist. Well, she's probably heard of some, but probably thinks they are pretty nasty people who might taint things. After all, they are conservatives first and foremost, one dimensional one trick ponies with nothing to add but conservative politics, and who wants that?
Then Sam wrote,
This isn't about Sue personally or anyone else personally ... I'm not attacking Sue ...
Do you think you can do some Jedi mind trick so that we'll not see what you wrote in your prevous comment?

By not apologizing to Sue, you show yourself to be a pettifogger and a cad.

The CA

You call that a personal attack? That wasn't even an attack personal or otherwise. It was sarcasm, which is widely prevalent on this blog. Why not ask Sue to apologize to me for getting on my case for raising the possibility that a progressive bias may exist at CS?

The denial is astounding, and the shifting of focus away from what others experienced with regard to bias to making this about me for some reason even more so.

By not acknowledging the merits of my concerns as well as the concerns of others and instead attacking me for daring to raise them, you show yourself to be an elitist and a disingenuous creep.

Sue

Above: "Why didn't they pan out? Not sure. I understand that Glenn Reynolds didn't respond to e-mails.

Why don't you ask Sue if you can organize a panel for next year? I'm 99% sure she'd say "yes."

=============
What Professor Wharton wrote is accurate. I know conservative bloggers exist; I don't know any of them personally and asked him and Dr. Guarino for help to name some and if they contact information because Glenn Reynolds didn't respond to 5 emails. I was hoping for a phone number.

Turns out that after repeated requests of local bloggers who tried hard to help, we came up with one responder: Mary Katharine Ham. She thought she had a conflict on the date and we exchanged emails and then she stopped responding as well, even after telling us she wanted to be there. BTW: suggesting her and her contact info came from Ed Cone.

I was concerned that Chris Rabb was politically pretty left and tried to get some conservative balance on that panel. You can't put on stage those who don't respond. (And I talked to Chris prior to the panel about the political controversies in this burg.)

Did you go to his final session with Will Bunch and Dan Conover? It was there Chris Rabb, in discussing the differences between ConvergeSouth and other major conferences he attended, declared that those who work on Yearly Kos (not speaking about Markos) border on cultists for the cause. Gasps of air were heard. On video. Will get DVD.

It helps to get to know someone for more than a 45 minute discussion before declaring that you understand his entire world view.

Sue

Sam: "...but judging by the statement that she couldn't find any conservatives, that tells me a lot about how she feels about people she doesn't agree with. At least locally. The only good conservatives are ones that don't fight back."

That's simply wrong (leaving off snarky or sarcastic but sticking to facts) and illogical leap. "Finding conservatives" means getting them to respond to requests, agreeing to speak for free (save airfare and hotel) and showing up on a particular date. I responded to your request to be on a particular committee at ConvergeSouth here, and hope you realize that no one is on just that committee; everyone who works on CS gets input (and we ask the whole community, too). It's grassroots, Sam. You roll up your sleeves, make the conference better in lots of ways and everyone gets to suggest panelists and keynoters. You're trying to bait me by volunteering to sit 'in judgment' of presenters and I'm telling you what everyone else knows: if you want to help with the conference, please do, but understand that you don't just get to sit around and opine about speakers; rather, you roll up your sleeves and do some real work, too.

What we need are personal contacts -- who do you know with online credentials who many people would like to hear? We don't need talking heads; we want people with cutting-edge creative online abilities for ConvergeSouth. If you can get contact info and perhaps a personal relationship (so they're likely to say yes), then send it along for our December first go-round and stop complaining about who's not there or if you and I like each other. Like it or not, when I put in the subject line of an intro email, "Ed Cone told us to write," or "Robert Scoble suggested your name," we get responses.

And let's not forget: CS is not supposed to be (and no, we don't always succeed 100%) about online politics. It's about online creativity. And this community's creativity in bringing them here.

Reiterating a point made before many times: NO ONE has ever been turned down due to political affiliation or social statement as long as that person meets the above criteria (online creativity) and says yes to speaking for no fee. It's time to put up or shut up. Which will it be?

David Wharton

Sam, I didn't attend the session in question, but I believe Preston and Mickey when they say that inappropriate remarks were made, and I agree with Ed that that's disappointing (I would have loved to meet MK Ham). Consider your concern acknowledged.

However. I called you a pettifogger. You responded by saying that using sarcasm against someone mentioned by name is not "an attack, personal or otherwise."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

If it's elitist or creepy to stick up for a friend, I'll wear those titles as badges of honor.

meblogin

Sam, Ed, Sue, David,

Why don't you guys have lunch and discuss next time? If you do, I would like to attend.

Sam would make an excellent choice as a speaker in my opinion but my guess is that he sees a conspiracy where none exists. If it up to the speakers to ask for an opportunity then where is the issue?

me

The CA

Thanks for the information Sue. I agree this shouldn't be a political event which is why I have raised so many concerns. I would like more clarification as to who decides who has "online credentials". Ed has served on many panels, who decided he had "online credentials"? How big does the fish have to be and how do you determine who is qualified for any given panel?

Mickey McLean

And remember next year's conference will happen only a few weeks before the general election. Therefore, keeping politics out of it will be more difficult than usual. And that could be fun, if both sides are represented and everyone agrees to disagree. ;-)

Daniel

As the moderator of the "We Do Agree to Disagree" session, I called the person who came up with the topic before the conference to find out what the original intent for the discussion had been. Answer: The agreed-upon disagreement was between New Media and Traditional Media, and the idea was to use that session to explore the differences between the ways new media sites define themselves and make decisions. I spoke briefly with both Ruby and Chris before the session about the theme and where I was going to go with my opening question. I opened the session by clarifying that I understood the topic to be a media topic and not a political topic.

I didn't stop Ruby or Chris from banging on Bush or right wingers, in part because some of the banging took place in answers to questions about how they were different from traditional media. But there were definitely moments when I could have (and perhaps should have) stepped in as moderator and interrupted them. I did intercept one question from a conservative blogger who raised a political point because I wanted to keep the focus on media. And those of you who didn't attend missed Ed Cone's tough questions to Ruby and Chris about inclusion, community-building and echo-chamber stuff. I interpreted their answers as largely, "One of the ways we're different is that we don't have to make those concerns a top priority." A legitimate (though, to me, not particularly compelling) perspective, and it would have been legitimate from a conservative blogger, too.

Sue

Meb wrote: "Why don't you guys have lunch and discuss next time? If you do, I would like to attend."

Sounds good to me. Let's schedule that on (throwing out a date): December 4, 2008 (Tuesday), lunchtime. Place TBD. We pay for our own meals. Does that work, Sam, Ed, Meb?

==========
Sam asks: "who decides who has "online credentials". Ed has served on many panels, who decided he had "online credentials"? How big does the fish have to be and how do you determine who is qualified for any given panel?"

Fair question. No single answer. Let's draw a profile of someone with online credentials.

Such a person probably has a blog or more than one. Goes to different conferences that focus on online stuff. Knows people in the industry. His/Her name is known by others in the industry. Comments on other blogs and even in print. Has contacts within the industry. Speaks to groups (based on his/her knowledge and practice of the above) by invitation. Is well-regarded, is fair, sees bigger pictures and uses what he or she talks about (e.g. social networking sites, twitter, facebook, myspace, and more); advises others on doing things online (because he or she practices the stuff); gets involved and keeps up, works for the community, thinks ConvergeSouth is worthwhile, is open to new ideas and the constantly-changing face of online-ness and is willing to play nicely with other boys and girls.

How's that, Sam? Make it clearer?

Daniel

For what it's worth, Janet and I both noticed the relative dearth of conservatives among the attendees. From our non-scientific survey (hanging out, drinking, eating, yacking) the number of conservatives in the sessions, at the BBQ, etc. was way down over the past two years. Why? We had conversations about that during the conference. If your answer to that is simply that the organizers are rigging the game to make conservatives feel unwelcome, then thank you all for coming, I've had a great time and be sure to tip your bartenders...

Sue

Mickey, is that your volunteering to help us choose speakers & panelists I read above? If so, please! You're hired! Honestly, it will be a rare occasion - just a little bit before the 2008 general election and gives us (Greensboro) a chance to be heard. See my suggestion for a panel here. Would you like to work on getting presenters and a moderator for that panel?

Or should I see if Al Gore is available? (big smile)

Sue

Dan wrote: "Janet and I both noticed the relative dearth of conservatives among the attendees."

I noticed the dearth of conservatives (among others) who didn't speak up. I stopped a keynoter once to encourage people to ask questions; Ed defended the conservative POV in the "We Agree..." panel.

One side of me asks: is it easier to complain later (after) than speak up now (during)?

The other side asks: will a conservative feel marginalized for speaking up?

I'd appreciate ways to solve the dilemma and get more audience-led participation. Got some? Anyone?

Jim Rosenberg

Getting Mickey involved would be a real coup (Hi, Mickey!). I have stuff on him from High School if he tries to bail.

Sue

Rosenberg, you're tagged for CS2008. October 17-28. Clear your calendar. We gave you the year off, but your backsliding MUST stop :)

Ross Myers

My questions would be...who has been making the final decisions as to who the panelists are going to be?

Was there a selection committee this year?....and if so who made up this years committee?

How is the selection committee chosen?

I would like to volunteer to be on it next year.

Jim Rosenberg

True story: I was in the Teenage Republicans with Mickey in Junior High School, because my best friend was President of the group and even back then my political convictions took a back seat to my having-fun convictions. Mickey, please confirm my attendance at said meetings at Bill's house. I'd join up again it looked like a good time and the snacks rocked.

Ed Cone

"And why, Ed, would you expect more people to speak up when the vast majority of those in attendance agree with them and see nothing wrong with their comments? But thank you for speaking up in our defense. After their disingenuous response to you, I saw no need to push it any further."

I see a couple of problems with this statement, Mickey. For one, I don't know, and you don't know, the feelings of a "vast majority" of the attendees about the remarks, and more importantly, the appropriateness of those remarks in the context of the conference.

Secondly, and most relevant: it's a web conference, all about empowering individuals -- if people are really so cowed or complacent that my rather pointed remarks sparked no follow-up, then the crowd is missing a key point of the event.

It's either important to respond, or it's not. A conference organizer stands up and challenges the speakers at length -- and NOBODY follows.

Are the people who are complaining really interested in the issues, or do they just hope to get through life without having their ideas challenged and/or standing up for their own points of view?

Mickey McLean

Since Guarino wasn't there on Friday, I was afraid if I spoke up, no one would eat lunch with me. Or they'd make me eat at a table way off to the right somewhere. ;-)

And Sue, I'll be glad to use any connections I have to bring in some right-wing nut jobs to balance things out.

And Jim, I have so much more on you from high school and college!

Mick

I'll keep my eyes on MM on Sundays.

Mickey McLean

Jim: "I was in the Teenage Republicans with Mickey in Junior High School ... Mickey, please confirm my attendance at said meetings at Bill's house."

I can't, because back then I Was a Teenage Liberal. Hmmm ... that's sounds like a good title for a horror flick.

Jim Rosenberg

Mickey - That's right; we swapped. I remember the day we changed world views like it was yesterday. We were listening to "Strawberry Letter 23" and not talking to girls when I started fiddling with the contrast stitching on my leisure suit and you began snapping the buttons on your Members Only jacket. Within moments, you declared your intention to be a Nutjob and I announced that I hated America. Big day.

Ed Cone

Mickey, thanks for speaking up in this forum, and for attending the conference (and congrats on your new gig!)

Again, I have an issue with your characterization of the atmosphere, even as gently and humorously as you deliver it.

Preston spoke up. Then I stood up and made a fairly aggressive effort to redirect the conversation, mentioning you specifically in my remarks.

If that amount of covering fire isn't enough, then what is?

Let's also remember: this discussion is about ONE session out of a couple of dozen.

I want this conference to be for all people, but that means all people have to be willing to endure the ideas of other people.

Mickey McLean

Take issue with my characterization all you want, Ed. It's your right and your blog. I'm just offering an observation from someone who pulled out of the local blogging scene two years ago and jumped back in this weekend to see that not much has changed in these areas. And if you truly want to attract more conservatives to this conference, you are going to have to actively change this perception whether its rightly deserved or not, because apparently I am not the only one who feels that way.

And I had no desire to take on Ruby or Chris and their politics in that setting. That's not why I was there. I was there to learn something, and even at that session, I learned something.

Sue

Let's try to be clearER: No one just sites on a "committee" to pass judgment and select presenters. That's just not how it works. People work on the conference (see the jobs available here) and we all talk over who we'd like to present, suggest topics and a theme for the conference, and agree on a wishlist of people.

Ross, Sam, and anyone else: there is no committee that does NO work except choose presenters. Clear?

Mickey, are you volunteering to work on a panel around the topic I suggested here? Or something else? (Trying to understand if I "put you down on the list" for that task.)

Mickey McLean

And thank you, Ed, for your congratulations. Despite our differences, you and the local blogging community, including those on the left, have been instrumental in my career development. And for that I'll always be grateful.

Mickey McLean

Sue: It appears to be a good topic, but it's probably premature to start locking in what we'll be interested in talking about next year. Things can and do change quickly in these areas. But, yes, I'll be glad to help you put together a panel.

The comments to this entry are closed.