Hiding behind the facade

Share This!

Anonymity makes a lot of things easier. Personal attacks and inaccurate representations, for example, don’t present much of an issue if nobody really knows who you are when you invoke them.

For some reason that isn’t very clear to me, “Amanda Chapel,” s/he of “Strumpette,” has singled me out from all of those who blogged about the blog de plume for savaging. (It’s not clear because I only referenced the Strumpette blog in two posts. Maybe Amanda doesn’t like being ignored.) In a rather lengthy and meandering piece that rejects the importance of transparency, Amanda tosses out this bit of narrative:

...look at certain PR Bloggers and lead zealots like Shel Holtz and friends. These are the same geeky misfits that made up the high-school AV club. Now listen to Shel and others self righteously proclaim that “Online credibility is based on transparency.” These web-thug fundamentalists would surely mug Mini Mouse at Disney World and throw her into the Seven Seas Lagoon.

Why does the dynamic persist and where does it get its power?

Sadly… this is the PR’s Blogging “A” team. They were the “pioneers” (their words). As such, their perceptions and misperceptions have been raised up as gospel. When they say the word “podcasting,” i.e. a simple procedure of recording and putting that file on the web, you’d think you’d have heard an interview with Reinhart Stroodle, the famous international brain surgeon, on NPR.

It is self reinforcing because they promote and protect each other. Also, as the fundamentalists are loud, they give off the appearance of general consensus.

Bottom line: their real motive is to maintain their power. As such any threat is reduced.

The inaccuracies and fallacies in this brief passage are so many and deep that it’s startling to ponder how one person could fit so many into so few words.

The AV club? Not me

First, let’s dispense with the personal attack. I was not a geek and I was never a member of the high-school AV club. I wish I had been; I might be rich today. But from the time I was eight, I wanted to be a newspaper reporter. I worked on the high school newspaper and was a member of the debate team. I was not a jock, but played a lot of tennis. (I will not stoop to guessing Amanda’s high school activities. It’s none of my business, irrelevant to the discussion of transparency, and frankly rather juvenile.) Oh, and my father worked for Disney when I was growing up. Mickey put dinner on our table.

The transparency debate

The fact that Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and their friends are costumed and anonymous is a non sequitur. Nobody will make critical business decisions based on anything Mickey or Donald say. I have no problem with the New York bouncer who blogs anonymously. His blog is primarily an entertainment and there is no reason I need to know that he is genuinely a bouncer and not, in fact, a 75-year-old widow living out a fantasy. Even Mini Microsoft is in good shape blogging anonymously. He displays enough information to assure me he truly does work for Microsoft, fellow Microsoft employees have confirmed it, and his criticism requires no special background or knowledge beyond that which comes from being an employee.

In other words, in none of these cases is credibility an issue.

When a medical blogger writes about opting for a surgical procedure instead of a course of medication, however, people may make life-altering decisions based on that advice. It would be nice—make that necessary—to know they have the background, training, and skill to offer such an opinion. While similar decisions based on the writings of PR bloggers are not equally momentous, they can be career-affecting. Before I make a decision based on what I read from a PR blogger, I’d like to know their credentials. I’m far more inclined to trust what I read from Josh Hallett or John Wagner or Kami Huyse than I am from somebody unwilling to identify themselves. It’s more troubling to consider taking advice from someone without the strength of their conviction to put their name to their words.

The key message in Amanda’s post is that the transparency “movement” has gone too far. This so-called movement is grass-roots in nature and has inspired, among other things, Sarbanes-Oxley. It grew from the abuses of Enron and WorldComm and Tyco and Adelphia and a host of others who secretly engaged in wildly unethical behavior that caused untold grief for hundreds of thousands of innocent people, from employees to investors. The widespread public demand for transparency is a backlash against such behavior. It is the business watchword of the decade. Neither I nor my PR blogging colleagues made it so. We simply advise our own clients based on our recognition that it is so.

Edelman’s blogger relations effort on behalf of Wal*Mart would not have suffered any serious criticism if not for the perceived failures in transparency. And it wasn’t the PR blogosphere that pointed the finger at Edelman. The PR blogosphere simply reported and analyzed what was being said by Wal*Mart’s critics.

My place in the blogosphere

I am flattered that Amanda considers me part of PR blogging’s “A” team. I never viewed myself that way. I started blogging back in 2004 with a couple of goals. One was to learn about blogging so I could advise my clients intelligently about it (the same reason, incidentally, that I started podcasting). Another was to help me clarify my own thinking but putting my thoughts into words. I never sought power and do not believe that I wield any. If I do, perhaps Amanda can enlighten me as to how that power is exercised. All I have are my own words and my name behind them.

Amanda displays a remarkable degree of ignorance in her characterization of podcasting. That surprised me. I wrote that I didn’t like Strumpette, but never doubted Amanda’s intelligence. Between the personal attack and the failure to understand the distinction between podcasting and downloadable audio, however, I’ve been forced to change my assessment.

Dear Amanda, it’s the ability to subscribe to a podcast so you don’t have to go get it that distinguishes it from downloadable audio. Further, neither I nor any other PR blogger or podcaster I know is responsible for articulating that distinction. Rather, authorities from the Oxford English Dictionary to the Wiley and McGraw-Hill publishing houses to venture capital firms like Sequoia Investments and Kleiner Perkins have taken the lead, not to mention the 30,000 or so podcasters who are more than just producers of downloadable audio.

As for me, I see my role simply as helping my clients and anyone who wants to listen figure out how to use podcasting as a channel for reaching and influencing publics.

I was also amused at the notion that we supposed “A” list bloggers support and reinforce each other. Interestingly, a report was issued just today by the Blogads network that found “There are multiple blogospheres,” according to Blogads CEO Henry Copeland. “These people actually run in packs and the packs have very distinct characteristics.”

I run in two packs, in fact. My travel blog is part of the travel pack. Most of the people who comment there have their own travel blogs. Mostly, though, I run in the PR pack. I am aware of the PR blogs that I am aware of. As I learn of new ones, I read them and decide whether they resonate with me. If they do, I add them to my feeds. When someone says something I want to comment on, I link to them. I do not defend them unless I believe an attack on them is fundamentally wrong. I have also disagreed publicly with bloggers who are part of my pack. BL Ochman and I don’t always see eye to eye, but I still respect her and like her.

This linking back and forth among various blogs that address the same themes and issues is exactly what makes the blogosphere the blogosphere. It is not a circling of the wagons or an effort to defend a position of power. One cannot defend something one does not have. I blog as a form of self-expression, not, as Amanda would have it, as “the weapon of Taliban Militia-like Net geeks who bully others to impose their fundamentalist beliefs.” How in the world do I (or any other PR bloggers) do that, for God’s sake? Sounds to me like Amanda has some issues she really should address. And if she doesn’t like what I write, nobody’s twisting her arm to read it. I don’t read her. In fact, the only reason I read this particular post is because she emailed me directly pointing to it with a message bearing the cryptic subject line, “FYI: You’re Mentioned.” Indeed.

On credibility

I assume that if anyone takes what I write seriously, it is because what I write makes sense to some (certainly not all), and for some people, knowing who I am lends credibility to my words. As for what I write, my background and my credentials are on my website for anyone to see. These are the source of my credibility, not the imagined support of my fellow PR bloggers.

In the end, though, I really don’t care what Amanda says about me, because Amanda has zero credibility. I did, however, want to make sure that inaccuracies in her post were addressed and the source of my “proclamations” explained.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Technorati Tags: transparency, strumpette

1. Strumpette is weird, just plain weird.

   Posted by Alice Marshall  on  04/26  at  03:00 PM

2. Hiding behind the facade… what do you think your credentials are?

   Zero crdibility?  Says who?  You?

   Lastly, you started this.  And you just underscored every word I wrote.

   - Amanda

   Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/26  at  03:44 PM

3. Like I said, weird, just plain weird.

   Posted by Alice Marshall  on  04/26  at  03:50 PM

4. Shut up Alice.

   Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/26  at  04:25 PM

5. Amanda, you’ll have credibilty when I can assess it through an examination of your credentials. Mine are in plain sight, but in case you have trouble finding them: 30 years in the profession, accredited, an IABC Fellow, author of five well-reviewed PR books by reputable publishers (and a sixth on the way), author of several manuals and dozens of magazine and journal articles, strong references from satisfied clients, stints as director of corporate communications at two Fortune 500 companies and as a communications practice leader at a global consulting firm, six years as a member of the IABC international executive board…

   THAT’S what I think my credentials are. Now how about you, Amanda? Pony up. Quid pro quo.

   And by the way…“you started this”? “Shut up”? What are you, eight years old? Sheesh. You’re a fine one to talk about proving a point.

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/26  at  06:07 PM

6. I think “shut up” has to be one of the most self-defeating remarks you can make in blogosphere.

   In any case I don’t see any need to show credentials, people can read your blog and decide whether or not it is credible. I read Holtz because he is interesting.

   Posted by Alice Marshall  on  04/26  at  06:24 PM

7. Jeez, of ALL the people to pick on, she (?) picks you. IMO, one of the classiest acts in communications blogging. Rarely negative, always informative. Ah well.

   I wouldn’t worry about it. We may be (by choice) nobodies, but as far as I can tell she isn’t anybody. Literally.

   Posted by Susan Getgood  on  04/26  at  06:25 PM

8. Thanks, Susan, for the kind words. FWIW, I’m not worried, just amused. And frankly, I’m done wasting any more energy on Amanda Chapel. She can write what she likes (unless and until she enters the realm of libel). I have better things to focus on.

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/26  at  06:29 PM

9. Looks as if this piece of strumpette is looking to write a book of her own - how to market a blog in three easy steps.

   1.  Read what the respected have to say
   2.  Criticise them vehemently enough that they have to defend themselves
   3.  Repeat as appropriate

   And it seems to be working.  I have to admit that I read Amanda’s blog, but it’s filed in the ‘entertainment’ folder of my favourites.  Along with the anonymous bouncer.

   Posted by Ed  on  04/27  at  04:17 AM

10. Shel,

    Your credentials are a PR façade you dope.  Pretty meaningless stuff, all of it: 30 years in the profession, accredited, an IABC Fellow, author of five PR books… so what?!  Other than you and the cool-aid crowd, and maybe a handful of juniors, who cares?  Susan Getgood, there’s a heavy hitter.

    Inane, painfully inane… the lot of ya.

    I had quoted Edward Wasserman, the Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University in my piece.  Reread his conclusion about dealing with your types.  “Instead of ad hominem critiques, we’re better off focusing on what matters: subjecting reporting to the test of truthfulness, and argument to the test of persuasiveness. That’s the terrain we can fight and win on.”

    I will compare my writing and the issues I address with your incessant silly drone any day of the week.

    Ciao for now,

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/27  at  06:23 AM

11. I’m wondering if The Strump and Mr Crescenzo have been engaging in mutual ‘one hand clapping’... The Strump engages by delightfully and delicately pointing out what erks her, in a graceful and respectful manner.

    Mr Crescenzo slanders Allan Jenkins in a post that delightfully and delicately points out what erks him, in a graceful and respectful manner.

    I see a trend…

    To top it all off, to show that God has a sense of irony, the ‘capture’ password I have to submit is “love”. I feel all gooey and unnecessary already…

    Posted by Lee  on  04/27  at  06:41 AM

12. “You dope”? I take it all back, Amanda. You’re not eight. You’re six.

    Name me one client or agency that would make a hiring decision based on your creditials. Oh, wait. You don’t have any. Just citations from other people and conclusions that make no sense.

    Crawl back in your hole, Amanda, until you grow up enough to learn to engage in intelligent conversation instead of toss invective. I don’t have the time or the interest for any more of it. Prattle on all you like with your inanities and insults; you’ve heard the last from me.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/27  at  06:45 AM

13. I stand by my words… whether you can comprehend them or not.  What I am certain is that my words helped many put your vacuous drivel into perspective.

    This isn’t over.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/27  at  06:54 AM

14. Shel,
    I do notice that she’s still linking to your blog. Your “dopiness” must be of some value to her. I find your patience and restraint remarkable. I’d probably find myself reverting to a favorite, teenage slander…something childish and effective like “Blow me…”

    Posted by Dee Rambeau  on  04/27  at  09:18 AM

15. Hi, Dee. You do realize, don’t you, that by posting a supportive comment here, you’ll probably invite a childish insult from “Amanda.” Insulting anyone who disagrees with it is “Amanda’s” modus operandi. (I’ve decided, since “Amanda” is a ficitious character whose gender is unknown, I’ll be referring to “Amanda” as “it” henceforth. More accurate and rhymes with another word that characterizes the value she brings to the conversation.)

    Don’t think for a moment, Dee, that I haven’t been tempted to deal with “Amanda” and its own level, but I just can’t bring myself to sink to those subterranean depths. The reason I won’t engage with it any longer, despite its threat that “this isn’t over” is that I won’t waste any more time in a pointless dialogue with someone who doesn’t exist. Yes, it IS over.

    Why is it pointless? “Amanda”...

    * Does not engage in discussion. She simply insults people who disagree. She has already done it to Alice Marshall and Susan Getgood is this one post alone.

    * Never responds to direct questions.

    * Never responds to any points of substance that have been raised.

    * Ignores points that don’t square with its perverted, convoluted view of things.

    * Thinks experience is not a measure of credibility.

    * Thinks peer recognition is not a measure of credibility.

    * Thinks achievement of real-world work on behalf of real-world clients that produces real-world outcomes that affect business results is not a measure of credibility.

    * In fact, thinks the only measure of credibility is the ability to cite other people’s writing combined with an abiding affection for of its own words.

    There’s more, but here I am, wasting time again. What’s the point? There IS no point. Thus I’ll not respond to “Amanda” again; it can rail all it likes. I’m done. But of course, I’ll engage in conversation with you, Dee, and anybody else who cares to participate here or elsehwere!

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/27  at  10:15 AM

16. “It” - Again the ad hominem critiques.  See Wasserman’s quote above.  Have someone explain it to you.

    “Does not engage in discussion” - Excuse me but I have been quite detailed in my critique.  And you spent 1,600 words trying to refute it.

    “Never responds to direct questions.” - I always respond to meaningful questions.  Always.

    “Never responds to any points of substance that have been raised.” - Nonsense.

    “Ignores points that don’t square with its perverted, convoluted view of things.” - Nonsense.

    “Thinks experience is not a measure of credibility.”  - Knows that 30 years wasted in the inane pseudo-profession of PR is NOT a measure of credibility by any means.

    “Thinks peer recognition is not a measure of credibility.” - Certain that peer recognition among nincompoops is embarrassing.  Shel, I am embarrassed for you.

    “Thinks achievement of real-world work on behalf of real-world clients that produces real-world outcomes that affect business results is not a measure of credibility.”  Sign #7 that the old man is senile or on crack.  I am sure you’ve done some things.  I would hope so.  But so what?  It’s PR!

    “In fact, thinks the only measure of credibility is the ability to cite other people’s writing combined with an abiding affection for of its own words.”  Huh?

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/27  at  10:39 AM

17. Shel, you have more patience than I would have to continue engaging in conversation with this person. It’s getting unpleasant now. She (or he) is a vindictive troll. Just not worth the time.

    Posted by Neville Hobson  on  04/27  at  02:23 PM

18. Shel,

    However small scale, this has been a wonderful lesson in net relations and managing an adversarial audience.  I am certain your client prospect can reference this as an example of your “real-world” expertise.

    Question: what might you charge for this kind of counsel?  Priceless.

    - Amanda Chapel

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/27  at  05:03 PM

19. Why are you all feeding the troll?

    Let him crawl back to wherever he came from. Move on. Nothing to see here folks. Just a guy wearing his mom’s dresses.

    Posted by David Parmet  on  04/27  at  05:27 PM

20. Sad.  So sad.

    I miss the days when “it” threatened to bring legal action against my employer because I was blogging on company time.  I only wish now that “it” had actually taken action, because then we’d have the satisfaction that “it” can actually waste “its” own time and energy pursuing pointless outcomes.

    Brian Connolly obviously has some issues.

    Posted by Gregory Kohs  on  04/27  at  06:26 PM

21. Thank you, Neville, but my patience has been exhausted.

    David, spot on. I never should have risen to the bait. Shame on me.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/27  at  06:39 PM

22. Hard to ignore when one is being attacked—even by a troll.

    That said, let’s hope this one goes back under its bridge soon.

    Posted by Susan Getgood  on  04/27  at  06:55 PM

23. Shel,

    Best selling authors need to accept that they will be attacked. Just look at Dan Brown

    I believe the actual term is “Trolless” - or as they say in the UK, “She-Troll.”

    Posted by Ted Demopoulos  on  04/27  at  07:16 PM

24. Ted, the internet meaning is definitely the applicable one here:

    “In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    Mind you, the traditional definitions’s a good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls

    Posted by Neville Hobson  on  04/27  at  11:39 PM

25. Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

    Okay… so I guess we can conclude that “AV Club’s” only response in these situations, which for the record are a likelihood in the Net “conversation,” is name calling and/or ignore it.

    Now again, how much are you going to charge clients for that advice?

    Silly.

    Note again, I been talking about issues, you folks just want to discredit the messenger.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  03:04 AM

26. My fellow PR bloggers, please do not waste any time or effort responding to “Amanda’s” latest disingenuous comment. I responded to its various issues in my original post kicking off this discussion, addressing the source of the need for transparancy and its application to blogging, as well as putting the lie to the “AV club” characterization which re-emerges in this most recent round of name-calling. “Amanda’s” response was captured in comment 2 in this thread (a behavior, by the way, which it denied in #16). Now, after hurling insults and ignoring substance, it wants to talk issues. It can screech all it likes, I’m doing talking to it. Indeed, the blogosphere is about conversation, which has characterized the constructive and instructive dialogue among PR bloggers since I first joined this community (yep, “community,” not “cabal.”) Amanda has hurled invective and insult, and now suddenly wants an answer to a billing question. I’ll discuss my rates when a client calls. I will discuss nothing with a person who does not exist and whose sole purpose seems to be to impose bitterness and anger on others, and I hope you will not, as well.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/28  at  03:48 AM

27. Which is precisely why I have blacklisted him. http://leehopkins.net/2006/04/28/la-strump-banned-from-bettercomms-towers/

    One can take a joke only so far, then one has to move on, get on with life and as Scoble recently concluded, eradicate the vermin from one’s environment.

    Posted by Lee  on  04/28  at  06:11 AM

28. Lee who? Please.

    Excuse me boys, but my world is bigger than your world.  You can count your club members on your two hands.  The people that think you’re goofy are legion.

    Banned. Pshaw.  You could not pay me to be so insipid.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  08:42 AM

29. Not person, but a “fearsome member of a mythical anthropomorph race” - i.e. the original menaing of Troll (thanks definition to Wikipedia).

    Goats fear Amanda Even Billy Goats Gruff!

    Posted by Ted Demopoulos  on  04/28  at  08:44 AM

30. Amanda Pants,

    I’m rubber, you’re glue. Bounce off me, stick to you.

    Na nee, na nee, boo boo.

    Posted by Jon  on  04/28  at  08:51 AM

31. Ah… and there you have it.

    See you around boys.

    Ciao,

    - Amanda Chapel

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  10:06 AM

32. I believe Constantin Basturea is tracking some 600 or 700 PR blogs. “Amanda” must have very large hands.

    Posted by Shel Holtz, ABC  on  04/28  at  12:14 PM

33. Wow! This has turned into a blockbuster post.

    What I’m seeing here is Shel attempting to defend himself against someone whose weapon is simple ridiculousness. That ridiculousness in my opinion is part of a well calculated effort to gain cachet in the world of PR blogging.

    Let’s face it. Sensationalism mixed with sex gets eyeballs. But that gets old quickly.

    This whole, “I’m tougher, smarter, sexier, cooler (throw in your own ‘er adjective) than you.” approach is a bunch of malarkey.

    Shel’s a good guy. And he’s very smart on how companies can use social media to their advantage. So no need for a defense really, because anyone who knows Shel knows the deal. And anyone who knows anything can see that Amanda is desperate for attention.

    Looks like Amanda spent a bit of time studying Soccergirl’s podcast and old Sex And The City episodes prior to launching her blog.

    Posted by Rob Safuto  on  04/28  at  04:07 PM

34. You grossly overestimate yourself.  Always.  But that’s PR.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  04:08 PM

35. I thought he said he’s taking his little black dress and going home?

    Why do you keep coming back Brian, or whatever your hame is?  Why do you keep this facade up?

    It’s getting tired.

    Posted by David Parmet  on  04/28  at  04:14 PM

36. Sorry, Rob.  We must have posted simultaneously.  #34 was directed at Shel.

    With regard to “he (shel) is very smart on how companies can use social media to their advantage.”  That right?  Excuse me but the point is that 97 percent of that is pure hype.  You don’t know that for fact.  In fact, common business sense would say you are wrong altogether.  97 percent of the Fortune 500 think that belief is complete and utter nonsense.

    The rest of your post is just more ad hominem.  Whatever.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  04:16 PM

37. errr, Amanda, what you got against hype? If it’s just hype, like smoke with no fire, that’s one thing, but plenty of worthwhile things are hyped initially as well . . .

    Posted by Ted Demopoulos  on  04/28  at  04:21 PM

38. Agreed.  But keep in mind we were the air in the tech bubble.  There were a lot of celebrity PR “gurus” then, too.  They did well.  And a lot of people lost their life savings.

    Me2Revolution?  All the way to the bank I am afraid.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  04:34 PM

39. Marketing begins at home… lame.

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/28  at  04:35 PM

40. Colleagues, there is no point in continuing to discuss this with “Amanda.” “Amanda” clearly despises PR and all who practice it. It sees no shades of grey, no distinction between good PR and bad, and has no understanding that not all practice of public relations is hype. It’s sad, since such crass generalizations are no different than saying “All Jews are tightwads” or “all lawyers are liars and thieves.” This broad generalization reveals the shallowness of “Amanda’s” intellect.

    Besides “Amanda’s” failure to understand what PR people do, it also hasn’t done much homework, since it doesn’t realize that I have spent the majority of my career in the field of employee communications and have never, ever, worked in product or marketing PR. When I did work in PR, it was corporate, producing annual reports, handling media inquiries about business performance and business issues, and positioning organizational initiatives such as acquisitions.

    But back to the belief that all PR is hype. If I thought there was any hope that “Amanda” could be convinced that there is more to PR than that, I would point to Burson-Marstellar’s brilliant behind-the-scenes negotiation with animal rights activitists on behalf of Starkist resulting in Starkist’s exclusion from a tuna boycott. I might also point out my own experience at Allergan when a reporter called from Waco, Texas, asking if our contact lenses were the ones being sold on street corners to school children (prom was approaching and girls wanted tinted lenses to match their gowns; Allergan had a manufacturing plant in Waco). While I worked to find out whether, in fact, they were our lenses, I issued an advisory throughout Waco media, government, and other outlets warning parents that children using lenses without a prescription could cause permanent damage to their eyes. We learned later that several parents, armed with that information, were able to get the lenses from their kids before they wore them. That’s real hype, now, isn’t it?

    But I don’t expect “Amanda” to absorb any of this. Clearly something happened in its past that led to this unbridled and illogical view of PR, and nothing we say will change that. So let it seethe and bluster. Let’s restrain from feeding its desparate need for attention.

    Posted by Shel Holtz, ABC  on  04/29  at  09:12 AM

41. “Amanda” is right, by the way. As far as I can tell by looking at Constantin’s list of PR blogs (http://www.bloglines.com/public/prblogs), he is tracking 444 PR blogs, which is still considerably more than “Amanda” can count on both hands…unless it’s horribly deformed.

    Posted by Shel Holtz, ABC  on  04/29  at  09:22 AM

42. I’ve just finished an article that should definitively wrap up this discussion on credentials and credibility.  I should get around to posting it later today.  Shel, thank you for your inspiration.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/29  at  09:44 AM

43. There: http://strumpette.com/archives/100-Oldest-PR-Org-Puts-Brakes-on-Star-Promotion.html

    Enjoy.

    Ciao,

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/29  at  02:00 PM

44. Don’t read the above, everybody. Just another pathetic display about how desparate and ill-informed this loser is. And a lie as well, since it promised to “definitively wrap up this discussion on credentials and credibility” but never once addressed it, resorting again to personal attacks instead of reasoned discussion, continuing the behavior it has so firmly established. We still have no clue about this coward’s own credentials, by the way, so it continues to have zero credibility (says me), another reason to consign this waste of bandwidth to the dustbin of blogging history. (Also, I can’t produce childish PhotoShop images the way it can because I have no idea who it is. Probably just as well.)

    Speaking of credentials and credibility, I would hope that “Amanda,” suffering some ghastly medical emergency, assigns the same criteria to the surgeon upon whom it depends to save its life as it does to those writing about professional activities in the blogosphere. I hope it’s the first to drive across a bridge designed by a structural engineer whose credentials are limited to those it insists are important, eschewing experience, education, training, reputation, peer recognition, publication and the other criteria most professionals in most professions deem valuable.

    I have said this before and succumbed to further assaults on my honor that I did nothing to provoke, but I am now going to stand by it. I’m finished with this boil on the ass of the blogosphere. I will not read its blog, I will not respond to its vicious and unwarranted posts (note it has not responded to a single point I made about the value of PR), I will not acknowledge its pathetic, embarrassing existence. I suggest you do the same. If you’re looking for valid criticism of the PR industry, you can find it at PR Watch.

    If nobody reads Strumpette, it won’t make a sound.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/29  at  02:17 PM

45. That’s pretty thin skinned.  I thought you would have especially liked the picture.

    By the way, you threw the first stone.

    - Amanda

    Posted by Amanda Chapel  on  04/29  at  02:24 PM

46. My friends, to set the record straight, “Amanda” threw the first stone. My very first comment on its atrociousness followed my having been spammed by it. Period. End of story. -30- I have followed the lead of my friend Lee Hopkins and taken the drastic action of blocking Strumpette from further posting here, just as I would a white supremacist or any other hatemonger. Let it find other venues to spew its bile.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  04/29  at  02:27 PM

47. I’ve stayed silent on Brian Connolly’s latest Excellent Adventure mostly because I figured it would self implode.  And it will, if it hasn’t already.  I met him back when he made an ass of himself in the Mambo community. 

    http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/09/29/000224.shtml?tid=147

    But it bugs me to see him throwing rocks at someone I respect.  Shel is a class act, and any objective reader of this thread will see Amanda/Brian for what he is.  The only good thing about any of this is that threads like these will work their way into the Wayback machine, and Brian/Amanda will continue to build a reputation for himself that will never go away.

    Are you building something worthwhile or giving away your knowledge, or merely throwing rocks and tearing down the work of others for your own self promotion?  Either way, on the Net, you will be remembered.  I’d take Shel’s history over Brian’s any day.

    Posted by Jerry Stevenson  on  05/04  at  02:25 PM

48. First off, I am not Amanda.  I know her personally.  I am her webmaster and CTO (slight overstatement).  I am also curious and certainly following all this.  But I am assuredly not her.

    With regard to the article you cite, it’s by whom?  A Mambo cheerleader and junior hack pretending to be a journalist.  I find it interesting that you’d think it would resonate here.  I hope it does.  Not that it matters.  Suffice to say, remember… I radically changed Mambo!

    Brian Connolly
    President
    WePublishing, Inc.

    Posted by Brian Connolly  on  05/04  at  03:07 PM

49. Jerry, I couldn’t agree with you more! Give me Shel’s history on the web. If we measure our success outside of our family by what others say about us, then surely Shel ‘the handsome one’ Holtz will be toasted and roasted by the denizens of this community as the outstanding, worthy and incredibly kind and generous success he is. The celebrations will continue for a very long time as each recipient of his friendship and wisdom will have much to say.

    But don’t punch out your timecard just yet, Shel, okay? I still need to pick your brains about podcasting, skype, mixers and microphones…

    Posted by Lee  on  05/04  at  03:09 PM

50. Suspicion
    http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/2006/03/april-fools-joke-gone-awry.html

    Evidence
    http://www.derekleverington.com/archives/2006/04/strumpette_aka.html

    If you were just hosting the site I’d buy it.  But when you and Amanda post from identical IP addresses?  Umm. No. I’m a proud charter member of the A/V club, and while I’m useless for fashion advice, I know a con like this when I see it.

    “There Are No Secrets, Only Information You Don’t Yet Have”

    That’s the last oxygen I’ll be giving this troll.  Sorry, all, for prolonging it.  On to more important topics..

    Posted by Jerry Stevenson  on  05/04  at  04:25 PM

51. I’ve admitted being associated.  But I am not Amanda.

    With regard to your “evidence,” I think you need to ask someone who knows a little more than how to write a press release.  Ask them about “IP Spoofing.”  “Amanda” was started by a woman and is now 5 people, I understand.

    So much for your “evidence.”

    Brian Connolly
    President
    WePublishing, Inc.

    Posted by Brian Connolly  on  05/04  at  04:36 PM

52. Yo Troll!

    Errr, I understand IP spoofing perfectly well - I’m an IT security guy. It’s in my DNA. Are you trying to tell me you are spoofing your IP address to appear to be Amanda?

    I assure you no one is changing/spoofing your or Amanda’s IP address in your own comments. Yes, possible, but about as likely as someone legitimately trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge (BTW: don’t buy it - it’s a maintenance nightmare.

    Now please go back to your blog and do some more Pope blogging. How about something on the Coptic Pope? He’s a pretty cool low key guy who could use some press in the Western world. Of course he has a few million followers elsewhere. Rumor is he can spoof IP addresses with just a prayer!

    Posted by Ted Demopoulos  on  05/04  at  05:06 PM

53. Oh, this is too delicious not to indulge.  It was ‘IP Spoofing’ eh?  So Amanda spoofed her IP to make everyone think… it was you?  And that would be because.. She wanted more publicity by creating the connection and therefore the controversy?  Or you are Spoofing her IP, because…  Um.. 

    IP Spoofing. As my teenage nephew would so elegantly put it, OMFGROFLJURPWNED!  I’d actually have more respect for you if you were smart enough to have done IP spoofing in the beginning instead of leaving such easy tracks for, yes, even a non-AV Club (though he may get an honorary membership for this) person like Derek to figure out. 

    So please, please, Brian.  Explain how the IP Spoofing caused this crazy mixup.  I’m dying to know.

    I’m also curious how, literally within minutes, you respond in a comment thread regarding Amanda.  Oh, Amanda subscribed to replies and forwarded you the e-mail, right?..  Yeah.. That’s it.

    Posted by Jerry Stevenson  on  05/04  at  05:24 PM

54. Sure, there could have been a shooter behind the grassy knoll but fact is, you don’t know.  You don’t.  Troll?  Whatever.  In the end, this naming exorcise gives you zero power over Amanda’s words.  That bothers you, obviously.  She’s got your number and you are desperately guessing hers.

    Good luck with that.

    Regards,

    Brian Connolly
    President
    WePublishing, Inc.

    Posted by Brian Connolly  on  05/05  at  01:58 AM

55. I’m rubber, you’re glue. Bounce off me, stick to you.

    Na nee, na nee, boo boo.
    Posted by Jon on 04/

    Posted by style advice  on  11/30  at  01:19 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: