Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyclif | Hacker News Reader

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that any blog post by Dave Winer must reference how he "blazed a trail" or some variation thereof.

View on HN

This comment reminds me of bikeshedding. There was this whole post, full of emotion and anger and sadness and conflict, written about people and behaviour and social ostracism, and you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT?

I can’t help but feel that this is not your best work. I have no idea whether it’s true or not, but Dave’s personality is irrelevant to the argument, which is about online communities and cyber-bullying.

Unless, perhaps, you are trying to demonstrate how it works? Have I failed to catch the subtle way you demonstrate that if someone is disliked for something, no matter what they say and how important it is, people will focus on why they dislike that person?

you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT?

In Critical Theory discussions, it's called "derailing", and once you have a name for it, it becomes even more frustrating.

Notice how now, we're not discussing the original ideas of the post, but are completely pushed into a tangential discussion.

At least HN has threaded discussions. When it happens in flat discussions like Facebook, it's an order of magnitude more annoying.

So, here's the problem I have: I agree with you. But I also had the same reaction the parent did. It's an irrational, unfair response, but I am so tired of reading Winer's writing that I find I'm not capable of considering his points. I even know this about myself, yet I still read the comments here, then I still read his post.

Short version: yes it's unfair, but yes, in this case, I'm unable to separate the message from the messenger.

I empathize with you. While I read Dave’s words without trouble, I confess that I struggle with Eric Raymond’s words for reasons unrelated to the words themselves.

It’s not easy for me to walk my talk, so I am loathe to criticize you for being just like me.

Perhaps my difficulty is that, when I read Winer's writing, I feel like he is inserting himself into the message. Instead of saying "this is my point," I feel he says "this is how I am related to my point."

This comment contributes nothing to the discussion.

Dave's gone ahead and written a stand-out post that reflects upon bullying in general, and in tech in particular.

Why not take the reasonable viewpoint that whilst we might not agree with everything RMS does or says, he deserves enormous respect for dedicating his life to a quest that has benefited most of us in one way or another.

Actually, I'm kind of burned out on the "bullying" meme. But the point of my comment had nothing to do with RMS, it had to do with Dave's level of self-aggrandizement. That some people on HN buy the "I invented RSS" lie is visible upstream.

I'm with you. Winer is exhausting because he spends so much time trying to make sure his reader understands how impressive he is.

It gets dull.

Unlike the circle jerk that goes on in this forum, right?

(Are you instilling an entrepreneurial spirit in your children?)

I find it disturbing that you thinking bullying is a "meme."

I disagree. This comment supports Dave's argument about as well as any comment I could imagine reading.

I strongly agree with the point that wyclif is making. Dave has a bad habit of self-promotion, and he needs to be called out on it. The myth that Dave invented RSS is an especially extreme example.

Back on October 4th, 2006, I wrote up a fairly thorough overview of the controversy surrounding RSS: "RSS has been damage by in-fighting among those who have developed it". I documented in detail the extent to which David Winer interfered with other people's work, while claiming credit for that work. Please read this if you do not know much about the history of this conflict:

http://www.teamlalala.com/blog/2006/10/24/rss-has-been-damag...

This comment contributes nothing to the discussion.

On the contrary, it neatly illustrates what the OP is talking about.

Did you know he invented RSS, and its the most relevant thing on the web today?

You'd never guess.

I met Dave a few times back when I was with the tImes though I doubt he remembers me. He's nice enough in person but he has his own personal reality distortion field.

I had to stop following him in Google Reader and Twitter to stay sane.

That "I invented RSS" line is utter bullshit of the highest order. Ramanathan V. Guha and Dan Libby of Netscape created it back in 1999. Do not pass go, do not drink the Kool-aid.

Of course, Netscape's initial version of RSS sucked and didn't get much traction until Winer got involved. The history of RSS isn't a simple thing.

Except I wasn't talking about traction or the simplicity of history, but the assertion that Winer "invented" RSS, which is patently false.

Citation?

btw Guha prefers to be called Guha...

I'm pretty sure donohoe was being sarcastic. Maybe someday we'll learn that sarcasm is rarely an insightful addition to a discussion.

Yes, I was being sarcastic in the first instance. I'm Irish, without sarcasm I'd have nothing.

Dave Winer would agree with you:

November 2010: http://scripting.com/stories/2010/11/11/didYouInventRss.html January 2007: http://scripting.com/scripting2/davewiner/2007/01/02/rssWasn...

Here’s one characterization by someone else that he seems to approve of:

“[RSS] grew out of a good idea in 1997 from the software company Userland that got picked up and melded with one of Netscape's similar ideas.”

http://scripting.com/2003/04/14.html#lff229a9a0dde77eb6e47c1...

While you might still think that Dan Libby deserves more credit than Winer, this is a far cry from claiming that he invented RSS.

the man routinely clarifies his involvements or lack thereof in the stuff that he is given credit for by others or by he himself. bottom line, he has been involved in important Internet endeavors and prior art. so you better believe that he will speak of it when applicable. i see faults in DW's personality and technical opinions and on occasion will point them out (as a nobody in his world). but i am completely willing to read his words and observe his works despite any of the shortcomings. i know my own faults and would hope that those faults would not deter other peoples willingness to read or listen to me when i have something to say.

Dave is a good example for HN, where there's too much aversion to self-promotion. See also patio11's recent post touching on the value (or lack thereof) of modesty: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3170766

FYI, when you invoke "truth universally acknowledged", people familiar with that phrase's origin will expect it to be followed by a bad assumption. See http://www.paulgraham.com/iflisp.html

How does "my ideas should be considered on their merits" jibe with major self-promotion?

Where did I say that everything Dave says is major self-promotion?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com