http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:09:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-75249 Mathew Ingram Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:16:17 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/#comment-75249 I responded on your site too, Haydn. I think you've got it right when you talk about flow. The blogosphere is great for getting debates started and keeping them going -- progress and closure is typically a little harder to come by :-) I responded on your site too, Haydn. I think you’ve got it right when you talk about flow. The blogosphere is great for getting debates started and keeping them going — progress and closure is typically a little harder to come by :-)

]]> http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-74920 What Will You See Next? » Blog Archive » That Internet Sucks Argument Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:50:32 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/#comment-74920 [...] Mathew Ingram and Mark Evans have kept alive a debate that I seem to remember first started kicking off, in a previous incarnation, a couple of weeks back. It got a workout too at Techdirt. The gist of the debate is that an article published in the Canadian mag Macleans, which concluded that the Internet was full of fatal flaws for humanity, was actually not an attempt to put forward a real argument. It was trolling for visitors. [...] [...] Mathew Ingram and Mark Evans have kept alive a debate that I seem to remember first started kicking off, in a previous incarnation, a couple of weeks back. It got a workout too at Techdirt. The gist of the debate is that an article published in the Canadian mag Macleans, which concluded that the Internet was full of fatal flaws for humanity, was actually not an attempt to put forward a real argument. It was trolling for visitors. [...]

]]> http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-74824 haydn Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:46:15 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/#comment-74824 HI Mathew, responded in a post today. I still think we can use this to move the debate on instead of each side standing off and saying you're wrong. Or is it in the nature of blogging that we just stay in the flow. HI Mathew, responded in a post today. I still think we can use this to move the debate on instead of each side standing off and saying you’re wrong. Or is it in the nature of blogging that we just stay in the flow.

]]> http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-74716 The internet doesn’t suck as hard as Steve Maich at Sparkplug 9 >> bizhack Sat, 28 Oct 2006 08:02:40 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/#comment-74716 [...] Matthew Ingram: Maclean’s goes trolling for controversy [...] [...] Matthew Ingram: Maclean’s goes trolling for controversy [...]

]]> http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-74485 Mathew Ingram Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:48:45 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/27/macleans-goes-trolling-for-controversy/#comment-74485 Oops. Sorry about that, Rick :-) That \"series of rubes\" line was priceless. Oops. Sorry about that, Rick :-) That \”series of rubes\” line was priceless.

]]>