I prefer drinking my pale pilsen and writing stuff at the same time, though, but drinking with mates sure is good, too!

Hell, you’re not the only one who has to right to do things on the ‘net. Show you’re stuff and let the others show theirs.

Technology is the enabler of business not its purpose.

stop it guys.

stand up for something. crap it is easy to blog and talk about the spaces in between words.

when it comes down to it - it is all the same black marks written on paper- or a phosphorescent screen by mad men that reflects enunciation and the sound and tone of voice.

at least we are saying something, not standing around taking pot shots talking about how we could of done it better. point is. program code. deliver.

we are.

we have been.

we want you to do so too
and we would rather drink pale pilsen with mates and do amazing things than
talk topak or crazy.

its better to be wrong and have done something.

than done nothing.

It’s just a name. But there’s more to names than just letters and words.

I’m quite baffled, though how a company that does “Web 2.0 Process Integration” would say “Stop Web 2.0.” ;)

Cheers.

J

He says stop talking and start doing but what he says is stop doing like Stop web 2.0 and shut down startups and stop what geeks are doing. He says sea of conversations so why does he ask people to stop talking????

first, my use of they was not to imply exclusitivity. it simply served its purpose as a third-person pronoun.

second, and i’ve said this already: there is something weird about the way things have been said in the stop web 2.0 site and in other places, such as here and the post “why stop web 2.0″—

on “its a gold rush- let’s not be part of it”:
my suggestions:
1) not using the term web 2.0
2) not riding along the wave (if you catch my drift)
3) not sounding too rambly (or in your words, manifestish)

regarding keynes and failure:
web 2.0 is the best-est arena to live and breathe failure. the dotcom boom was a disappointment that people would want to avoid this time around, but you said it yourself: better to have done something than nothing. that is exactly the risk people are taking with all these startups.

we both agree on the glittery hype that prettifies web 2.0. i’ve been poking fun at it with qwerky, while you’ve made a compaign to stop the bs. i’m just not sure either of us can accept the bubble popping. we’re both geeks; i’ll take a stab in the dark and further assume we’re both developers—if we won’t admit to ourselves web 2.0 hasn’t taught us anything, then it’s never been around at all.

tolerance is a virtue. my two philippine pesos also.

We are just a bunch of geeks- perhaps just like you. I appriciate your feedback- so to continue- how do we improve our message without dilluting it?

I would rather be wrong about something and have had action, than have had no action and not do anything.

Keynes’ saying: “Publicly it is more acceptable to fail by conventional means than to succeed by unconventional ones.” comes to mind here…

Look I am sure we will have failures in stuff we do or promote- but it is better to have stood for something than done nothing. This may not sit well with you now- but if you perhaps look at what we are saying - its a gold rush- lets not be part of it. You may go okay no they are not some sneaky or I don;t know other concepts seam to be implied here…

Yea it was written manifestish sorry I threw it out.

also the levticus project is open its not “Ours” is just something we are a part of and got going. I’d rather have your dissent though than not- so thanks and again stop web 2.0

my two centavos

-Kevin Leversee