New Game requires New Mindset « C3 - Complete Community Connection on November 29th, 2008 12:05 pm

[...] These frustrations are playing out on the broader stage, summarized very well by Craig Stoltz. [...]

39

Anna 11.28.08 at 4:36 am

@AnnaTarkov

I, as a citizen journalist, use Twitter as a tool, not a substitute for journalism. I use it to keep people interested and engaged in the topic I cover and get them thinking about it more if they aren't already. I still want them to read what I write, not just interact on Twitter.

On Nov 23, 2008, mel taylor said:

agreed, the current economy will dramatically accelerate the transition of all media. I would suggest that a good bit of the legacy managers will not make it thru the turmoil, cutbacks, and rebound.

Posted by amy on November 21, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Um, actually, "polyamory" is a noun. I think you meant to say "polyamorous relationships" (using the adjective).

- Amy Gahran

"Follow" is to Twitter as the Verb "Friend" is to Facebook « Michael Haddon writes:

[...] influential new-media type Mindy McAdams gives some important advice on getting the most from Twitter: "Twitter is all about whom you are following. If you are [...]

November 19, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Amy Gahran wrote:

And I have decided to work on my deck this afternoon, since it remains unseasonably warm in Boulder today…

- Amy Gahran

Posted 19 Nov 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶

maiki wrote:

Huh. You must be getting a draft from one of Berkeley's two-day mini-summers we had a few days ago. ^_^

Posted 19 Nov 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶

Ethan Zuckerman's work toward a Serendipity Enguine « Ida C. Benedetto Says:

November 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

[...] At the same time, digital media can actively facilitate what Zuckerman and other identify as homophily, the tendency of people to hang out with people like them. The issue with homophily in media is [...]

Stop Smoking November 9th, 2008 10:34 pm

Wow! Excellent content, Jeremiah!

Do you have a link for the tweet that Connie is mentioning?

Thanks!

OK, I'll follow you, if you insist. Sigh.

Brian

14 Nov 08 at 1:01 pm

Posted by allthatjazz on November 14, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is what you can expect if guilty:

*Required Psych eval by State: $800

*Bi-weekly group therapy sessions: $85/week (for 5 years. They won't let go of you!)

*Polygraph screening - other offenses?: $175 per visit ('til you "pass")

(read this link: yes, Colorado really does this! http://skepdic.com/penilep.html)

*Probation fees: $500 per year

*Lawyer Fees: Probably $4000 or more

*Sex Offender Registration fees: $220, plus $40/yr for annual re-register (5 years)

*Lab fees to process DNA for CBI database: $50 (cash only, perp)

*Possible isolation from family (danger to children until you can pass the polygraph). What does an apartment cost? $500/month?

Most employers will see your name on the S.O. list when they do background checks, and pass you by. So it may be hard to pay for all your "treatment" when you can't get a job.

Once you are in the “systemâ€, your rights are somewhat different than what you were used to. You may not be allowed to drink, or go to kid’s school functions. You may not be permitted to have web access, or view suggestive movies or TV. The list of restrictions is several pages long. All of this can be checked with polygraph sessions that you pay for.

I think EnglishgalMD is spot on. This is a very difficult program to be subjected to.

Posted by irishangel on November 13, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

omg arresting ppl for having fun and running naked!!!!! This is just another good example of how the snobbish minorty of prudes who run this country continue to force their Victorian age laws down our throats. Branding any of these ppl as sex offenders not only violates the "pursuit of happiness" it flies in the face of common sense. Nothing can be said to explain enforcement of "indecent exposure" on a night when it's common practice to have fun. If you are offended by this, STAY AT HOME!!!!!!

Alison Gow said...

I guess we're just life's fixers Sam! Greenslade "insensitive to others needs" - shome mishtake, shurley?

12 November 2008 09:49

links for 2008-11-12 - contentious.com wrote:

November 12, 2008 at 11:01 am

[...] Dave Copeland » Blog Archive » Hope for dead-tree codgers? "Up until a few months ago I told my students that, despite their dying status, newspapers were still a great place for them to spend the first two or three years of their career. They'd learn the fundamentals of reporting - including journalism ethics, law, and sourcing - and they'd learn to write well under pressure. [...]

Posted by runpheadrun on November 11, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I say " Let Freedom Swing". Sounds like a lot of fun and wish I lived closer to join in the festivities, whether it be running or just on the side lines cheering for freedom of self expression. I think it would be fun to become a family tradition and/or the celebration to adulthood.

I am sickened to hear that the 12 arrested might have to register as sex offenders. What is going on? Nothing like ruining decent people's lives by putting them in that category for just running from point A to point B while keeping their hands to themselves!

I wish them all the best and spreading white light for a happy ending.

PunditMom said...

I couldn't agree more. It was so distracting all I could focus on was Jessica Yellin seeming like Princess Leia in Star Wars and I heard nothing she was saying.

November 10, 2008 12:50 PM

Prof Mark said...

I did not watch a a second of election coverage because, in my mind, the outcome was never in doubt. But you know what was one of the best tools ever?

Tim Russert's eraseable whiteboard. I don't need Princess Leia telling me what's going on. I need intelligent commentary breaking it down into terms that makes sense.

And rest in peace, Tim.

Mark

November 11, 2008 8:04 AM

agahran said...

I second the kudos for Tim Russert's eraseable whiteboard. That was great news tech.

- Amy Gahran

November 11, 2008 1:18 PM

Posted by nuggethillrd on November 10, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did anyone at the Camera ever read the Molly Ivins editorial not too long before she died? In it she said, the constant cutting of news gathering staff and consolidating into bigger, more profit orientated companies which cut their biggest expense, news gathering first, are the biggest reason for the decline of local newspapers. I've been reading the DC for over forty five years, one of the first things I regularly read, and have noted the recent trend in the decline of actual local news gathering. At this rate, I do not expect the Camera to be around in five years, or even three.

Posted by pimlicola on November 8, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ohhh...i wanna see the DA's wife naked with a paper bag on her head!

Posted by bornnboulder on November 6, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who in their right mind would think it's okay to streak in downtown Boulder? Really! People regret their actions when someone gets hurt or if they get caught. I bet these people regret their actions now.

Posted by bornnboulder on November 6, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Mall Crawl? Someone died the last year the Mall Crawl really happened. If I recall, they fell from a traffic light. It was time for that event to end. It was dangerous for every participant, most of whom were intoxicated, although they didn't seem to realize how dangerous it actually was. The anonymity of wearing a costume, or pumpkin on ones head for that matter, can inspire stupid, reckless, and disreputable behaviors. I imagine it was for a similar reason that the Mall Crawl was pushed into extinction and that action was taken at the naked pumpkin run this year. Boulder is a beautiful place, aren't there better things to do with one's time?

1 Drew Clark // Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Steve Schultz makes a comment to this piece over at Tech Liberation.

2 Drew Clark // Nov 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

My reply:

Steve, I wish I had been clearer (it was a quick post) in my observation on the need to discuss property-based usage of the airwaves - whether that "property" is held by a private party, by a spectrum manager (who could sublease and re-allocate its use to others on a minute-by-minute basis), or by the public at large, through the government.

True, I may have been reflecting an assumption that cleared spectrum would be more useful than Swiss-cheesy spectrum. However, I am getting tired of hearing about how this debate is between Google and the broadcasters. The reality of the debate is that it is between those who feel that the spectrum is best used in bits and pieces, and those who feel that there are economically rational ways to get to an economically efficient result.

3 Drew Clark // Nov 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Another comment on this piece at Telecommunications Industry and Regulation.

4 Steve Schultze // Nov 4, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Drew, the point is that the typical assumptions of the "property" language are highly contested. You blur the traditional distinctions by referring to an option for "property" owned by the public. Perhaps it is more useful to discuss policy in terms of excludability. In that case, the relevant question is whether making the spectrum licensed and excludable is more efficient. You assume that it is.

This has little to do with the "swiss-cheesy" characteristic you discuss. As a practical matter, unlicensed devices may be better able to deal with such an environment, but it is far from the only argument for such an approach. Of course, clearing the frequencies in question of the broadcasters adds to the impracticability of your suggestion. Where do you plan to put the broadcasters? How would you even begin to overcome the political challenge… before February 2009?

In any event, the two arguments are unrelated. Unlicensed use is arguably more efficient than an excludable, licensed regime. Unlicensed is also likely more practical than some sort of wholesale broadcaster re-allocation.

To be sure, some people describe this as a battle between Google and NAB, but that's just bad journalism. We know better.

Finally, your implication that those advocating for unlicensed use are not making economically rational arguments for why such an approach is economically efficient is misguided.

5 » FCC Approves Clearwire-Sprint Merger, 5-0 Sidecut Reports // Nov 4, 2008 at 6:11 pm

[…] More info as press releases become available, plus perhaps some thoughts on the FCC's approval of unlicensed use of the so-called "white spaces" for broadband access. For some good deep analysis of white spaces, see Drew Clark's coverage. […]

agahran said...

Thanks. Yeah, context is key when determining what's "indecent."

I'll be attending the arraignment hearings for these cases in Boulder. Hopefully they'll get dismissed or plea-bargained down. We'll see. That would at least help in this case, but would still allow similar law enforcement abuses in the future.

I will be covering this on Contentious.com

- Amy Gahran

November 4, 2008 5:28 PM

Posted by WesternSky on November 3, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You've seen one winky, you've pretty much seen 'em all. Mostly.

;-)

agahran said...

Hi, Nigel.

If you think a blog is mainly about opinion, then you might want to read my earlier post, What's a blog? Bag the stereotypes.

A blog is just a tool that can be used to present any kind of content you choose.

- Amy Gahran

6:14 PM

agahran said...

Hey, glad my Twitter post was helpful. Hope you're enjoying your experience there.

- Amy Gahran

October 28, 2008 7:05 AM

Amy Gahran

October 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Oooh, tell your story in three words! I LIKE that one! Will try it!

- Amy

3

10-18-2008 @ 7:35PM

Plutogirl said...

No, Dale, a mistake was not made in calling Pluto a planet. The mistake was made by the IAU in artifically narrowing the definition of planet to the point of absurdity. Using their definition, the same object is a planet in one area and not a planet in another. If Earth were put in Pluto's orbit, it would not be a planet either. Yes, Pluto is smaller than the planet X predicted by Percival Lowell, but that does not mean it is not a planet. In a 2000 article, Dr. Alan Stern and Dr. Hal Levison describe two classes of planets--the "uber-planets" or large, gravitationally dominant ones, and the "unter-planets," the smaller objects that are not gravitationally dominant but are in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they have enough self gravity to have pulled themselves into a round shape. When this happens, objects become differentiated and develop the same geological processes as planets, processes that inert, shapeless asteroids do not have. The IAU's mistake was to exclude this second category from being planets, and it was done against the IAU's own bylaws, which prohibit the introduction of new resolutions in real time without having first been vetted by the appropriate committee.

Just because linguistic errors have been made in the past doesn't mean we should keep introducing more into usage. The term "dwarf planet" is a noun modified by an adjective the same way the term "grizzly bear" is. By all their characteristics, dwarf planets are a subclass of planets. I hardly consider those of us arguing for this as entering the discussion "unarmed," and I have no intentions of accepting a sloppy, nonsensical planet definition that even many professional astronomers reject. When New Horizons gets to Pluto in 2015, we will find out just how planet-like it really is.

Reply

Amy Gahran says:

Thanks for making this great photo available under CC license. I just used it to illustrate this post:

sej2008.typepad.com/sej2008/2008/10/geodata-m apping-clem-...

- Amy Gahran

Posted 26 seconds ago. ( permalink )

A says:

October 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Kit, I'm glad to know I'm not the only female to feel that way..

October 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

The New AP - Publishing 2.0

[…] the real mission of a wire service for the web era: Not to provide full-text versions of a single source's (or handful of […]

October 8th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

The New AP » Publish2 Blog

[…] the real mission of a wire service for the web era: Not to provide full-text versions of a single source's (or handful of […]

So how does this apply to healthcare?

by Grant Hamilton - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 9:28am

It is certainly valuable but nobody ever wants to pay for it. Are price and value unrelated here?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And your point is?

by John Doe 2 - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 9:53am

But the article states that they're related. What is it you're complaining about?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re:

by Anonymous Coward - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 9:58am

I think he just argued that value has less influence on price, and it's marketting that has the real power. In his view, the $9 cake and the $10 cake have the same value, but the $10 cake sells for more because of marketting.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: So how does this apply to healthcare?

by Anonymous Coward - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 10:06am

When your sick, healthcare is very valuable. When you're healthy, it's just another drain on your account. Most people are healthy most of the time.

What's more, different factors have allowed the price of healthcare rise and the value of that healthcare fall. Most people complain of poor service and high costs even when their sick, which proves nothing but is at least symptomatic. One wonders if the fact that someone with little stake in the healthcare (insurance companies) are footing the bill doesn't have something to do with this.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re:

by Blaise Alleyne - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 10:31am

Marketing fits with the supply and demand model. Successful marketing increases demand.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Far too few people realize this

by mobiGeek - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 11:18am

I disagree with your assessment of the sentiment of the posts on this blog. I find them well-reasoned and level-headed. Sure, after a reply or two to someone blatantly insulting the article and/or personally attacking Mike then some of the retorts become a bit terse. But more often then not Mike's replies are asking for valid criticism and/or evidence of the insults thrust Mike's way or against his articles.

Mike is more than willing to accept input from "the other side", but only when it is brought forward with actual valid points. Too often, there are none other than one-off anecdotes, innuendo and strawmen.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Value and price.....

by mobiGeek - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 11:29am

No, that reflects the income from your one visit. However, your comment has brought others to view this article (or more accurately, they will view future articles because of your contribution) and that in turn will bring in income.

Neither of these says anything about the value of this article. If you saw no value in it, why did you spend resources on it (reading it, replying to it)?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Zero pricing - it really works.

by Victem of zero pricing. - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 2:55pm

Thanks Mike, I'm slowly starting to understand all this businees stuff.

I was looking around our house the other day looking for examples of zero pricing and how I've shelled out money for it.

I'd have to congratulate the Disney channel for the best example I could find.

High School Musical. - It was free to watch (we get the Disney channel anyway), we recorded it on video so my daughter could watch it any time.

Yet we (myself and my daughter) have forked out good cash for the 3 different HSM DVDs and also, hand bag, writing set, plastic figures, the stage show, HSM on ice and various other HSM stuff that now graces my daughter's room. I've never paid so much for a free movie...

And of course HSM 2 DVDs and things and now the horror HSM3 is coming!

Oh, and what my daughter has done with HSM, my son has done with Doctor Who!!!

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Zero Price or Zero Cost?

by Allen - Aug 21st, 2008 @ 7:43pm

I agree with the sentiment of the post, but I disagree with the opening position that price and value are different. I think that you are confusing price with cost.

Money has been used as the primary proxy for value for a long time. Instead of saying "I think three of your pigs is worth one of my cows", you can say "one pig is $100 and one cow is $300". Of course the swineherd can always disagree and say "cow shit! My pigs are worth $150!" and agree not to trade/sell.

To get to my point, the value you place on something is exactly equal to the price you are willing to pay (or sell at). The things being overlooked are:

the buyer and seller do not have to agree on a value/price; and

the price or value need not be measured only in monetary terms.

Now with the internet to distribute certain types of goods, the incremental cost of producing additional items approaches zero. Intelligent people understand this and are understandably reluctant to pay money. Zero cost of production does affect how people value things.

Those that are producing these type of goods need to get a handle on it, and quick! They need to unlearn the idea that a direct exchange of money is the only way of exchanging value. When the buyers fundamentally disagree with the sellers on the value, its generally the seller that will loose in the long run.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re:

by Anonymous Coward - Aug 22nd, 2008 @ 2:38pm

Mike I think you misunderstood some parts of my previous post about the idea of price being driven down to a marginal cost as being over simplistic. "Actually, I think the statement that's implicit in your statement is that there is some sort of "universal" value that they can determine. That's not the case. Value is different to everyone" I do agree that values will vary from one person to another. This point is obvious. Now, let's say we take all of the values of people, paint then in a big spectrum of opinion, and then group them into something called "market segments." The idea is that for a given market segment the "values" are relatively the same. Even between market segments, we have a lot more in common as far as values than most people will admit. Price is a common value, for example. There is very few people that price doesn't matter to. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are other values that I would suggest that we all hold in common. Thus by definition any given market segment does share the same values. "yes, they CAN determine the value to them. They make that decision every time they make a buy/no-buy decision, as they decide whether they value the good more than the money or less than the money." You state that people "CAN determine the value." That people can make a decision, I agree, but that THEY decide for themselves or by themselves, or even logically... that is where we might disagree. My point was that THEY do very little of the deciding. (A lot less than they think they do). "Again, you're assuming value is universal constant. People "value" things in different ways." Nope, not assuming a single person's values or even a group as a collective are a constant. People change their minds (or at least I hope they do). "If they *value* the brand name, then they're willing to pay more for it. That may seem silly to YOU, but it's perfectly legitimate to them. They value the brand. That's not so crazy." Some people do value brand names, but I'm assuming that is only because they believe it means higher quality (or "value"). If they knew that it was exactly the same product but with a different sticker painted on the outside would they still buy it? "Marketing impacts demand. It's not outside of supply and demand, it's a part of it." Thus the statement that the price will be driven to a marginal cost in a competitive situation is oversimplistic, it doesn't take into account things like... marketing. "No, that fits exactly with the model, because the MARKETING is creating a DIFFERENTIATION, so that the competition is no longer of equals. That's exactly what should happen. That's innovation at work, increasing the benefit. People who are willing to pay more for that French chocolate get *increased benefit* by knowing about it." Marketing didn't create a difference, it only caused people to have a perception of a difference, thus marketing was altering peoples values. And no, I don't think marketing is "innovation at work," I (a nerdy engineer) reserve the word innovation for an actual change in a product. I also disagree that marketing was "increasing the benefit." Assuming that they were the same cakes, they were causing a change in perception. The only increased benefit to the customer in this fictional example was an intentional misleading of the customer. What is French chocolate? Is it better than German? "That's a good thing." For whom? For the company selling the $10 cakes, yes. For the company trying to sell a cake that was just as good but was $1 less... no. For the ultimate customer who was not getting as much actual value... no. "Hmm. I think you're saying that price = marginal cost is false, not "marginal above production cost" which means something entirely different?" This is probably my mistake in not using the same terms. 'Price = marginal cost" didn't make as much sense to me, as there are typically several layers of "marginal cost" as something passes from the point of creation to the point of consumption. But, this is where it helps to delve a bit more into the economics. Price will be driven to marginal cost when there's perfect competition (identical products, identical benefit). Well said, I agree. "when there's perfect competition" = you're simplifying in order to illustrate. "What innovation is about is creating a differentiation where there's no longer perfect competition -- so that you CAN charge above and beyond the marginal cost." Again the use of that word "innovation." I'll admit, it takes some great creativity to come up with 'spin' for how to present the exact same product. Since this is cheaper than actually changing the product, it seems here you agree that this happens, and as such, the price will not be just slightly above marginal cost.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Re:

by Mike - Aug 24th, 2008 @ 4:06pm

You state that people "CAN determine the value." That people can make a decision, I agree, but that THEY decide for themselves or by themselves, or even logically... that is where we might disagree. My point was that THEY do very little of the deciding. (A lot less than they think they do).

I'm not sure what you're getting at? That people are influenced by marketing? So what?

Some people do value brand names, but I'm assuming that is only because they believe it means higher quality (or "value"). If they knew that it was exactly the same product but with a different sticker painted on the outside would they still buy it?

So what? That's a marketing issue. You are being elitist to claim that someone is wrong for valuing a brand name over a nonbrand name. If it's such a concern to you, then go educate people that the products are the same. Btw, that "education" is *marketing*. Just because sometimes it happens in a way you dislike doesn't make a difference.

Marketing didn't create a difference, it only caused people to have a perception of a difference, thus marketing was altering peoples values.

Same thing. It creates a difference in how someone values a product. That's exactly what I said. You seem to have this "ideal" that doesn't exist.

And no, I don't think marketing is "innovation at work," I (a nerdy engineer) reserve the word innovation for an actual change in a product.

Ok. While plenty of engineers think that, it's wrong. It's also why so many brilliantly engineered products fail.

Don't be an elitist. Learn why marketing is important.

I also disagree that marketing was "increasing the benefit." Assuming that they were the same cakes, they were causing a change in perception. The only increased benefit to the customer in this fictional example was an intentional misleading of the customer.

If the customer values it more, then, yes, there IS a benefit. The customer has made a decision, and he or she values it more. Who are you to say they're wrong?

For whom? For the company selling the $10 cakes, yes. For the company trying to sell a cake that was just as good but was $1 less... no. For the ultimate customer who was not getting as much actual value... no.

Yes, for the customer, because they MADE THE DECISION. They FELT the value, otherwise they wouldn't have made the purchase.

Again the use of that word "innovation." I'll admit, it takes some great creativity to come up with 'spin' for how to present the exact same product. Since this is cheaper than actually changing the product, it seems here you agree that this happens, and as such, the price will not be just slightly above marginal cost.

Yes, if marketed properly. The problem is that you seem to believe that marketing something properly is somehow outside of normal economics. It's not.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Christopher Reynaga

August 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

That was such a beautiful story.

whittles

August 19th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Sarah, you make me so proud to know you, I swear.

Seriously, i have such admiration for you and your approach to life.

thank you for this.

Emma McCreary

August 20th, 2008 at 12:18 am

Sarah, you are fucking awesome. I know you know this, because we've discussed it, but just in case you ever forget, call me up and I'll remind you. Man, this story rocks.

lululabonne

August 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am

I loved your story an inspiring lesson and one that I keep having to learn, funny how easy one forgets such things, my carapace seems to grow quicker with age and I'm forever finding ways to throw it off.

Shannon Rosa

August 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Your grandfather is lucky to have you to show him the way and boundless opportunities. My mom has been traveling constantly since my dad passed away last year, and it's been very soothing for her.

Dancing. Yay.

Aunt Chris

August 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 am

Sarah,

What a beautiful expression of your grief. Transforming an experience is the best way to live your life……..the dancing gets you there.

Much love

Aunt Chris

schmutzie

August 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm

You are being featured on Five Star Friday:

http://www.fivestarfriday.com/2008/08/five-star-friday-edition-20.html

Deb

August 30th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

I thought about you this morning, wondering where you were and how you were doing.

Seems you're doing just fine.

Welcome home.

motherbumper

September 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

What an amazing story and amazing post.

I'm sorry about your Grandmother. Your Grandfather is very lucky to have you helping him.

Amy Gahran says:

August 15th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Glad having you as a guest on the blog, Daniel. Good work.

- Amy Gahran

Todd HellsKitchen says:

August 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Saw your piece! Nice job! Twitterers rule!

Stephanie Quilao

July 21st, 2008 at 3:49 pm

It was a great honor to share the stage with you Sarah! Your loving energy helped me stay grounded during our panel. Such a blessing ;-)

Beth Kanter

July 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Sarah - as always great to see you!

Elkit

July 21st, 2008 at 9:34 pm

That was the best hug of the weekend. And that's saying something, because there lots of great hugs. My secret: I decided not to let go first. :-)

tiffany

July 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 am

Gratuitous booby bouncing on heads is always a win.

Megan

July 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Congrats on today's New York Times article! I started reading it to see if they mentioned Greek Tragedy, Stephanie Klein's blog, and then I found yours. I'm sure it's very exciting for all of you.

MizFit

July 27th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

wrapped up in love pillows-that's amazing.

and kudos to you on the NYT mention.

I musta missed it--off to find.

tnkgrl

July 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I was thinking of going to BlogHer, but beyond some practical considerations (cost, time, job), I was a bit unsure on how welcome my gender otherness would be. Any feedback would be appreciated :)