48 Comments Add your own

• 1. Marilyn Marks  |  August 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 am

  Con Man,
  This is one great piece you wrote!

  It needs to be read by everyone in town, which unfortunately won’t happen if it says only on your blog.

  While I know that you hesitate to feed the competitive, traditional print press, ---that particular piece needs the largest possible audience. Please consider getting it in the local newspapers as a service to those who are still trying to catch up on what has been happening.

  Our overly zealous City Officials are so bent on building Burlingame II as it was originally envisioned, at any cost, that they are overlooking so many important conditions which have changed since it was planned. Their pride stands in the way of actually improving the workforce housing program.

  An imperfect analogy might be—a single man starts building his new home, designed as one room cabin, just for him. Quarter way through the construction, he marries a woman with three kids. And he discovers that his planners made a huge cost estimating error, and the single room home is going to cost many times more than anticipated. The new wife suggests that they pool their assets and redesign the home to accommodate their family and their budget. The man’s ego about his dream cabin stands in the way of logic and acceptance of the changed conditions. So he goes about completing the project the way he envisioned it, albeit a many times the cost he expected, and insisting that somehow his new family of five could manage in the one room house.

  The wife contributes to the massive cost overruns on the cabin, and spends the money on other things, the assets shrink, and the family which one had every chance to have a very suitable home together becomes almost dysfunctional in their very expensive one room cabin. The cabin was built on ego rather than common sense. The family’s stuck there, as the once available assets to build an adequate and efficient home have been dissipated.

  I feel that that is what our officials are doing—failing to see the changed conditions, which demand more of our limited housing resources.

  We DO need a more progressive housing program to replace the anachronistic one we are struggling with today.

  Marilyn Marks

• 2. Michael Conniff  |  August 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

  Marilyn:

  Well-put when it comes to Burlingame and City officials.

  You need not worry about this post appearing in the papers. I can assure you unequivocally that the combination of Aspen Post and "Con Games" represents a bigger audience than both of the newspapers combined. For this post alone our audience climbed by 50 percent--on a weekend! Someone, obviously, is listening, as are you.

  Though you see clearly that times have changed for Burlingame, it's equally accurate to say newspapers are fading for a reason, because people are sick and tired of the paper acting as a gatekeeper for their thoughts, words and deeds. Your own email "The Red Ant" makes my point even more persuasively--that people no longer need to slavishly submit their letters to newspapers that miss the biggest stories in the community.

  The other great thing is you can react immediately as you have here, rather than waiting for an unseen editor to decide whether you are worthy days or weeks later. What happens to your letters when one of the editors decides enough is enough, as the Daily News did some months ago with Sue Gray? People started to blog about it on Aspen Post--even the Daily editor came on board--and the policy change was stopped cold by the voice of the people.

  Since blogging is free on Aspen Post, you might say you can NOT pay me now or NOT pay me later.

  All best, Michael!

• 3. Wharf Rat  |  August 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

  [I can assure you unequivocally that the combination of Aspen Post and "Con Games" represents a bigger audience than both of the newspapers combined.]

  I've always thought you had somewhat curious narcissistic, compulsive self-promotion tendencies. You're delusional, my man!

• 4. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am

  An artful use of a-supportive adjectives, Rat.

  I have no way of measuring the popularity of the Con Man's radio show, but I've seen AspenPost's webstats. I'm no expert, but these statistics indicate a substantial readership. It would be interesting to examine the webstats and circulation stats of the GSPI, ADN, and AT.

  Cheers,

• 5. Wharf Rat  |  August 25th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Mitch,

  I have no doubt that Aspen Post has a significant number of hits--given the name and link with the Chamber, etc. To suggest that the "audience" is bigger than the local fishwraps strains all reasonable interpretations of the word audience.

  More importantly, the underlying message in the remainder of the comment suggests that Aspen Post is more relevant than the local papers. That is preposterous. Even a cursory glance at the content on Aspen Post reveals the seeds of a good idea that for some reason just won't take off.

  Perhaps AP is ahead of its time. However, there are many blogs and forums that kick ass--Aspen Post is not one of them. My belief is that all this over-hype by I-Con is detrimental to the development of a stable, relevant blogging base. People hear the hype about how "great" it is with all the "records" and superlatives and then they come to participate with little or no response from the community.

  Look at the list of bloggers and other visible cues on the site, Mitch. Here is what I think you will find:

  1. Most bloggers are one-and-out. That includes bloggers who submit multiple offerings in a short period of time then suddenly stop.

  2. Most bloggers and the most popular posts were conceived in 2006 upon the formation of the blog. Meaningful participation has declined since. You and Reck should be commended for your sticktuitiveness, because you both have worked tirelessly to foster a community on Aspen Post. I hope you can keep the ball rolling.

  3. A substantial, if not primary, source of the content is from formal or quasi-advertisers. When you subtract the profiteers (Conniff, Hemstreet, Schochet) that ratio is magnified even further.

  4. The abortions otherwise known as Snowmass Post, Skiing Post and Fractional Post suggest that Aspen Post derives substantial benefit from the use of the word Aspen.

  5. The content on AP (other than Hemstreet, you, and Reck) primarily consists of fringe positions and one-issue drumbeats. That is fantastic that those positions can be presented and it is perhaps the best aspect of the blog. Fantastic right up to the point you get the editor-in-chief trying to spin that content into the representation that a new community awakening exists or some such nonsense. Go down the list, Mitch--Braudis, the mayor's race, Burlingame, "fair" reporting. Those all might be viable positions in terms of argument, but don't hand me all the extra jive about what Con Games and AP stands for and that these enlightened views somehow render traditional community thought irrelevant. People are smarter than that.

  I have been looking for a community writing outlet for two years now. AP is really the only game in town. If I-Con could just let it grow and stop pushing people away with all of his gratuitous exaggerations this thing might eventually take off. Unfortunately, I spend most of my time on other blogs and forums where the interaction and presentation is of a much higher quality. And--surprise--I very rarely see a quality blog or forum that has to promote itself.

  I don't think AP will ever match the hype because I-Con seems quite incapable of just telling you what he thinks. He's gotta tell you not only his opinion, but what it means, what the guiding principles are, and what the social implications of his thoughts are. Where, my friend, is the participation in that? That's a sermon dressed up as enlightened discourse.

  Yeah, boi!

• 6. Michael Conniff  |  August 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Rat:

  The truly funny thing about your ongoing bitch-bitch-bitch criticism is that your own continual and continuous participation in Aspen Post validates the idea, the concept, and the execution.

  If it's so bad, Rat, then why are you here....AGAIN?

  Oh right: the need to tell us how terrible we are! Thanks for the reminder!

  The reason you are here AGAIN just might just be that you and others have a voice here--uncensored, unedited, though rarely unremarked upon. You are somehow invested--for reasons known only to you--in knocking the very medium that has given you a voice equal to all others. There's something self-defeating and even perverse about that, but I don't know you well enough to know that makes for such amusing self-flagellation..

  I also have to ask why you seem to be rooting for our failure--what's in it for you? Don't tell me truth and justice: for you truth always is found in the form of discovered hypocricy, a shortcoming found in everyone but you.

  Here's what you need to know about Aspen Post: two and a half years later, with over 5,000 discrete pieces of content and TENS OF MILLIONS of hits, we're still here. And you're still bitching and moaning because we're not the Athenian ideal of the perfect blog you have somewhere in your noggin. Sorry we can't live up to your notions of self-inflicted perfection, but by any reasonable standard, Aspen Post is doing quite well, thankyou, in part thanks to you. We now have video, radio, a great calendar, and news to go with all the blogging.

  And we're only going to get better.

  But that's not good enough for you. You want something mo' better. So here's my challenge big shot: show me a local blog anywhere in the United States that's BETTER than Aspen Post. I will gladly learn all I can from your hirsute pursuit of perfection. My guess is you will look long and hard and may very well come up empty, though I doubt you'll take the challenge, given how busy you are blogging on Aspen Post.

  Godspeed, my man, but my guess is if you were blogging for them the bitching and moaning would be just as loud.

  A final note on "Con Games": it's not just the size of the audience--the biggest for talk anywhere in the region--but also the quality of the audience. I have to laugh at your expertise in this area in which you know absolutely nothing. You're guessing--not for the first time by the way--and you're way wrong as per usual.

  Oh, and by the way, do you know how newspapers count their readership: circulation, my man: in other words, they count every single issue in their print run a s a reader and then multiply. Ever notice how many thousands of papers sit in the boxes and never get picked up? The notion of newspaper ubiquity is a myth that's falling apart before our eyes.

  My saying Aspen Post and "Con Games" in combination exceed the local papers is not a stretch at all. It's a fact.

  My hope is you will respond to this and in the doing you will AGAIN establish the importance of the thing you so hate.

  Best, Michael!

• 7. Wharf Rat  |  August 25th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  I'll take the Pepsi challenge, I-Con. I'll get back to you with my top 10 for that matter.

  As for my participation, at the moment I am writing for the same reason you are trumpeting your perceived enlightenment about the Aspen City Council. For you, Mick Ireland can do nothing right. Absolutely nothing. Before that it was Braudis. As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say your approach rises to the level of "ongoing bitch-bitch-bitch criticism".

  Just like you feel a whatever-based obligation to save the community from the injustice of an incompetent communist heirarchy that is intent on imparting intimidation and fear on the local populus, I too feel an internal drive to identify the perceived garbage you peddle when you peddle it. The primary difference, in your opinion, is that you apparently stand for liberty and justice for all while I engage in perverse self-flagellation.

  I find it hilarious that you can attack the city council endlessly while seemingly acting surprised as to why they would object to you being a moderator for a Burlingame discussion, and yet you can't even handle my criticism of you without devolving to a juvenile rant. You decided to put yourself out there as the "Con Man"--defender against all cons. You are the one that makes the repeated grandiose claims regarding the virtue you represent. And yet, you can't even handle the heat. Damn, Mike McGarry must be so disappointed.

  Oh, by the way, since this started with my criticism of a fairly discrete comment by you ("I can assure you unequivocally that the combination of Aspen Post and "Con Games" represents a bigger audience than both of the newspapers combined"), can you cite your sources on that one? I'd like to see the data on that.

• 8. reckless G  |  August 25th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  Boys! Boys! This clash of the Titan Egos has got to stop! You must realize the absurdity of this; you are blogging about blogging?!

  I have to admit a certain voyeuristic fascination with this intimate argument, but for peace sake let me just inject some Tao.

  Yin Yang. You’re both right and also wrong.

  Wharf, YES “the Con Man” is a shameless self-promoter and sometimes crosses that hypocritical line you so detest, but Michael Conniff is a real decent guy who is genuinely interested in the community and who puts himself out there on the line in public with his opinions and gives us all an opportunity to do the same. You may not respect the way he does it, but you have to respect the fact that he does do it, every day, maybe not for your pleasure and entertainment, but certainly for many many (who the hell cares HOW many) others, of whom I am one.

  Michael, way to go on the defensive, you rightly called Wharf Rat on his criticism and I have to say you raised the taunt to a high art with that one. You also hit the nail on the head with the Athenian ideal comment. From what he’s told me, Wharf’s motivation comes not out of hatred for you or Con Games or Aspen Post, but out of deep disappointment that it didn’t deliver what he expected, wanted, and needed it to deliver. But you are wrong about him rooting for your failure. He wants you to succeed so badly, that he feels the need to push you into taking it to that higher level. His criticism is meant to goad you into becoming better, becoming what he first believed you were and what he must think you could be. If he didn’t care, he would just ignore you. As you observed; the fact that he keeps reappearing belies his devotion to the idea of the local talk show and blog, and his belief that there is still something to be gained from Con Games and Aspen Post.

  The fact that he reappears only to give his opinion about how much you suck, means he is NOT TAKING MY ADVICE to drop the high expectations and negative projections and just focus on what’s good about CG and AP.

  And Wharf that’s a shame, because when you really put your heart into it, you are a damn good writer; intelligent, sensitive and funny! I would love to hear your opinion on several of the topics that have been raised on AP in the last few months. With your confession that you participate in other blogs I actually feel cheated. Stop fooling around out there in cyberspace and come back home to blog (I would go further into the sexual analogy, but Mitch would accuse me again of being a garden variety tease).

  Sorry Wharf, Michael is right about one more thing; it’s the bloggers that make Aspen Post great, and with your excellent contributions maybe many many many more people would read it and possibly participate and then Michael would cease to appear as a hypocrite in promoting it so. You will have created the reality you seek.

  And THAT is the way of Tao.

• 9. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 25th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  Rat,

  Thanks for the lengthy, though-provoking reply.

  I’d like to add a few comments of my own to your thoughts.

  [Most bloggers are one-and-out. That includes bloggers who submit multiple offerings in a short period of time then suddenly stop.]

  I will concede AspenPost has had its share of one-hit wonders, but one of the central elements of this project is community. The ratio of one-hitters to constant contributors is by no means a one-to-one ratio, but AspenPost and Con Games alike have lost a number of key contributors to forces quite beyond anyone’s control.

  Moreover, blogging does not share the universal appeal of, say, bicycle riding. It helps to love self expression through writing, but even that is not always enough to tickle the muse. Suffice it to say, blogging’s not for everyone. The fact that AspenPost is open to anyone who wants to try it on, or back away, think about it, and give it another try, ought properly be construed as a service, not a short-coming.

  [Most bloggers and the most popular posts were conceived in 2006 upon the formation of the blog. Meaningful participation has declined since. You and Reck should be commended for your sticktuitiveness, because you both have worked tirelessly to foster a community on Aspen Post. I hope you can keep the ball rolling.]

  Your metric for this conclusion evades me. If you measure a blog’s popularity by the quantity of comments it generates, Post Time Media would be fools not to change the name “AspenPost” to “Reckless G Post.” Certainly, G’s posts generate record commentary. But there’s more to it than that, and I know the difference is not lost on you. There’s as much room on AspenPost for G’s views on the Middle East as there is for Chef Dava Parr’s passion for locally grown produce, and everything in between.

  [A substantial, if not primary, source of the content is from formal or quasi-advertisers. When you subtract the profiteers (Conniff, Hemstreet, Schochet) that ratio is magnified even further.]

  Spoken like a true Marxist. If you subtract the profiteers, Post Time Media doesn’t exist. This “Halliburton is Evil” argument is squishy at best. From what I’ve seen, you probably spend more on dog food than PTM profits in a fiscal year.

  [The content on AP (other than Hemstreet, you, and Reck) primarily consists of fringe positions and one-issue drumbeats. That is fantastic that those positions can be presented and it is perhaps the best aspect of the blog. Fantastic right up to the point you get the editor-in-chief trying to spin that content into the representation that a new community awakening exists or some such nonsense. Go down the list, Mitch--Braudis, the mayor's race, Burlingame, "fair" reporting. Those all might be viable positions in terms of argument, but don't hand me all the extra jive about what Con Games and AP stands for and that these enlightened views somehow render traditional community thought irrelevant. People are smarter than that.]

  No one is asserting here that AspenPost seeks to render “traditional community thought” irrelevant. I’ll listen to your argument that local fishwraps have larger readership than AspenPost, but when you assert some kind of design to render newspapers “irrelevant,” I say the bullshit has breached your brogans. The truth of the matter is that written media is evolving, and if you don’t believe me, why does every paper in the valley publish their articles on both paper and a website? If that’s not close enough to home for you, consider how far brief composition has come from the days of a Dictaphone and a secretary…

  You paint a sinister picture of the Con Man’s motives. I haven’t known him a long time, and I can’t say I know him well, but I’ve seen enough to know that while we don’t see eye-to-eye on most political issues, there’s room enough in my perspective for his views, and vice versa. And that’s not a bad place to start.

  Cheers,

• 10. Wharf Rat  |  August 25th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

  Reckless,

  You are a great voice of reason and I appreciate your comments. I believe my viewpoint has evolved or devolved (depending upon your perspective) in that I don't really have any specific expectations about CG or AP anymore. You have helped me understand the flaw in that way of thinking. My perspective is somewhat more elementary in that I'm just trying to point out that the radio show and the blog don't meet the standards that I-Con voluntarily promotes. There is a fundamental difference in those two viewpoints.

  Seriously, can you not see my objection to the B.S. in comment number 2? If you think that is about unrealistic expectations on my part I am very disappointed.

  By the way, I noticed in rereading I-Con's response that he accuses me of being above hypocrisy. I have never put forth that proposition--I have the capacity to be biased, inconsistent, and hypocritical just like my comrades. However, I-Con has decided that he is above hypocrisy by pre-emptive sleight-of-hand: if he says to people that his core principle is not to get conned, well that just means that he can't be conning anyone, right? After all, he is the defender against cons!

  With all due respect, Reckless, I think you give him a pass on that with the "aww, shucks, give him some credit for putting his opinions out there" argument. That's what I'd like to hear--his opinions. If you tell me not to get conned and then start conning me, well, you'd better expect a response.

  I don't know Michael personally, so I'm not going to stand in judgment of him as a human being. As a public figure, he comes across as a pompous ass, much like Ireland does. However, I'm less concerned about personality issues and more concerned about issues of consistency. For example, the reason I stopped blogging last year was a result of the fact that I-Con failed to recognize or do anything about a clear instance of plagiarism on Aspen Post--a piece that, I might add, is still up on this site. That's downright offensive. If he thinks that is just bitching, well, I think the point was missed. I don't know if I'll write again on AP tomorrow, let alone next year. However, you are right, Reckless, in that if I didn't believe in the potential of the blog I wouldn't waste my time here.

• 11. Wharf Rat  |  August 25th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

  [I’ll listen to your argument that local fishwraps have larger readership than AspenPost, but when you assert some kind of design to render newspapers “irrelevant,” I say the bullshit has breached your brogans.]

  Mitch,

  If you can interpret comment #2 to mean anything other than Con Games/Aspen Post having a larger audience and more relevance than the Aspen papers, I'd like to hear your interpretation in more detail.

• 12. Wharf Rat  |  August 25th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

  By the way, the blog is "exploding"--all thanks to me. I'm so awesome, I can't stand it.

• 13. Michael Conniff  |  August 26th, 2008 at 6:44 am

  Rat:

  Our numbers are up again on Aspen Post thanks to you. You the man! (Or woman!) Keep up the good work!

  As for my sources, just ask your friends in radio for Arbitron or any other valley radio report. It's all there. But then you will have to add in the uncounted listeners beyond the reach of the research in Eagle, Edwards, Vail, etc. Beyond telling you tens of millions of hit, Aspen Post numbers are confidential.

  But if you're going to take the challenge, I have to warn you that if you really want a good laugh, ask the newspapers how many people are reading on a given day. They have no idea. None! So to prove me wrong you will have to establish their numbers, which can't be done.

  Good luck with that.

  You have every right to hold me accountable, and I welcome that. I have often spoken on-air of the intended irony of "Con Games"--to not be conned by anyone, including me.

  Funny, though, that I never see you hold anyone else accountable--and certainly not city officials. Are you one of the silent majority so cowed by the powers-that-be that you won't stand up and be counted? That would explain your anonymity if nothing else. The difference between you and me, Rat, is that I put my name and my whole being behind what I say, and you put yourself at a safe distance from full disclosure. A big difference.

  Oh and by the way: when you put together your top ten LOCAL blogs, make sure you establish relevant critieria: I would suggest number of bloggers as a percentage of total population; length of time in operation; frequency of update (we do it every day of the year); a complete calendar; a news operation; advertisers; advertisers who pay to blog; and so on.

  Good luck with that, too.

  All best, Michael!

• 14. Michael Conniff  |  August 26th, 2008 at 6:57 am

  One other thing, Rat....

  Plagiarism? I don't recall the post or the incident. Show me the way and if you're right I'll take the offending information down ASAP.

  Best, MIchael!

• 15. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 26th, 2008 at 6:59 am

  Rat,

  Your interpretation of comment #2 is different than mine. You see it as a statement that AspenPost is more relevant than the newspapers. I read it as an assertion that if people neglect to read AspenPost, they can miss out on important community views. A distinction without a difference? I don't think so.

  I'm not sure about the metric Michael's using to guage audience size, but I'm not sure that's terribly important. If you view it as a competition, you're missing the point.

  One of the central problems of blogging is the pull to believe your own bullshit. There's plenty of room to do this in a blog or internet forum. As a mutual friend may attest, blogging can hold some harsh lessons.

  You have managed to generate some commentary, haven't you? In the spectrum between thoughtful ideas and mindless drivel, I find these comments closer to the former than the latter. Well done. And btw, that, my friend, is the point.

  Cheers,

• 16. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 7:53 am

  I-Con,

  Reckless blogs under a pseudonym, as do I. You know who she is. You have had a couple opportunities to meet me in person, which you have elected not to follow through on. I'm not hiding from you or anyone, so in that respect your argument is a red herring. If you want to know who I am, just ask. Does that really make a difference? Does that then allow you to go on air and try to attack me personally or something? I think not, but you certainly have the opportunity to continue to marginalize my opinions through your editing and summary on your radio show. I've got no problem with that.

  I have also revealed enough about myself for you to know where I am coming from, if you have paid attention. For instance, I have repeatedly blogged that I am a resident of Glenwood Springs and have no agenda that supportive Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, or any of its elective officials.

  I don't know what else to say to make my point--you just seem to have an uncanny ability to miss it. You think I am just criticizing you, the radio show and the blog haphazardly and for no particular reason. If that's what you really think that's just sad. I invite you to go back to where this started. It started with a comment you made that said that CG and AP represent a larger audience than the local newspapers. As a listener of CG, reader/submitter of AP, reader of the local papers, and participant in the local community, I really find that hard to believe. Based upon your response, you just pulled that out of thin air, as you have admitted that you don't have any accurate information on the local paper audience.

  Why say something like that if you can't back it up? I suppose only you know the answer to that question.

• 17. reckless G  |  August 26th, 2008 at 7:53 am

  [I'm just trying to point out that the radio show and the blog don't meet the standards that I-Con voluntarily promotes.]

  But that is the very nature of promoting a product. When you’re trying to sell something, you don’t toe the ground and sheepishly admit that your product is just average, you stick out your chest and shout its praises, even to the point of exaggeration. Does the detergent really deliver whiter whites and brighter brights? Probably not, but that slogan sells detergent. Does the claim that four out of five dentists recommend a certain toothpaste really hold water? Who is checking that statistic? Who cares? It’s just a promotional ploy. Now if you are complaining that Michael is employing the standard practices of advertising, well I can’t help you there.

  [If you tell me not to get conned and then start conning me, well, you'd better expect a response.]

  The title of the show is just a hook. You are hung up on the inconsistency between the catchy title and the reality of Michael’s attitudes and approaches to the issues he presents? You must really have a hard time shopping. Doesn’t every product come with exaggerated claims that are rarely delivered? That’s what I mean about giving up those high standards. Yes I agree; Michael sometimes comes off as a pompous ass. So what. As I challenged you once before; find me ONE talk show radio host who isn’t a pompous ass. It kind of comes with the territory. You are holding Conniff to standards that simply don’t exist ANYWHERE in the commercial realm as far as I can tell.

  [Seriously, can you not see my objection to the B.S. in comment number 2? If you think that is about unrealistic expectations on my part I am very disappointed.]

  It certainly is about unrealistic expectations. It’s unrealistic to expect that Michael is not going to crow about his successes and promote his product. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with comment #2. As far as I can tell it’s all true. Newspapers are not the greatest medium for community conversation. Blogs are far superior for all of the reasons Michael lists.

  I think your B.S.ometer would be put to better use than monitoring CG and AP for inconsistencies. Michael’s pomposity is an easy target, but as far as I’m concerned, quite irrelevant. I’d like to see your cutting remarks directed at local government, national government, election campaigns, negligent dog owners, fake boobs, or any number of issues more important and interesting. You are wasting your talent my friend.

  One more thing. I like the fact that Michael left up the plagiarized post. It presents an excellent example of AP bloggers ability to self-police. The writer was first exposed and then severely chastised by fellow bloggers and even admitted his indiscretion. It was up to HIM to delete the post, which he chose not to do, leaving him exposed to even more criticism as evidenced by your referral. That’s one of the best things about the best local blog in the country; it’s completely and entirely a reflection of the myriad personality strengths and flaws that constitute human behavior. Hoorah!

  Now look what you’ve done. You’ve turned me into a friggin’ cheerleader. Blech!

• 18. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am

  [You must really have a hard time shopping.]

  I am handi-capable at best when it comes to shopping. However, after I wade through the (mis)information, I generally end up with decent products. Consistency. Check.

  [find me ONE talk show radio host who isn’t a pompous ass. It kind of comes with the territory. You are holding Conniff to standards that simply don’t exist ANYWHERE in the commercial realm as far as I can tell.]

  see, e.g., Goodman, Amy.

  [Personally I don’t see anything wrong with comment #2. As far as I can tell it’s all true. ]

  :O

  [I’d like to see your cutting remarks directed at local government, national government, election campaigns, negligent dog owners, fake boobs, or any number of issues more important and interesting. You are wasting your talent my friend.]

  I try to address what I consider the most important issues on Aspen Post. If that means I'm wasting talent--well, perhaps you are right!

  [You’ve turned me into a friggin’ cheerleader.]

  I think it's time for the 2nd annual Jimbob Jumpback Honky Tonk Hoedown and Kool-Aid Splash.

• 19. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 9:09 am

  "It doesnt matter what I say
  So long as I sing with inflection..."

  Blues Traveler

  Mitch, this is your cue...You Tube...Blues Traveler...Hook....

• 20. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 26th, 2008 at 9:24 am

  Cheers,

• 21. reckless G  |  August 26th, 2008 at 9:40 am

  Wharf,

  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you'll be only to happy to do so) but Amy Goodman is not a talk show host, she's what used to be known as; a reporter. BIG difference.

  [I think it's time for the 2nd annual Jimbob Jumpback Honky Tonk Hoedown and Kool-Aid Splash.]

  I'll cheerlead for that cause with great enthusiasm.

• 22. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am

  Thanks, Mitch. You brightened up my morning! Back in the day, I ate dinner next to Blues Traveler at La Cocina after a local show. John Popper looked like he ordered the #5 with a couple pitchers of margaritas for the band. La Co used to serve the best mexican food in the valley. They had it all--the #7, the #9, with beans and rice, and my personal favorite--the #2. If you see them, say hi to Nick and Sarah and tell 'em Wharf used to eat tip the waitresses. Twenty minutes!

• 23. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 9:53 am

  Reck,

  Are you saying she works for Post Time Media or something? I think she also writes a syndicated column called Con America Now.

• 24. reckless G  |  August 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  Oh Michael btw I have a confession to make; those tens of millions of hits you mentioned, they're mostly me. I have this incurable addiction you see, that makes me check Aspen Post every eight seconds.

  Sorry to skew your numbers like that.

• 25. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

  Heh, heh, heh... G, you can't hit refresh faster than my php script, which peppers AspenPost from servers all over the world...

  Cheers,

• 26. Michael Conniff  |  August 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  Rat and Reck:

  Great...now I have two people calling me a pompous ass. At the risk of sounding like a pompous ass, I must humbly say you're both wrong.

  A few things:

  Not only is Amy Goodman not a talk show host, she is not a RADIO talk show host. She is also every bit as biased as Keith Olbermann and/or Fox News. Don't be conned.

  Rat, any time you want to meet I'll meet--but I have to warn you, I'm a real pompous ass in person. Just ask Sue.

  Yes, reckless G blogs under a pseudonym but there's no secret that it's Sue Gray, who has been on my show as such (and as both) so there's no real anonymity there. There's no doubt that you are blogging behind a screen, which is fine, but also not to be denied. What you are doing is easier than what she and I are doing because there are no real personal consequences to what you say.

  You threw down the gauntlet on blogs better than Aspen Post and I've showed you how to measure the AP/CG audience. Have at it!

  Best, Michael!

• 27. reckless G  |  August 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

  But...a lovable pompous ass! And only on the radio as your alter-ego; Con Man. You're a real gem in person. I hope you and Wharf Rat get to meet someday, and I hope I'm there to experience it.

• 28. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  Hey Seuss! I feel like this is a re-run of the old Cheech and Chong sketch of the Eberlyn Woodhead sped reddin course. My reddin comprension has improvved a hundrid procent!

  Let's back up and read Wharf's comment again, everybody:

  [I don't know Michael personally, so I'm not going to stand in judgment of him as a human being. As a public figure, he comes across as a pompous ass, much like Ireland does. However, I'm less concerned about personality issues and more concerned about issues of consistency.]

  And out of that statement all you get is: "Wharf Rat called me a pompous ass!" I only give half a crap about how I-Con, Mick Ireland (or anyone, for that matter) sounds but I give a full crap about whether their positions are consistent. If that sounds like bitch bitch bitch pompous ass, maybe you need to go back and hit the Woodhead books.

  And what is it with the "hiding behind a pseudonym" allegations? Not sure how you embarked upon that frolic and detour. Have you ever asked my name? No you haven't. It's Greg. Greg from Glenwood. Last name Hall. H-A-L-L. Bring on the personal consequences. Yawn.

  A couple loose ends I need to tie up before I embark upon my best local blog mission.

  Loose end #1: You still haven't provided me with any evidence to support your contention that the CG/AP audience is larger than the audience of AT/ADN. I presume that evidence is not forthcoming. It's not my task to have to "disprove" your baloney. All you can give me is that some radio data exists if I'm willing to go digging and that AP has had tens of millions of hits. Well, I'm no internet guru, but I also wasn't born yesterday. Anyone who knows anything about web site "hits" knows that that statistic doesn't mean diddly squat. The fact that the remaining AP stats are "confidential" sounds like a homeland security issue. Perhaps it is the same rationale you use to keep confidential the fact that you tape your Friday Con Games shows. We wouldn't want full disclosure of such a sensitive topic, would we? We gotta keep T. Boone on our side of that issue!

  Repeat after me: OK, everybody, hold your calls on Friday because it's taped. What a breakthrough!

  Loose End #2:

  What's with the "relevant criteria" demand for establishing the best list of local blogs? Now I have to use your rules to judge your blog? OK, Mr. Propaganda. What's next, Rush gets to establish "relevant criteria" for "excellence in broadcasting" or Hannity gets to establish "relevant criteria" for "being a great American." Sorry, I'm not buying in to that.

  While we're at it; however, lets examine your first criterion to illustrate the straightjacket you are trying to manufacture: number of bloggers as a percentage of total population. Sounds fine and dandy at first blush...until we realize that you crow over the fact that AP has "over fifty bloggers"!

  Who you keeping in that count, I-Con? Torre? Aspen Spin? Kevin Ward? Miss Lissa? Altitude? Jessica Andrews? Shall I go on? I'll use my own criteria, thank you, and if you don't like it you can lock it in the confidential vault.

  That's all for now--I'm ready for my daily spanking, Massah!

• 29. Wharf Rat  |  August 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  Dang it! I hit too quickly. Should I include "web insure policy quotes", "ssr22 insurance", and "geico price" as bloggers or just web site hits? This blog is just too busy for me to keep up with the data!

• 30. Michael Conniff  |  August 27th, 2008 at 7:36 am

  Hall Rat:

  You can also add active bloggers to the list, those who've commented int the last 30 days or so.

  It's NOT my criteria. Substitute you own. It's not a straighjacket. It's logic.

  Oh, and don't forget to check with the newspapers on their circulation. You can't disprove me without proving them.

  Consequences of your name? Only you can say. Welcome to the light of day.

  Best, Michael!

  PS to Reck: I'm much nicer on my show than in person!

• 31. Michael Conniff  |  August 27th, 2008 at 7:51 am

  Rat:

  How about MILLIONS of pageviews?

  Does that help?

  All best, Michael!

• 32. reckless G  |  August 27th, 2008 at 9:49 am

  [PS to Reck: I'm much nicer on my show than in person! ]

  That has not been my experience, and I hope for your fiance's sake it has not been hers either!

• 33. Wharf Rat  |  August 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  [Consequences of your name? Only you can say. Welcome to the light of day.]

  Not quite sure what you mean by that, I-Con, but I would suggest to you that my use of the name Wharf Rat reveals more about me than just my assigned pope name and illuminates, not darkens. The Dead just happen to be a significant part of my life and probably always will be. Check with Jimmy on that one--that guy's got multiple levels of understanding about the power of music as a community foundation. Also, I'm hoping Mitch will employ his awesome YouTube skills and patch in a version of the song for you. For some, that particular song is quite touching. Mitch--if you are reading, New Year's Eve '78 would work nicely.

  As for your theory about the use of pseudonyms on the internet, I s'pose I just don't get it. At all stages of virtual participation, we are encouraged to establish user names, accounts and so forth. In fact, I think it would be more unusual for someone to join a blog or forum with the name "Jill Wyman" or "Mitch Mulhall" (without the dot). You, my friend, are in a different category in that you have voluntarily entered into the world of for-profit personality with your show and blog. The rest of us minions do it for uncompensated personal satisfaction. It would be highly inappropriate for you to speak or blog with a pseudonym without a good reason. However, because I can't go too long without a dig, I'll tell you that I think you occasionally hide behind "Post Staff" or "Post Time Media". While I don't have any problem revealing my identity to you and others on the site, I certainly would understand the motivations of some to use a pseudonym as limited protection. I know of at least one blogger on this site who has been personally threatened with economic repercussions and the like for expressing his or her particular viewpoint. Not like that's a secret. In addition, you may also know that one of the god squadders down in Battlementville recently got his house egged--probably a result of his incessant preaching. I certainly wouldn't begrudge him if he used a pseudonym, but apparently the papers won't allow that unless your name is Roger Marolt.

  Just today, I was reading the USA Today and there it was, front and center on the lead section page (just like where your Huffington Post entries are invariably highlighted), traditional reporting with reader-generated content combined. All readers were identified by a self-selected pseudonym--were they commenting "behind a screen" as you suggest? Literally, yes, but I think your error is to assume some sort of a negative ulterior motive associated with that practice. By the way, one of the USA Today readers identified himself (or herself) as "Deadhead67". Well worth the free price of admission for me.

  By the way, I will break ranks with my tradition and inform you of something COMPLETELY WITHOUT SARCASM: the translater on 105.5 was not working in Vail this morning. I drove to Denver and heard all of two words of your show as I went through Vail. You might want to look into that.

  Back to sarcasm--I won't hold it against you in my calculations of your radio audience.

• 34. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am

  Cheers,

• 35. Michael Conniff  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am

  Hall Rat:

  Your post made me think hard about names, no-names and in between. First let me refer you to the way we described Aspen Post--and still do when you click on "About":

  "Aspen Post is a new way of looking at the world -- without editors, without editing, without filters, without anything between those of us who care to talk, and those who care enough to listen before they talk back. Aspen Post is a new soapbox placed smack in the middle of the public square, from whence any and all can be heard. Even in a democracy, a simple idea like that can be revolutionary."

  If Aspen Post provides the soap box in the public square--if the analogy is apt--I would point out that people don't get hide their identity in the public square because they are there for all to see. I consider that ideal, though I understand there's a range of reasons why people don't want to be known.

  If you believe "Wharf Rat" is closer to your true identity, so be it, but when attacks grow personal they become grenades thrown without accountability, the al-Qaedal of intellectual discourse. Knowing the source of a comment is actually both preferable and powerful because we then know where the idea is coming from and can factor that in.

  Also, as the target of many an anonymous critic--including those who call in--I think that it's only naturally to know who has a problem with what you're saying because it helps you to understand why.

  My suggestion: become both a "Greg Hall" and "Wharf Rat"--two distinct identities with two different agendas. Then you can really rock our world.

  Best, MIchael!

• 36. Wharf Rat  |  August 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  Mitch,

  Can't tell you how much I appreciate the video postings. Is that something the rest of us can do, or is it a staff privilege? I hate to always ask you, but you are oh-so-helpful in that regard.

  I-Con,

  I'm gonna stay away from schizophrenia--I already have my hands full trying to keeping track of what I see in the mirror each day. I can definitely see a good argument for requiring the use of legal names, as the newspapers mandate. I'm glad you don't do that--I think I blogged many a moon ago about how the name of the author might actually impede dialogue in certain instances. I can envision many circumstances where the anonymity of the commentor might foster an environment of "caring enough to listen" as opposed to immediately dismissing an opinion based upon the name of the author.

  Anyway, I hope time allows you to understand I have no agenda against you as person. I'm not a shill, either, as far as I know. Yeah, I'm very hard on you as the "Con Man" for reasons you are well aware of, but I'm just calling it as I see it. You may seek comfort in the fact that I am just as apoplectic toward some of the stuff I hear from Hannity and Beck--those pompous asses! Perhaps that means you've "arrived".

• 37. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  WR,

  As a kind of public service, back in April I posted a YouTube video that explains how to post YouTube (and other sources) video in WordPress (AP's blogging engine) in the hopes that bloggers would start using this form of media as a means of expression.

  There are two key things to remember:

  1. Turn off rich text editing in your profile.
  2. Adjust the x/y ratio of the video to 388 by 317 (pixels).

  G correctly posted a video the other day, but neglected to adjust the dimensions. The video showed up at the top of the right column, and it kicked right column content out of view.

  Video embedding is pretty easy, but there's a lot that can go wrong. Don't let this dissuade you. If something goes off the rails, drop me a line and I'll fix it.

  Cheers,

• 38. Michael Conniff  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

  Hall Rat:

  ....reasons I'm well aware of...

  Actually, I'm not well aware at all of the reasons you keep busting my chops. You don't like commercials and you think I should stop promoting pretty much anything on the air. You don't think Aspen Post is any good despite your own contributions as they prove to the contrary.

  Otherwise I would point out that your self-appointed role of keeping me honest is not informed at all by any commentary I can remember saying the show does some good. If memory serves your comments are universally negative. You listen, you blog, and yet you seem to reject both.

  That I don't understand.

  Best, Michael!

• 39. climbhigh  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  That was a great song thanks.

• 40. Wharf Rat  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

  [You don't like commercials and you think I should stop promoting pretty much anything on the air. You don't think Aspen Post is any good despite your own contributions as they prove to the contrary.]

  If that's all you get out of what I've written in the past, that certainly explains a lot. Although it is possible that I am an extremely poor communicator, I think it is more likely that this is a real-world extrapolation of the classic Far Side cartoon...

  What Wharf Rat Says: Con Man, your statements are not consistent with the principles the Con Man espouses as core values of his radio show and blog.

  What Con Man Hears: Con Man, blah blah blah blah blah Con Man blah blah blah blah.

  It's awfully difficult to debate issues with someone who isn't listening.

• 41. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

  Enough already... Rat, Michael, it's time to get this internet side show done with and look each other in the eyes. It's nowhere near as ugly as either of you thinks. From where I sit, you two have more in common than either would grudge to admit. Park your egos, pick up the phone, and make an effort. That way, at least, both of you could figure out whether the antagonism is worth it.

  Cheers,

• 42. Wharf Rat  |  August 29th, 2008 at 12:15 am

  Mitch,

  I think you're right about the internet side show. I'll leave it at that for a change.

• 43. piepowder444  |  August 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am

  And now back to our regularly scheduled blogging, already in progress.

• 44. Wharf Rat  |  August 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  OK, out of respect for the Con Man, Mitch, Reckless, and piepowder444, I'll grow up and cease writing anything else negative about Michael Conniff, Con Games, or Aspen Post. I will, however, reserve the right to say something negative about Fractional Post--just kidding. No worries--it's all good!

• 45. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  [Fractional Post]

  ha ha ho ho hee hee.

  Call me WR. I'll give you the Con Man's number...

  Cheers,

• 46. Michael Conniff  |  August 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

  Glad you guys all agree.

  For me, can't wait to see the Hall Rat top ten of local blogs that are better than Aspen Post. Best case is he finds something and we learn even more.

  Worst case is he figures out maybe how good we really are.

  Also waiting for Hall Rat to turn his considerable critical skills to someone other than me--maybe even himself.

  Best, Michael!

• 47. Mitch Mulhall  |  August 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

  Cheers,

• 48. Wharf Rat  |  August 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  Dang--I thought I waved the white flag a couple posts ago, but the spanking keeps coming. I suppose I deserve it.

  In the true spirit of eastern philosophy appreciated by Reckless G, I actually read my fortune cookie on Thursday: To do nothing is to be nothing.

  I'm of course doing nothing here. I thought I was trying to bring a different perspective and possibly some accountability from the dominant voice on this blog, but failed miserably. All the Con Man has gotten out of this is some weird fascination with the information on my birth certificate, and I've managed to annoy Mitch, Reckless (and probably others) along the way. I guess the only logical thing to do at this point is turn my "considerable critical skills" toward myself. That sounds like a crowd-pleaser.

  Mitch and Reck--your jokes are pretty funny, I must admit! Unfortunately, my desire to meet the Con Man left the harbor some time ago. If we can't communicate by written word, the chances of a verbal breakthrough are slim to none. So while your idea seems sound, it ain't gonna happen unless by chance.

  Like I said before, I'm done writing negative pieces about GC and AP. If you want to keep this thread alive, live long and prosper!

  Your truly,

  Nothing Rat

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed