Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   anonymous coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:21am

   
   

   my morning crap has more news that this post
   
   first

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   NGUVU, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:40am

   
   

   At least it was grammatically correct.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Hmmm

   

   Dave, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:41am

   
   

   I used to work for a B2B dotcom. I wish them better luck than we had :-)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Dear firsts

   

   Scott, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:39am

   
   

   Being the first person to reply to a post really is not that exciting, it also really does not need to be announced as everyone can clearly see that it is first.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Dear firsts

   

   anonymous coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:03am

   
   

   jealous?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   reply to DEAR FIRSTS, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:20am

   
   

   there are so few joys in this world.. you might as well take 'em when you can get 'em. hell.. i'd sing to the mountains if i got to put up the first post... i call my friends to tell them i found a potato chip that looks like ted kennedy.. of course that happens pretty often..
   
   anyway, my point is: no point in pooping on someone else's parade... someday you may want to have one.. and other snobby peoples' faeces will come raining down from the skies.. and..
   
   hmmm... that's a nasty image in my head..

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Re: Dear firsts

   

   TasMot, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:39am

   
   

   No, just amazed that they have so much extra time to camp on the Techdirt site all day long so that they can say that they posted a reply first. Puhleassssse, get a life! Or at least contribute some opinion, reply to the article, or at least a good joke (from one of the other sites they must be trolling) to make it worthwhile being the first post.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Re: Re: Dear firsts

   

   joe stacey, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:53am

   
   

   you're assuming.
   
   i'm amazed that you have so much extra time that you give a crap

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Um Okay back to the subject

   

   Seth, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:48pm

   
   

   I have to agree with #1 up there, though, on the opinion that this post has very little actual news. Kinda a waste of my time. I mean, essentially, Joe is saying, "Okay, those businesses that everyone was excited about? Well, some of 'em failed, some merged, and some succeeded." Thanks for that. I couldn't have guessed.
   
   As for your conclusion, "perhaps this is a guide for what to expect of new companies that are again promising to change the world." -- Okay, um, how? That maybe they will succeed and maybe they won't? Does this surprise you? And WHAT NEW COMPANIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How do they relate to B2B? I mean, gimme SOMETHING, here.
   
   If you were just trying to hilight the new articles released on those other sites you link, maybe you should just stick to the point and say so.
   
   Nice title, though. That's the only reason I read this thing.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    mark, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:23pm

    
    

    He used the word autopsy. Seems most everyone subconciously stops to gawk at wrecks, plane crashes, Dr. G, and so on, in the hopes of getting a gander at a victim. I think he employed wording, intentional or not, that would suck a few of us in, even though the actual topic obviously had little chance of providing any real post-mortem thrills.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment