Sellsius real estate marketing blog

No one put me up to what I did in advance, and I meant what I said about Joe. It was not a ploy. Joe was an asshole :)

I can attest that I did not put her up to it.
Thanks Ardell, right back at ya :)

You guys are truly cracking me up here!!!

Many of us don't always live up to our ideals -- including Greg, I'm sure. I know I frequently fall short of mine. One thing that always hurts my feelings is if someone catches me at such a time and writes about it.

I think I have have a good idea about how we can begin moving toward a solution:

http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/rant/why-gre...

John,

You are kidding, right? When I first saw that I assumed it was a joke. You are seriously not suggesting we should all call each other instead of commenting on the blogs. That is ANTI-WEB 2.0 and very ActiveRain, but not real blogging.

Don't get upset, but ActiveRain is not real blogging. You don't say things behind the scenes and not on blog by phone and email. That is not blogging, that's high school.

We're supposed to say it all on the blog, so the consumers see it all. We are not supposed to present only what we want to manipulate them via.

Ardell,

No, I'm not kidding. And I disagree with you that trying to help one another and stop fighting is high school. On the contrary -- all sorts of bad feelings happened in high school. I think if more people tried to help each other stop bullying one another we would have fewer tragedies like Columbine.

Love's in need
Of Love Today
Don't Delay
Send yours in right away.

I'm sure you know more about what WEB 2.0 is about than I do, so I would encourage you to discuss whatever you like. However what I see in these threads are people hurting other people's feelings. If that's what Web 2.0 is about, then I think it's not a much improved version of Web 1.0, where the same thing went on, or Fidonet, for that matter.

I appreciate that you make a distinction between ActiveRain and real blogging, but really that's not an important issue to me in this context. I actually didn't get this idea from ActiveRain, I got it from Buddha: "Hatred is never solved by hatred. It is only solved by love."

If you prefer a more bottom line context, then I refer you to Tom Hopkins definition of a sales champion, part of which consists of someone who is always positive.

I'm not upset by your characterization of ActiveRain, because I don't make any money there -- I make money on a web site that has a blog dating back to 2003. Others on ActiveRain might be upset by it, but right now we're not discussing that.

Your sentence trailed off, but I am saying "it all", I think -- or all that I want to say. You of course should say what you want.

I am saying that I would like to work toward a community where peoples' feelings are respected and where we try to solve problems in a constructive context.

I'm not trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do. If you prefer not to join me, that's perfectly ok, of course.

This is not trying to manipulate consumers -- not by any means. It's just a matter of what one chooses to focus on. Not everything we hide from consumers is a deception -- sometimes it is just a courtesy. I don't pick my nose while showing houses for the same reason.

Hate's Going Round
Breaking Many Hearts
Stop It Please
Before It Goes Too Far

Here's the whole song, if you're interested:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/steviewonder/lov...

Ever see Stevie Wonder in concert? He's quite good.

John

Don't you understand that this is about nothing more than traffic? This tabloid like manufactured drama, while quite entertaining, serves no consumers whatsoever as Ardell seems to claim in her comment. After all, why would this bickering even begin to interest a consumer beyond the way it interests them that Britney Spears shaved her head? This is about blog traffic, John and I assure you all participants are benefiting from the Unchained (controversy) "bump"

Oh, I don't know about that, Erion. I think perhaps Joe has some legitimate concerns about Greg's behavior and the impact it has on other bloggers and would like to improve it. To be sure, as it stands now, calling out Greg is great for comments and eyeballs, but I don't really think that's Joe's motivation. That's why I think working constructively toward a solution might be something he's interested in.

You might be right, but we still haven't heard from Joe on the issue.

I wasn't trying to call into question the legitimacy of the concerns raised by Joe. Au contraire, I believe some of this is Greg being fed some of his own medicine. Greg is undoubtedly one of the most talented writers around, but he tends to downplay and denigrate any efforts that don't have anything to do with him or his pursuits. A lot of this is definitely called for but the point I was trying to make was that there might not be any interest in reconciliation because of the traffic benefits of such "irreconcilable differences".

John,

This exchange, as painful as it may seem all around, is helping me to better understand you and others including Brian and Greg. It is the anti-WEB 2.0 crowd, by definition not intent.

Seriously there is more pain filtered through the calls and emails of ActiveRain by the not said on blog crowd. Talking it out off blog is not as productive, though it may "appear" to be more friendly. It is where nastiness abounds in the secrecy of not on blog.

Erion,

I purposely put nothing of this on any blog where traffic might be of benefit to me. I assure you I have no reason to bump traffic for BHB or Sellsius. This is about Marc Davison and those who respect him, and those that have heinously trashed him, not blog traffic.

Ardell, this exchange stopped being painful to me as soon as I started looking at it from the perspective of what I could do to prevent such pain in the future.

I'm not sure what you think you understand about me, but you seem to be making up crowds, including the "anti-WEB 2.0 crowd" and the "not said on blog crowd". I'd rather not dwell on that and stay focused on the solution, but in passing I can assure you I generally tend to disperse crowds rather than attract them, much like a fart. Perhaps that's a WEB-2.0-quality transparent statement you might enjoy.

Erion, I don't know. It's late in New York, and we still haven't heard from Joe on the issue. Perhaps he enjoys posts that have over 170 comments and counting. I know I'd be tickled pink if any posts on my blog ever got half that much attention. I'd like to think he's really looking for a solution, and that he's not just bagging on Greg to stir up interest in Sellsius.

So what about it, Joe? Would you like to try the suggestion I've proposed? By the way -- I'm not married to my idea. Would you like to make an alternate suggestion that would be helpful and considerate of the feelings of all concerned? Or do you just want to stir up the pot once in awhile for comments and link love?

Darn you Joe and Ardell:

No sooner had I seen Ardell call Joe an asshole I wrote a comment asking Greg if he was going to let it remain on his site or if he was going to remove it in the same manner as he would if I had called Brian or Cathy an asshole.

You guys suckered me right into doing your dirty work of exposing Greg.

I still have some comments left in moderation over there, but I think I might have really touched a nerve when Greg mentioned that if I could not understand debating in public versus debating at home that it was my fault. I responded by saying something to the effect of if a great teacher realized his student didn't understand what was being explained, he would either explain it differently or find a better way of explaining it. I then asked what he would do if one of the Unchained conference attendees did if they too did not understand what he was saying and said "I know what you will do, tell them that it's their fault for not understanding and walk away with their hard earned money."

I still don't get what he is trying to say with his in-house versus public debate hall analogy as I see Bloodhound as being a part of the public domain, not Greg's private living room.

----
Traffic: I pointed out in an earlier comment on BHB that the vast majority of those leaving comments would not leave them if Greg got rid of the "website" field on his blog. The way I see it, if we eliminated the "website" field, only those truely interested in making a legimate comment would actually take the time to comment.

So in a way, I do think several of the participants in this debate are doing it for the traffic, but for the most vocal participants, I highly doubt it is a traffic thing as their complaints are nothing new. Most of us who have been around a while know they have harbored ill feelings against Greg's ways for quiet sometime now.
----

John's suggestion: It is a good one but it will not work. From my personal experience, there's more backstabbing that takes place via email and over the phone than it does in public on the blog. Taking it to email and to the airwaves will only delay people expressing how they really feel. Eventually it's going to come out and when it does, it's going to be a lot worst than what it appears now.

----

In the meantime, I think I am about done with the mess. I have a paper I need to finish for class and a book to write, so I am about done. I may have made myself look like an ass getting involved, but someone else made themselves look a lot worst than I made myself look that is for sure.

Derek,

My suggestion won't work? Being kind to others won't work?

Ever hear of Ghandi? Buddha? Jesus? Mother Teresa?

Obviously I'm none of them -- I'm just a stupid C list blogger who has an idea for how to make things better.

But I'll tell you what, since I started writing about the solution, I am energized and no longer scared and embarassed to be participating.

Your business of people repressing their feelings is kind of reminiscent of Freud and all that and interesting, but what if they change the way they feel by practicing loving kindness until they get good at it?

You didn't make yourself look like an ass. I enjoyed talking to you.

Nothing against being nice. My point is that by all these bloggers taking out their feeling via phone and email is only going to make things worst in the long run.

People are going to talk much more open via phone and email than they will a blog. Yes, it may seem harsh in public, but the conversations are much harsher over the phone and in email.

Eventually the hate is going to grow so severe, it's going to end up being a lot worst than it is now as everyone's feeling had been supressed as they took them out of public and began talking in private. Once it makes it's way back out of the private circles, it's going to really be bad.

It's a little past 2:00 a.m., here so please forgive me if I am not being clear in what I am saying.

Well, Derek, if people don't change their attitudes, it won't work.

But I'm not talking about bitching, like in a blog. I'm talking about some people reaching out to the victim of a bully in a spirt of loving kindness, so that 1) the victim will be consoled and 2) the bully won't be harmed by that consolation and 3) the bully will learn that bullying doesn't work to get attention.

What does Greg Swann want? Why does he cry when Realtor magazine doesn't metion him? He wants attention. If bullying works to get it, he'll do that. If it stops working, he'll do something else.

I think it's time for me to pack it in, too. Nice talking to you.

To John:

I wrote this post a week ago. A single post. Dustin wrote a single post. But BHB has written 9. So who would you say is fanning the flames?

You know I cannot comment on BHB, so I have to respond here. Hence 2 more posts that would have been in the form of comments there. I hope you understand.

http://tinyurl.com/2t8wr5
http://tinyurl.com/2rv7gk

call me at 646-714-2720 if you like

Derek, I feel, made very good points in his comments. The "my living room" v. "public square" point was particularly interesting.

I couldn't help but feel that the point was indeed made as I was commenting on BHB yesterday.

I think the exchange was allowed to unfold due to the controversy. Many more comments seemed to get through the Gregfilter than might have otherwise, if not for this exchange. Joe has been banned from commenting on BHB for a long time, as was Rudy I think. Sellsius generally. Though I have no idea why that was.

Before we end this totally, can you tell us what the issue was that created the banning in the first place, if you remember?

The ban? Good question Ardell.

Here's the backstory, to the best of my recollection.

I was banned sometime after Weeniegate, where Greg attacked, excuse me satirized, TB by calling her (and me) "evil". (We asked for a debate: Weenie v Cheez Whiz. TB agreed, he refused.) As you recall, her weenie blog had absolutely no content (the first preemptive blog war). Somewhere along the line, I emailed Greg and voiced my objection. He agreed to let me post comments again. But what he would do is hold the comments in moderation until the post went off the front page and no one would likely read it. Quite clever I thought. Eventually, he would not post them at all. So it was a gradual ban. Now, in Rudy's case, he rarely commented, yet he was also banned. Ban by association.

I had exchanged many emails with Greg before the ban. I had even asked if any comments were offending him (he was pro Zillow, I anti) and he said no, he "cut his teeth on Usenet" (I don't even know what that is).

I do recall him writing me at one point telling me not to comment on his posts BUT that I could comment on others (he never held to that). The reason he gave was: I was "one-upping" him. (his word). He never said I was making personal attacks. I have screenshots of many of my banned comments should the occasion ever arise to prove that he bans people not comments. Moderation is one thing, blacklisting a whole nother pile of poop.

Now this post and this one and this one are ONE post?

Must be New York math.

And even if Greg did do nine to your three (New York Math: one), what point is the fact that he's a more prolific flame baiter than you intended to make? That one man has a gun and another only has a knife tells me nothing about whether the second is a thug -- all I know is that he's relatively broke.

You "have to" respond here? Well, in our metaphor, Greg may be the one with a gun, but I don't see him holding it to your head.

You're a big boy, Joe. If you want to read a bully and reap comments and links in the secondary bully market like a sort of Bluto Freddie Mac, that's your choice. By the same token, I don't blame you that time after time after time I get sucked into it like some mentally retarded Roman buying a ticket to the colliseum show. "DUHHHH do you think we'll see them kill the rhinos today, George?"

I blame me for participating here, and I look to me for the solution.

Woops, coded those links wrong. California hrefs. :)

John,

Here's what I said:

"I wrote this post a week ago. A single post. Dustin wrote a single post. But BHB has written 9. So who would you say is fanning the flames?

You know I cannot comment on BHB, so I have to respond here. Hence 2 more posts that would have been in the form of comments there. I hope you understand."

See the word "hence" in the second paragraph?

I wanted to go home, but the guy wants to have another drink.

You can still call me if you like 646-714-2720

Joe and Rudy (maybe others) know that I have been a bench player in the whole real estate 2.0 thing for years. My brokerage and personal business do not allow me the time to be as active as I would prefer to be in many of the conversations/issues.

I am only writing now in support of the quality blog and quality people here at sellsius. Ardell has also made a lasting impression of respectfulness and thoroughness from her origins at Rain City Guide. I'm not taking sides, just making an observation of character. I give good people the benefit of the doubt.

It's true, I don't have as good of an understanding for Greg's character. As a sideline observer, I do see him making more people upset than happy. I think everyone has value to add the RE.net and we should take things with a grain of salt. I don't know of any subgroup of people in the world that doesn't have an element of discontent. It's only natural that the RE.net have them as well.

Oh yeah, you're right, you did write that.

Well, what kind of reading skills did you expect from a mentally retarded Roman?

No problem, John.

I think this is funny. Sorry about my darn weenie. If I would just learn to keep it in the bun instead of putting it out there maybe we would all be best pals. LOL For the record JF I don't think you are an A__ H__.

Thank you for your kind words, Brad.

I don't think it's a matter of character as much as it is a misunderstanding of what WEB 2.0 is and isn't. I have written a post this morning over at RCG explaining my view of what has happened these last few days.

Many will interpret WEB 2.0 differently, and there will be camps for each intepretation. I am in Dustin's camp in that sense, as he is my blog guru.

That doesn't make him more right than Greg, just more right for me.