Furthermore – where the conversation starts to go really wrong
8October 19, 2007 by Colin
Strumpette is being replaced by Furthermore. Like Eric, I had mixed feelings about the persona called Strumpette.
There is a place in the world for effective and well-targeted satire. It’s usually most influential when focused on a particular issue or community – like Valleywag or Spy.
Satire tends to fall apart and draw criticism when it is used to further barely concealed personal vendettas, or where the level of humour and insight varies among the authors.
It has been announced that Strumpette will be replaced by a site called Furthermore. Brian Connolly, who some have argued was the puppet master behind Strumpette all along, provides this explanation for the new name:
“…”furthermore” was selected as it captures the point where a debate gets definitive. Connolly said, “It is the exact moment when the conversation concludes amicably or somebody gets punched in the nose.”…”
I completely disagree. “Furthermore” is a bridge in a conversation, the point where a boring pedant continues arguing their point long after anyone else is interested or even listening. Similar bridges include:
- “let me finish”
- “I’ll tell you”
- “just one more point”
Every time someone has used “furthermore” in a conversation with me, they were well into a diatribe and not very interested in my point of view.
Actually, “furthermore” was usually flourished when I showed an interest in interrupting the speaker or making a point of my own.
It’s a rhetorical tool used to stifle conversation, not encourage it.
Revision: I just looked at Furthermore’s About page. I’m being unnecessarily polite. The concept is bullshit. Satire is fine, but when you add exaggerated masculine bravado and fight imagery, you get bullying.
[tags] Strumpette, Amanda Chapel, Furthermore, PR 2.0, PR is Dead [/tags]
Apparently, you’re sensitive to losing arguments.
But I’ll give you this: if the above is an example of your thinking, you’re partially correct; we are not very interested in your point of view. The object of Furthermore is to make a case; NOT just bloviate some opinion as you do here.
Sincerely,
Brian Connolly
PS And that’s NOT a personal vendetta. I don’t even know who the hell you are.
Thanks, Brian. I am far from a social media evangelist, and am something of a realist. Social media is not the solution to everything.
Some of the points raised on the Strumpette blog ran quite true for me.
But you’ve proved my point that you’re starting off with a bang – a bang that’s more about punching in the face than actually engaging in a conversation.
- and where did I mention vendetta?
Indirectly, you hightlight a fundamental difference. Real PR is about “the presentation” and case making. The “Conversaions Business” is about happy talk and ultimately how much Amway crap you can sell your “friends.”
You are right, we are ABSOLUTELY in the face of the happy talkers. The happy talkers have reduced our business.
Brian
PS You mention vendetta in your piece above.
Sorry – I did mention vendetta.
And yes, “happy talk” is nothing more than a consultant’s bafflegab without direct links to communications objectives and business outcomes.
Where I disagree is the point about reducing our business. The world is changing. We may be ahead of the curve in North America, but more and more people are expecting two-way communication.
It may take a long, long time for some of this social media happy talk to filter through to the general audience, but it will some day.
Ignoring that is throwing the social media baby out with the bathwater.
I think you should read our “About” again. I think you should investigate the nature of a firm and the nature of the capitalist system. I think you should open your mind to the stark nature of a transaction and what equates to a cost.
We had a “conversation” recently in a Facebook group. We proposed strategy and tried to initiate some concerted positive action. One patron chimed in, “This isn’t a place to do stuff; this is a place to waste time.”
There’s your social media experiment in a nutshell.
Anyway… if you have a case to make, you are invited to Furthermore to make a presentation.
Regards,
Brian Connolly
LOL. First, thanks for the link Colin (I’ll take whatever I can get!)
BC — the former AC/BC — continues this self-righteous approach he started with Strumpette. As I’ve stated often before, he and others have brought up many fine points and discussions. On legit topics. Unfortunately, those are overshadowed by the attacks and arrogance.
BC continues to rail against what he and others claim as the PR types who just don’t understand what he’s really trying to do and talking about. But, if BC really didn’t care about them/me, he’d consider the source and ignore any comments.
But, he can’t. So, with that, I’m sure I’ll get an email about this comment from BC.
I’m just amazed at how, on one hand, BC claims he is better and above the bloggers like me, but can’t resist being baited to replying to EVERY negative comment about him.
– Mike
I read Canuckflack in a feed reader, so I clicked through just to see how many comments AC/BC had written.
I just think it’s hilarious that the tone in every single Brian Connolly comment is EXACTLY the same as in any Amanda Chapel comment that you come across. All confrontational… all signs of an internet troll.
I also think it’s hilarious that if you uncover ANY negative blog posting about Amanda Chapel or Strumpette – Brian Connolly/Amanda Chapel is right there with a sour-faced comment.
boo hoo…