<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tech Crunch says FU to all future embargoes in a very weird and low-integrity way</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.troyangrignon.com/2008/12/17/tech-crunch-says-fu-to-all-future-embargoes-in-a-very-weird-and-low-integrity-way/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.troyangrignon.com/2008/12/17/tech-crunch-says-fu-to-all-future-embargoes-in-a-very-weird-and-low-integrity-way/</link>
	<description>Business • Technology • Society • Environment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:37:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Troy</title>
		<link>http://www.troyangrignon.com/2008/12/17/tech-crunch-says-fu-to-all-future-embargoes-in-a-very-weird-and-low-integrity-way/comment-page-1/#comment-430</link>
		<dc:creator>Troy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.troyangrignon.com/?p=501#comment-430</guid>
		<description>My issue is not that they are ignoring embargoes. I get that and support it. But why say &quot;Yes, we&#039;ll support your embargo and then immediately break it.&quot; Swap out embargo with anything else....

&quot;If you ask me to do X, I will immediately say yes to get the Y, then I will immediately go back on my word and do the opposite.&quot; That&#039;s sociopathic.

It&#039;s not like people are not going to send them information. Just say &quot;we&#039;ll ignore your embargo. Give us your information and we (might) talk about it anytime we want.&quot; Okay, makes sense. Just seems bizarre to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My issue is not that they are ignoring embargoes. I get that and support it. But why say &#8220;Yes, we&#8217;ll support your embargo and then immediately break it.&#8221; Swap out embargo with anything else&#8230;.</p>
<p>&#8220;If you ask me to do X, I will immediately say yes to get the Y, then I will immediately go back on my word and do the opposite.&#8221; That&#8217;s sociopathic.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not like people are not going to send them information. Just say &#8220;we&#8217;ll ignore your embargo. Give us your information and we (might) talk about it anytime we want.&#8221; Okay, makes sense. Just seems bizarre to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.troyangrignon.com/2008/12/17/tech-crunch-says-fu-to-all-future-embargoes-in-a-very-weird-and-low-integrity-way/comment-page-1/#comment-429</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.troyangrignon.com/?p=501#comment-429</guid>
		<description>Granted I am not in the tech blogging biz, but I see no issue with it.  If they want to lead a retaliatory war against the PR firms, let them!  It isn&#039;t like they are keeping their policy a secret?

If PR firms worked a little more professionally they would most likely get treated with more respect and bloggers would again respect the embargo.  Simple enough...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Granted I am not in the tech blogging biz, but I see no issue with it.  If they want to lead a retaliatory war against the PR firms, let them!  It isn&#8217;t like they are keeping their policy a secret?</p>
<p>If PR firms worked a little more professionally they would most likely get treated with more respect and bloggers would again respect the embargo.  Simple enough&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tanner</title>
		<link>http://www.troyangrignon.com/2008/12/17/tech-crunch-says-fu-to-all-future-embargoes-in-a-very-weird-and-low-integrity-way/comment-page-1/#comment-428</link>
		<dc:creator>Tanner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.troyangrignon.com/?p=501#comment-428</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t find the approach to be of low integrity at all.  They&#039;ve completely adhered to the rules (to their detriment) as the world crumbled around them.  They&#039;re openly stating their new policy, blacklist and all, in very public form.  If you&#039;re a trustworthy party, which sounds rare, you have nothing to worry about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t find the approach to be of low integrity at all.  They&#8217;ve completely adhered to the rules (to their detriment) as the world crumbled around them.  They&#8217;re openly stating their new policy, blacklist and all, in very public form.  If you&#8217;re a trustworthy party, which sounds rare, you have nothing to worry about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tabitha "Tabz" Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.troyangrignon.com/2008/12/17/tech-crunch-says-fu-to-all-future-embargoes-in-a-very-weird-and-low-integrity-way/comment-page-1/#comment-427</link>
		<dc:creator>Tabitha "Tabz" Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.troyangrignon.com/?p=501#comment-427</guid>
		<description>How could they get a huge spike in traffic if they weren&#039;t being all FU? Seriously though, I can&#039;t believe how unprofessional it all is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How could they get a huge spike in traffic if they weren&#8217;t being all FU? Seriously though, I can&#8217;t believe how unprofessional it all is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
