A couple days ago I made a post on what appeared to be the end of the Shel Israel saga but sadly it persists because Mr. Israel simply can't seem to let it go.  Here's a quote from his latest post entitled "About Loren Feldman & Michael Arrington"...

Another question that I get asked is why more people have not stepped forward in my defense. I'm pretty certain I know the answer to this one. Loren Feldman has a big and powerful friend in Michael Arrington. I have received a great number of private messages from people who have said precisely that they hate seeing what is being done to me, but they will not speak out because Arrington has become singularly the most powerful individual in social media. We should all think about the power he is assuming and what the repercussions of it are.

How Michael elected to assume the role of Loren Feldman's champion, I do not know. Some think that this was all a set up, that Michael will start a TechCrunch Video with Loren--his frequent houseguest--as the lead program. Actually, I tend to believe it is more the way Michael said it was when he called me to extract three words from from a 20-minute interview about our feud. He told me that he had been ignoring the whole matter, until Loren brought some incendiary tweets of mine to his attention. Then, he decided he was going to stand up for his little friend and give me what-for.

But that's just my perception. To understand more you'll have to ask Michael.

This has been an unquestionable success. Silicon Valley is a bad neighborhood to live in when you have pissed off Michael Arrington. There was a noticeable step back after Arrington ran three pieces in three days extolling the virtues of Loren and the vices of Shel.

I do believe Arrington was instrumental in getting the puppet interviews rolling. The first wave of interviews was with people who are closely connected with Arrington, including people with financial ties or well-known friendships. It has spread to include people who are notable, and less connected to Arrington's inner circle. Some of them are people who I have considered friends for a good many years. The perception is that they have gathered around Loren in support f him and against me.

The rest of the post goes on in about the same manner.  Notable omissions include the fact that both Michael Arrington and Jason Calacanis were attacked by Loren Feldman in the same way Mr. Israel was but they both took it in stride and are now friends with him.  Also missing is the concept of "people can find something funny and not be against you". 

So much easier to explain your troubles away with a persecution complex I guess.

On that note, this is the end of my writing on the issue.  The truth is up until now I didn't really have a horse in this race.  I thought the situation was fascinating from a "what not to do" perspective but I really wished both parties the best (and have made a  point of saying I hoped Mr. Israel would wise up in both of my posts on it) 

But that has now changed, I honestly dislike the guy at this point and really do hope he fails in all his future endeavors.  I feel terrible for saying it but its true.  People that arrogant and that stubborn don't deserve to succeed.  At least not when there are people who are hard working and willing to see their mistakes out there. 

Which is why I have to bow out here.

I'm someone who truly believes there's a place for everyone and truly wishes the best for everyone which is how I can function as a blogger.  Once I stop wishing the best for a person I won't talk about them anymore because it makes it too easy to be mean.  So I'm done with this (though I can't imagine Mr Israel is).

Addendum: One Caveat Here, if this is Mr. Israel realizing the value of publicity and specifically attacking to get attention I'd have to admire that.  It really is the only thing that could redeem the man to me at this point (though sadly I don't think he's that clever)

Addendum #2: I’m going to harp on this just a little bit longer because I think there’s a revelation to be had here. I keep asking myself “How can someone who has been on this Earth more than double the time I have be so lacking in wisdom?” and after considering it I think I have a simple answer.

Anyone who has studied morality learns really quickly that there are truths that are universal among most religions and moral systems. One of those is that systems listing vices/sins always seem to put Pride at the top of the “dangerous” list.

Christians believe Pride gave birth to Lucifer, Jews believe it felled the 1st generation of man, Mayans feature it prominently in their creation story and even secular philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand make a special point of defining a level of excessive Pride that is unacceptable. Sir Thomas Aquinas goes so far as to say it is the cause of all sin (paraphrase, I can’t find the exact quote).

When I was young and studying all these various moral systems I have to admit to wondering why it was given such a prominent position. I mean, people kill over envy and in anger (aka Wrath) and because of Greed and because of Gluttony and because of Lust. So how could Pride be the deadliest of a list that contains all those others?

 But in the end I think Pride is the death of the mind. Though all of the above are a danger and all of the above lead to horrible consequences Pride is the only one that can actually kill the person inflicted with it by effectively sticking them in amber for life. That person inflicted with excessive pride can’t learn or grow because they’re self-love keeps them from doing so.

I’m not sure I saw just how true that was until now. It’s amazing how a seemingly small incident can lead someone to a truth that had eluded them for years but that's how I feel. I have a respect for the dangers of excessive Pride that I simply didn’t have before and that's based largely on Mr Israel and his handling of this situation.

(For the record, the answer I was given to the question above about people killing for other vices is this: People kill over envy, greed, anger, lust and even Gluttony.  But in each circumstance they know what they are doing is wrong and choose to do it because their other needs are overwhelming.  Pride is the only sin that convinces people they are correct in whatever they do and that opens them up to kill for no reason at all if they so choose.  Which is why it is even more dangerous even in that sense)

Last Week Nicholas Carr wrote an article for The Atlantic entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?".  In it he says...

Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

He of course lays the blame for this change on the Web. 

I don't disagree with the idea that this is happening to people.  In fact, I'd argue that people 30 and below have probably never thought in any way but this.  But I don't necessarily think its a bad thing nor do I think its entirely due to the web.

More than anything I think this is a symptom of a more active society.  Anyone who has studied history will tell you the modern age has seen a dramatic increase in activities that are available to even the lowest income levels. Not only is there the Internet but you have TV (with hundreds of channels), Movies, Video Games,  Music, Books, Radio, Sporting Events, Amusement Parks, Carnivals, State Fairs, and a whole host of other things that cost..in the scheme of things...next to nothing. 

Heck, our Cars are more fun than those of any past generation. 

This is relevant because in every past generation reading was not only a way to get information but also the primary source of entertainment.  So Books and Magazines needed to be long because they were all you had to do during the day.   Now that people have more activities than they have time to do them they've begun to look at reading not as entertainment but solely as an information delivery system.  Because of that changed role people gravitate towards writing that is more efficient (a.k.a. shorter and more direct).

But that certainly doesn't mean people are becoming ignorant because of the trend. 

Read any 14 page magazine article and you'll find the information you get out of it can be summarized in about a page.  The rest is stylistic filler that doesn't deliver any relevant information of its own.  Look at Mr. Carr's own article and you'll get a good example of what I mean by that.  He repeats the same point over and over, uses anecdotes to again reiterate the point, over explains things that everyone already knows, and so on. 

His point is a simple one that can be stated, in its entirety, using about two paragraphs.  The other 10.5 pages are nothing more than fluff used to reinforce the point, not components of the point itself.  Meaning someone who read a more succinct version would still get all the information provided in the longer one they just wouldn't get all the fluff. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting Mr Carr or any other print writer for the above cited "fluff".  Some people still read for entertainment and those people will surely get that from Mr. Carr's 11 pages of article.  But that doesn't mean the rest of us are any worse off or any less informed for not wanting to sit through pages of superfluousness.

It just means we prefer a more efficient approach.