This has been the most lively discussion at any of the blog panels I've been to at all the conferences.

Why, I asked, does "theocrat" only seem to mean Christian?

"Theocrat" only means Christian in this country because the only theocracy problem we have is with some particular Christians. That's where the power is. Thus, that is where the criticism is directed.

Stan did laugh, and I can identify with the gut reaction Dave had. It is pretty condescending and disgusting. On the other hand, some people might consider it just "playful". But Dave didn't just THINK that Stan laughed. Stan shook his head, put his head down, and (I was behind him, so I dodn't see, but from Dave's reaction, probably had a grin on his face that said he was condescending to that remark. I say that becuase I've been on both ends of those. But I also wish Dave would have pointed that out a little less forcefully, in an effort to spare the guy the embarassment that Dave might have felt. Both guys failed the Respectful Test on that one.

Actually, I wanted to laugh when Stan said "I think the econonomy's in GREAT shape", but I thought that might be considered disrespectful (and it would be). But sometimes, people do that (laugh) as a way to lighten up, not comment on the value of what was just said.

Dale

Being laughed at goes with the turf. I've experienced far worse things because people disagreed with me. I'm a bit surprised that a guy in Dave Winer's position doesn't have a thicker skin.

Maybe I should be more skeptical?

I also said something like that in my comment. I thought also that Dave should have thicker skin. But "goes with the turf" , although a "real world" reminder, is not justification for using it ones self. I don't accept that. Not even when I do it.

Dale

I might add, it ESPECIALLY goes with the turf amongst the smug (and again, I have my "smug" times, and to those who disagree with me, that would likely seem a "way" of mine.....and the "smug level" amongst those in power (and their supporters) seems to be at an all time high (recognizing that smug happens on both sides of the aisle, for sure, through me and through Stan, and Dave Winer ---and Glenn Reynolds.

Dale

It's not a justification at all, and I don't laugh at people who are trying to make a serious point. But Winer's reaction -- at a public event -- was out of all proportion to the laughter in question, which wasn't even loud enough for me to hear. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd have freaked out over a dirty look.

And I agree with that. It was a bit out of proportion. I just wanted a bit more emphasis and importance on how the laugh ALSO is out of bounds, thus my point about BOTH of them violating the "boundaries" and becoming confrontive (Stan, laughing, and Dave, using too harsh a confrontation to call Stan on it. Recently I had a debate with a family member where I asked them to name me and instance of something they had just claimed, and when they coudn't, I kind of nodded my head as if to say "I thought so" and they hit the roof; "That right there just pisses me off" they said. So condescending (and in a way, it was)

NOt only did I fond the whole thing instructive and fascinating, so I find the ensuing discussion here and elsewhere (another in a long list of blog positive contributions to conversation) and however longer it goes, to be as well.

I was sitting immediately in front of Stan and I could not hear him laughing. I personally was amused at Dave's comment about the economy, because it was so stereotypical of the liberal talking points. I was unnerved when I looked up from live blogging the event to see Dave staring in my direction and flaming. I was relieved when it was Stan with whom he was mad at. The person next to me had the same reaction thinking he was blasting them.

I have been reading Dave for a number of years and he has always been notoriously thin skinned. I even asked him why he was leading this session with this topic when it so ill suited him. We had an interesting discussion that was saved by the commonality of being born in New York and living in the South.

I think if Dave had given a talk over about the history and opportunities in blogging, he would be roundly hailed today as a visionary. However, that is not the case.

What Winer fails to understand was that BlogNashville was held on the campus of a university that hosted a John Kerry campaign appearance that drew a very large crowd of students ON A SATURDAY MORNING. And that university is located in the most liberal section of Nashville, a neighborhood still dotted with "Why War?, Wage Peace" signs more than 2 years after the invasion of Iraq. And that Nashville itself is a "blue" city that voted for Kerry, Gore, etc...

His reference to holding a future conference in a "blue state" seems to indicate that he thinks that a state is all one color or the other. But that's not the case, of course. Step aside the big cities of California and you're in a red zone.

What seems to gnaw at Winer is that, by holding BlogNashville in a blue city in a red state, we managed to attract both conservatives and liberals as speakers and as attendees. Perhaps he is much more comfortable with people like himself, who agree with him all the time on everything, and treat him and his views with all the respect he dictates.