From my perspective — and from her very own words in her blog post and quoted above — she intentionally neutered her original video message. That’s not being transparent, J, that’s being manipulative.

I don’t think she neutered her video at all. She said Andrew wasn’t interested in being her partner, and that seems to be the case. If Andrew’s idea of a partnership is him producing, owning, and writing the shows with Amanda simply being the pretty face of the show, then that’s really not a partnership at all and I can see exactly why Amanda would say that he’s not interested in being her partner. That’s not a partnership, it’s a dictatorship, so he really DIDN’T want to be her partner.

RE: comments this past post might be of interest to you or other readers with blogs interested in receiving more comments on your respective blogs.

In retrospect, my phrasing was probably a trifle more harsh than it needed to be, but I’m of the opinion that in absence of the ability to read the minds of the various participants in this high school drama debacle, the way to view it all is in the best possible light for everyone involved. It’s better, as the wise man said, to assume stupidity than malice: everyone makes stupid mistakes, and assuming malice usually only makes things worse (even if you’re right). I’m going to go with the working assumption that everyone involved just did a piss-poor job of communicating with each other, and made some mistakes in how they handled it publicly, rather than assuming both combatants are prima donnas, one outright lying about transparency and the other about the understandings the two supposedly had, or anything like that. I’m pretty sure they both stretched the truth a little in some way, but with both stretching I think there’s enough room that nobody has necessarily lied.

That aside, I was at least half-serious about what I said they should do: get together in a joint “vlog” production to say that things will be handled, amicably or not, behind closed doors from here on out with the exception of any necessarily public announcements, which will be made at the earliest opportunity — and anything that isn’t announced is nobody’s business but theirs. They should probably finish with a handshake and call it a day, never to appear on-camera together again if need be. A simple “we shouldn’t have said as much as we did, and now we won’t say anything further about it publicly” won’t repair the damage that was done, but there’s no way to do so really without pasting on plastic smiles and lying through their teeth (which runs a substantial risk of further alienating the viewing public), as far as I can tell. It’s time for both of them to cut their losses and run, as ’twere. In fact, perhaps the “brand” should be sh*tcanned, and both should go on to find employment elsewhere. I could be wrong about that, though.

re: registration

That was originally an anti-spam measure. With the implementation of mandatory comment preview before posting, I’m not sure the registration is doing any good any longer in that regard, and as such I’m thinking about tossing it out the window. This is the first complaint I’ve seen about it, but it’s probably indicative of dozens of unvoiced complaints (wild guess). Thanks for saying something, to make it a little more consciously urgent for me to consider the matter.

I’ve been reading some of your material, off and on, via Sterling, and have liked what I’ve seen, by the way.

Apotheon -

Congon’s use of the word “transparent” was a red herring. The point is she didn’t need to say that and leave any ambiguity. Words are everything, not something.

Actually, I agree with everything you said assuming that is what she meant but since neither you or I can get inside Congdon’s head to interpret how she meant the use of that word, it remains open to interpretation.

Therefore I’m sticking with it being disingenious in light of the detailed sequence of events.

She could have simply come on and said: “This is to inform viewers that I will no longer be the host of rocketboom any further effective ___.”

End of story. Done.

Better yet it should have been done with Baron on rocketboom, not on her personal site. Or even better, get the as-yet-unnamed replacement on camera with the two partners and make it a smooth transition.

I agree with you that we didn’t need to know any more and we certainly didn’t need to see personal emails being disclosed, but it was one of those three people who know what’s truly going on who chose that path, not anybody who has blogged about it, in a snarky tone or otherwise. I’m not sure why Dave pointed the barrel at bloggers. Frankly, I’m weary of that type of deflection.

Somebody is lying here, one either was fired or quit and though I’d agree it’s not our business, it’s now out here for people to choose to believe one, the other or neither. It didn’t have to go this way simply by an even more neutral statement than “he doesn’t want to be my partner any more.” Who chose that path? Why?

Talk about brand implosion. Sterling was right, this is sad. But there are a number of useful business lessons to learn here if one looks past the accident scene.

It’s too bad you chose not to run with my last sentence which was if you were their advisor, what would you advise them to do now?

That’s the most important thing right now for rocketboom.com and the parties involved. The longer this he said, she said garbage continues the more damage to the brand and potentially the careers of the participants.

That’s why I’m not blogging about it any more until there is a resolution or significant change. I said my piece. I’m glad you said yours. That’s what makes this medium useful.

What a mess — what a bunch of high school drama queen nonsense this is.
Rocketboom blew up. There’s a gen-u-ine he-said/she-said set of (apparently) incompatible statements being made by Amanda Congdon and Andrew Baron (the apparent 49% and 51%…