More On Simon, His Menace And OSM

Unfortunately, as a blogger, this thing is getting beyond joke time - there is too much at stake for the image of blogging in general. OSM accepted that responsibility when it included so many credible and popular bloggers in its ranks. Now we seem to have what amounts to an Internet knock down drag out with one side exposing an unpleasant picture of the other - and the other side, OSM's CEO appearing to be playing coy. In my opinion, there's nothing open about that strategy.

With all due respect to Roger Simon, enough is going on to at least give one reason to wonder if he possesses the right temperament and approach to head something like OSM. Obviously, as I'm not a member, that's purely a rhetorical question.

However, I don't understand why Glenn Reynolds and David Corn have posted as regards OSM's less than stellar launch, yet the organization's CEO has said nothing on the substantive issues, opting instead to become enmeshed in a back and forth with someone who at least appears to be a well-armed critic.

Wouldn't it be normal for the CEO to address an organization's issues, especially after two board members have decided to make the topic public? OSM is starting to look more like the Not Ready For Prime Time Bloggers everyday. And that only became funny for SNL after they had succeeded. Right now, and for OSM, it isn't a good joke.

Comparing this post, already linked above, to Simon's, also linked above - leaves me with some serious questions for OSM's CEO:

Kenton Kelly, a CPA from Ohio who used to post on this site as Dennis the Peasant, has turned his website into a non-stop assault on me, going so far as to make jokes about shooting my dog on another person's site.

From what I've read of Kelly, he has attacked OSM, to be sure - but where are these assaults on you before his last post detailing the history of this fight - which was made after your post? I didn't see it and if I missed it, I apologize. But it appears you are dodging legitimate ethics questions by suggesting it's only personal. And why elevate a joke out of context to smear him? IMO, that's a tactic best left to a less than 100 hit a day blogger, not the CEO of a serious venture.

Mr. Kelly believes that somehow Charles Johnson and I have knifed him in the back in a business deal.

And he made a compelling case, why not rebut it, as opposed to simply dismissing it and him?

He is indeed correct that we had several discussions with him and one meeting in Los Angeles. After that nothing substantive occurred. No contracts were ever signed. No investment was made. Nothing happened. Communications dwindled to zero. It was like the many preliminary business conversations that peter out before fruition in most of our lives, certainly in mine and probably in yours.

It appears nothing substantive occurred on your end, while one party did make investments of time and money in the direction of the organization you now head. Did you tell Kelly to drop it, or leave it alone prior to all of that? And he claims two people signed contracts you held onto while better dealing him behind his back. If not, fine, but say so. To date, you haven't done that. And is petered out an accurate description of events? Or did you just not return his calls while possibly running with some of his seed ideas discussed in face to face meetings?

Then Charles and I developed a different approach to the business. We found investment elsewhere and Mr. Kelly, when he heard about it, turned into an online stalker.

You asked this Dennis to share his ideas and after going quite a ways down the road with him and hitting on some new, perhaps even better ones, you simply dropped him? Is that true? Come on, Roger - you're better than this. At least I hope you are.

It's too shrewd by half for you to now say no contracts were signed. This isn't fiction writing you're into now, Roger. OSM is supposed to be about reporting credible information. If the CEO of OSM is going to kick the thing off by saying, hey, don't mind my hand shakes, they don't amount to anything, it's an ominous start.

In the end, no one cares about Kelly - if he is out, he's out. But you have started and are by design now the purported leader of a serious new venture. Might I suggest you start acting like one? Either get serious, or go back to playing around with a less than wealth enhancing blog like the rest of us. This is getting embarrassing for us - and it isn't personal. I hope you get that. And, don't worry - I love dogs!

Comments

[Fred]

You had the key phrase there:

"purported leader of a serious new venture."

The more I see of OSM, the more I see that's it's more purported than serious. They might as well have flushed that $3.5 mil in venture capital down the toilet.

Just my opinion.

[sadie]

Very bizarre stuff, indeed. It kinda makes one wonder why journalists are hired as such, and bloggers do this stuff on their own time.

Except for Sir Dan, of course.

;-)

[Dan]

Except for Sir Dan, of course.

LOL You always say the sweetest things. ha

[jkatl]

Dan, your take on this is right on the money. If Kelly's story is largely accurate then IMO Roger L. Simon is at least a Weasel. Like Kelly said if Roger would have called him in March/April and said I'm going in another direction that would have been one thing. But it sounds like what Roger was doing in not calling Kelly while he was "better dealing" him behind his back, was keeping Kelly hanging in case the better deal didn't work out. I repeat Weasel.

[jkatl]

P.S. I am glad that you and Steve Huff and some other blogs I frequent often, are not taking part in this OSM deal. What's the point of having a blog if you don't have editorial control over its content?

[David N. Scott]

Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but aren't verbal contracts somewhat binding? That's wot they taught me when I got my real estate license...