I can't wait to here Jesse's side. I'm sure it will be more interesting than yours.

Agreed. I seriously doubt Jesse won't respond to this tripe.

Wow, what an embarassing article. Way to go, NOW.

The only thing demeaning is your condescending tone.

Let me get this straight -- Josh Errett has written a piece of opinion journalism based on an opinion that he has not parsed.

He is right -- blaming is NOT a way to invite the greater public into the debate. Though neither is an unparsed, vaguely contextualized piece of opinion journalism with a poorly expressed opinion that is reliant on an opinion that the author admits that he doesn't understand.

Intrepid assignment editing, Now Magazine! Onwards, to glory!

Wow. It's pieces like this that make me regret reading NOW.

Wow, NOW, way to build a ridiculous straw man argument based on the very good point that there is some cross-spectrum political support for this issue.

This writer has apparently decided to take smart criticism personally, and launch a personal and ill-informed attack. He sounds like a teenager.

So, basically, you've written an entire article saying Jesse Brown didn't return your call?

Don't you have anything better to do?

This is an outrage! I'm so pissed off! JESSE IS A GOD and how dare you criticize him!

Who the fuck is Jesse Brown

Jesse Brown is an idiot, but this article makes you even idiot-er. Congratulations, you're king idiot among the idiots. Your prize is you work for the shittier of the shitty alt-weeklies.

PS quit twitter immediately you don't know how to work it

I was there, and i don't think you understood his point. He was aligning the various media outlets that participated in this open forum with the left, and wondered whether this would create a political bias for the movement. When Steve Anderson clarified that they did ask for representatives from the various media outlets and politicians of all stripes, I think he was pleased to see that the movement is trying to be neutral.

I don't think he needed to clarify what he meant by right leaning because it was quite obvious what he was saying. Perhaps you just felt baited by him aligning you with the left, and you felt that you needed to chastise him. I'm pretty sure he's going to talk about it on Search Engine, and hopefully, he will address your concerns. In any case, you could have written a better article about what actually happened with some well thought out criticism rather than a recap about how you were slighted. If NOW readers wanted that, they would read Raymi's oxymoronic self-agrandization of her inarticulateness and nerd baiting on her blog.

Joshua, if you "would love to hear what the other side - those who support giving ISPs more control - thinks on this issue", then visit the fricking Web site. You may not know this, but the CRTC is having a ginormous consultation on this issue, with many interveners of diverse points -- unlike the net neut love-in the other night, where like-minded no-YOU'RE-righters failed to generate heat, light, or much else. And, best of all, it's all on the public record! So go forth and learn.

Mind you, I was there too and Jesse Brown's assertions -- and that prissy tone! -- were genuinely dumb. Regulation of ISPs, a libertarian position? Um, no, government regulation isn't exactly how libertarian works. Sometimes, policy positions *are* political, Jesse. Funny how that works.

Now -- the question is -- will Josh Errett respond to the comments in this thread -- or has he gone on vacation too? Who will write the condescending piece if Josh does not comment?

Wowsa nowsa! The tiniest, most fragile sand castles.

The more things change .......

@wonka: net neutrality != government regulation. You can be legitimately concerned about a lack of neutrality that steps from the duopoly, but seek to provide incentives for a more competitive marketplace instead of seeking government regulation. To scoff at net neutrality as a libertarian concern suggests that you haven't read what many libertarians have to say.

@Joshua: "I, for one, would love to hear what the other side - those who support giving ISPs more control - thinks on this issue."

Um... that's nice, I'm sure most people would, but... what does that have to do with Jesse's comments?

He was suggesting that net neutrality ought to be a big tent issue, that conservatives shouldn't feel alienated or feel like it's an issue for the "left." He wasn't suggesting that you picked the panelists. He wasn't criticizing NOW either. He was saying that NOW, the NDP, Rabble.ca and many of the sponsors and participants are typically identified with the left. He wasn't asking, "where are the pro-throttlers?" He was asking, "where is the support from net neutrality from the right?" Or, more importantly, "why would the saveournet organizers set it up as an issue for the left instead of putting up a big tent?"

Rambling on about pro-throttlers and how you had nothing to do with selecting the panelists makes it seem like you haven't the slightest understanding of his comments.

Think twice before hitting publish? Maybe, three times?

oops, @wonka should be @gamba

Ah, Josh has indeed gone AWOL. Somebody quick, write a bitter column about it, lest NOW mag be kettle-black!

@Blaise.

If Jesse Brown wanted more right wing voices in the debate, why is criticizing NOW? Why not criticize the ones that didn't show up?

Where was Matthew Ingram? Or any of those Globe guys?

I don't know who writes tech for the Post, but where was she?

He's barking up the wrong tree, it looks like.

Josh is washed up new media. Time to move on, all bridges burned.

@Jonathan: how was he criticizing NOW? His point was that the organizers were potentially alienating those on the right by making it seem like a lefty issue. That wasn't a criticism of NOW.

Steve's response was that NOW, Rabble.ca and the NDP were the only organizations that responded and agreed to come, not that the organizers didn't try to reach out to others. Jesse's response was: "#saveournet has work to do in making more people care about NN and feel welcomed by their org. But they seem willing to do it."

I don't see how this was a criticism of NOW... It was a question of tactics and "work to be done" on the part of saveournet.

Brown just posted his latest Search Engine podcast all about the "pwnage" of NN by "the far left" (Sarah Palin calls them, "the socialists" in our House of Commons they're known as, "the people that introduced Bill C-398 - the Net Neutrality Bill") and, remarkably, it's missing any interviews with spokespeople from the "not far left" on the issue. He rehashes his accusations about Save Our Net (his problem with the 'Al Jazeera in Canada' email is a fair criticism but no need for a tantrum), followed by something about "Issue bundling." It seems he didn't think to actually approach any of these mythical right-wingers - the delicate people the inhospitable Commies at Save the Net ignored - for an actual interview on the subject. God knows their views are not represented in the mainstream media.