Comments on: Interview With Ann Bernard http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:58:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Avatar http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/comment-page-1/#comment-717 Avatar Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:26:44 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/#comment-717 Good interview nick, glad to see a interview with Ann. :) Good interview nick, glad to see a interview with Ann. :)

]]> By: Avatar http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/comment-page-1/#comment-718 Avatar Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:26:44 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/#comment-718 Good interview nick, glad to see a interview with Ann. :) Good interview nick, glad to see a interview with Ann. :)

]]> By: Avatar http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/comment-page-1/#comment-7385 Avatar Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:26:44 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/#comment-7385 Good interview nick, glad to see a interview with Ann. :) Good interview nick, glad to see a interview with Ann. :)

]]> By: Bill Kocik http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/comment-page-1/#comment-716 Bill Kocik Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:41:41 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/#comment-716 I don't know that it was strictly necessary to mention in the write-up (yet again) your notion that WGS would best be used for dating; we all got that when we watched the interview and heard you mention it several times. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to call attention to it again in the write-up, unless you just had nothing else to say. But why would you call it a fact when it's clearly your opinion? You're re-defining what WGS has built, even though you were clearly told that's not what it is. Intentionally or not, you're implying that WGS has built yet another dating app, except that they don't even know they have. If it were my product, I think I'd be a little bit put off. -Bill I don’t know that it was strictly necessary to mention in the write-up (yet again) your notion that WGS would best be used for dating; we all got that when we watched the interview and heard you mention it several times. I’m not sure why you felt compelled to call attention to it again in the write-up, unless you just had nothing else to say. But why would you call it a fact when it’s clearly your opinion? You’re re-defining what WGS has built, even though you were clearly told that’s not what it is.

Intentionally or not, you’re implying that WGS has built yet another dating app, except that they don’t even know they have.

If it were my product, I think I’d be a little bit put off.

-Bill

]]> By: Bill Kocik http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/comment-page-1/#comment-7384 Bill Kocik Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:41:41 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/interview-with-ann-bernard/#comment-7384 I don't know that it was strictly necessary to mention in the write-up (yet again) your notion that WGS would best be used for dating; we all got that when we watched the interview and heard you mention it several times. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to call attention to it again in the write-up, unless you just had nothing else to say. But why would you call it a fact when it's clearly your opinion? You're re-defining what WGS has built, even though you were clearly told that's not what it is.<br><br>Intentionally or not, you're implying that WGS has built yet another dating app, except that they don't even know they have.<br><br>If it were my product, I think I'd be a little bit put off.<br><br>-Bill I don't know that it was strictly necessary to mention in the write-up (yet again) your notion that WGS would best be used for dating; we all got that when we watched the interview and heard you mention it several times. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to call attention to it again in the write-up, unless you just had nothing else to say. But why would you call it a fact when it's clearly your opinion? You're re-defining what WGS has built, even though you were clearly told that's not what it is.

Intentionally or not, you're implying that WGS has built yet another dating app, except that they don't even know they have.

If it were my product, I think I'd be a little bit put off.

-Bill

]]>