I DID NOT! I called it contentious. I mean, c'mon. You feature "user-inactivated"'s bitchfest about mois. And then you linked to a 3-year-old laurelai post. That's graduate-level shit-stirring and you know it. ;-)kleinbl00 already called me out on the mediocre nature of this week's newsletter.
If this is graduate-level shit stirring, then I don't know what the rest of the conversation we had would be categorized as. That's gotta be some like....post-death post-grad work or something. :P I take your point though and I apologize. I assure you that it wasn't done to intentionally stir shit. Also, for the record, I've included most (if not all) of the Hubski meta-dramas in the newsletters simply because they tend to spark some real discussions. I always go back and forth like 10 times before finally including it. Maybe after the holidays I'll do a poll newsletter to see who is reading them. It would be helpful to know if 90% of the audience are everyday Hubskiers or occasional Hubskiers or almost-never Hubskiers. If 90% are everyday Hubskiers, I would probably try to find those hidden gems people might have missed, whereas the occasional Hubskiers probably just want all the top posts that they would have seen if they had been on Hubski.
I'm always shocked by how much my dad knows about Hubski and it's always because of the newsletter. I think it would be cool if a large portion of its recipients didn't even have Hubski accounts. For the record. I enjoyed this weeks newsletter. I was shocked that you included "user-inactivated," but quickly realized it was likely for the discussion and not the post. I enjoyed both the laurelai and the mk vaulted posts. Good stuff!