Comments on: Counterparties http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/04/counterparties-512/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: MrRFox http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/04/counterparties-512/comment-page-1/#comment-37614 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:12:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12980#comment-37614 Hey guys – we all know what the kewllest blog site on the web is, don’t we?

]]>
By: WallStRanter http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/04/counterparties-512/comment-page-1/#comment-37613 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:01:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12980#comment-37613 There are a lot of good blogs out there (cough cough, wink wink lol).

I don’t think there are a lack of quality blogs….I think the problem is many people have tied themselves up inside certain “blog-circles” and because they have come to rely on these blogs to provide them with information, they have not stumbled great new blogs because they have not searched them out….as they likely did when they initially found the blogs they do follow.

]]>
By: uprof http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/04/counterparties-512/comment-page-1/#comment-37611 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:24:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12980#comment-37611 Mathbabe? Really? You’re impressed by that flow of glib dribble?

]]>
By: stat_arb http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/04/counterparties-512/comment-page-1/#comment-37608 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:17:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12980#comment-37608 This is a ridiculous claim. Blogs were never *that big* five years ago, nor have they gone away now.

Must be bandwagon-hoppers looking for the next one to jump on.

]]>
By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/04/counterparties-512/comment-page-1/#comment-37604 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:12:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12980#comment-37604 Re: Tinker/Tailor/Curator/Spy – The page is dated today, but the article is date-stamped in October 1995. What is going on here? My guess is that this is less revelation and more historical, but you aren’t bothering to say.

]]>