Nick is polarizing the quality of writing non-issue to generate enthusiasm from his supporters -- those who couldn't sell compassion to Jesus if their souls depended on it.

His camp has been licking their wounds in the shadow of their insecurities for months. They understand that the style of chit-chat copy many of them write, may be out of place on the Web.

Perhaps Nick can pull sales with "acceptable" form, but I doubt his supporters have the ability to accomplish the same results.

Nick is a smart cookie, though. Don't underestimate his marketing prowess. He knows the Internet is not the home ground of the elite. That's why I think his agenda is self-serving and promotional in nature.

It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone when I say that the Internet is fast becoming the common man's marketing wet dream. It's the National Enquirer and a lap dance with the Viagra bonuses rolled into one. It represents an opportunity to turn your computer into a raging cash machine, "Quickly and easily". People are in Disney World on the Web and they're loving it.

The one true difficulty I have with Nick's assertion is that he's completely out of place to come onto a common man's turf and say who is good enough to stay and who isn't up to standards.

What actually disturbs me is that there seems to be an underlying message in his article and other writings.

The message is that different cultures are only welcome on his terms. Act like "us" and you can play, too. What happened to the democratization of information, I wonder?

Any attempt to homogenize the Internet environment isn't wise and I'm sure Nick knows this. His supporters -- his buyers, don't. They seem to think homogeny, ethics, and professionalism are one in the same.

It's an old song. One that Nick is capitalizing on as would any good marketer.

He does write well.


Peter Stone