Wow. You inferred an intent that's far too insidious and specific. Literally, the first sentence of the post provided the context. People were asking me what ha

Wow. You inferred an intent that's far too insidious and specific. Literally, the first sentence of the post provided the context. People were asking me what happened with RSS. Some reporters take their jobs seriously, and before they write a story, want to -- you know -- find out what actually happened. So they ask me. I don't do interviews. But I will, if asked, write a blog post. Which is what I did. What I wrote in 2003 was all I knew about the origins of RSS at the time. I pointed to the mail list that did the work on RSS 1.0. I was not, myself, an active participant in that process. So I didn't know all the ins and outs, esp since the initial work was done in private. My guess is the originators of the format didn't know Aaron until he showed up on the mail list. But that's just a guess. I don't think it all matters very much. But I did have information that the reporters wanted, so I provided it. Why that is poor taste is beyond my ability to understand. Maybe you should write a more detailed post explaining.