This is probably the dumbest post by a book nerd in the history of the print v. blog debate. Congrats on your stupidity.

Michael, My name is Bud Parr. I moderated the panel you were so disappointed with. You at once say it was a "rehash of the ongoing bloggers vs so-called 'real' reviewers argument" but then contradictorily express disappointment it was not. You are feeding an idea of this Versus that, when in fact it doesn't exist and it's the very thing I wanted to avoid. First of all, the "Book Dog" types you refer to are expressing their opinions in a public forum, no matter how vulgar you may think it is to do so without professional experience (I assume that's what you mean by "chops"). Do you honestly think those who love books and carry on a dialogue online are a "cause for concern" or need to defend themselves? Your characterizations are not original or helpful in the least (although my favorite picture of George Plimpton is with him holding his cat), and your generalizations are precisely the same as others have made and are mistaken. I've never been to or would attend a panel that was meant for anyone to "defend their legitimacy" and it seems absurd for you to have expected that. Your self-described smugness leads me to believe that it is your own legitimacy you are concerned about. Anyway, these weren't the people we were discussing. I'm afraid I didn't do a good job of titling the discussion so that would be more clear, although I do recall mentioning the various strata of litbloggers and that we were talking about the most avid of them, those that have a serious audience (hint from the title: "influence") and sometimes cross-over between print reviewing and blogging (hint from the title: "The Crossover Hurdle"). That's why the quality of writing was discussed as well as money. I should leave it at that. Juicy fodder or no, I was quite happy to gather four intelligent and experienced book critics to discuss the changes afoot. It's a small thing and one hour is barely a start to get deeply into the issues. If the discussion was dull or didn't accomplish much I take full responsibility. However, I'm not sure who you meant was"self-aggrandizing." I take that phrase to mean that people were making themselves out to be something more than they were, don't you? If you were referring to me, okay, but I hardly think that the accomplished people on the panel have even the slightest need to do so. Lastly, for the record, you indicated that the "critic for the Times" is a blogger; he is not.

A word of advice: The synonym for "book bloggers" is "readers," i.e. people who actually pay for the books they read and support the industry that is the book reviewer's raison d'être. My 18 cats know not to bite the hand that feeds them; do you?