He "wrote small blurbs and linked to news" and kept it to himself. He wasn't "blogging." Had he 1. wrote a blogging tool, 2. went on an incestuous link-whoring spree, and 3. chased down and corrected with religious fervor all the "propaganda machine," he too would've been considered as a "co-father of weblogging." It's easily understandable that the army of Google-armed revisionist blogging historians routinely overlook him, because they can't find him in Google.
In my eyes, someone who wasn't smart enough to coin, or claim post-facto to have coined, any of the term(s): "weblog," "blog," "blogsphere," "blognation," "bloggerrhea," or anything *blog*, doesn't deserve any recognition no matter how long they have been "writing blurbs and linking to websites in a reversed chronological order."
]]>