When we did this interview, it was clear you had an angle for the story that wasn’t going to change.Iunderstand that, of course, butIwould disagree with your characterization of our conversation (and your choice of words, such as “admits” is completely misused and misleading). Here is the context for our conversation: You put forth the idea that SXSW had changed, and introduced the premise that this was no longeraplace to launchabusiness even though historically it had been. That was your premise, and my response regarding Twitter-one thatIhave talked aboutagreat deal-was to illustrate the point that if you only look at the history of the conference to 2006, you aren’t really looking at the history of the conference. Nobody at SXSW — attendees, organizers, Twitter — new this wasabreakout hit until months after. And whileIsaid the growth of PR and marketing people had increased (and thus the perception of the conference had changed since these people are professional communicators),Ialso that there was more of that hardcore, original tech now than before. AsIsaid, you have to put more effort into sifting through everything, but there is more going on than ever before. SXSW hasaTED-like problem, which is that it has gotten to large that there are two responses: those who don’t come talk about how dead SXSW, and those who do who are dedicated SXSWers. This isavery good problem to have, and it’s the sign that positive things are happening.