"And yes - I DO certainly think that a blog can damage someone’s business. Just as an example, we were in talks to recently make a multi-hundred-thousand acquisition and those talks fell through largely because of the negative press we received on blogs like SEORefugee. Of course, I don’t blame you - it was my late night, careless blogging that caused the issue, but it shows how powerful blogs can be in influencing sentiment."

Some of the comments in the interview reviewed issues about adversely affecting web businesses, such as aviva, and the sites that were obviously selling ads.  Their were critiques about these issues while the controversy was brought up.  It was referenced many ways. 

It was further brought up in the interview.  Rand referenced Aviva as one example.  I suppose the facts on that would best be articulated by the owner of Aviva--as to whether the commentary had any affect on his business.

As a business person, this stuff is so prevalent.  Purposefully, or inadvertantly someone or a business says things that inadvertantly badmouth another business.  That stuff drives law suits. It is taken very seriously.

It is also something someone learns along the way.  The fact that this commentary and criticism of Rand may have contributed to killing a potential acquisition by moz, is both a problem, and a valuable lessson to be learned for future efforts.  In fact, taking business hits for mistakes is exactly how I learned valuable lessons for the future.

If the criticism's from members of seorefugee and other places contributed to the breakdown of that deal so be it.  If Rand is big enough to attribute the loss to his own actions--then his own learning curve is terrific.

"Reading that interview was like listening to my high school principle drone on about why I shouldn't skip classes. Or like a girl switching to CNN when I'm watching Lost. Or being choked in my sleep."