I was wondering on why I got a sudden wave of hot winded comments around "Microsoft is evil, empire must fall blah blah" style comments and noticed Adobe's Ryan Stewart jumped into the mix.

Focus on the man, not the point.
Ryan's built a career on ranting about Rich Internet Application(s), in fact he carved out a niche by being the guy in the middle of both brands and simply reporting on what he saw at the time. He later joined Adobe and has since been struggling to keep some kind of neutrality in the room, by lacing it with enough "RIA" abstracts to some how shift the focus away from subtle Adobe product placements? I Say this not to offend or attack, but illustrate that there is an agenda behind the man :)

Now to label my use as a tactic to simply get Google rankings? (heh the same search engine system that had him focused on which of us where higher in rankings over "Flex Zealot" http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog/archive/2007/04/05/have-you-googled-flex-zealot.aspx) is umm damn correct. What can I say, my entire strategy for FY08 has come unraveled before the sheer genius of that which is Ryan (sorry mate, If only life was that simple).

Onto the point at hand: The term Interactive 
Now here's the thing folks, before you begin to drink from the Adobe Kool-aid some more and echo their messaging thinly veiled as your own, may I ask that you stop and read the actual white paper that kicked up all of this fuss.

I have many times, to try and find an answer amongst all of this as for years I've known "Internet" wasn't the right word but couldn't settle on one - until now.

Throughout the discussion piece, Jeremy constantly uses the word "Rich Client" not "Rich Internet Application" more times than I care to count. His actual focus was more on product placement and less on painting an abstract view of the world and whenever he did use the word "Rich Internet Application" it was to coincide with a specific focus on Macromedia's server product's (kind of reminds me how religions are formed, someone had an agendaX that worked with agendY to give birth to religionZ).

e.g.: "...Macromedia will provide details on new server solutions for building rich Internet applications with Macromedia Flash, Macromedia ColdFusion, and other application servers:..."

I mention this point for two reasons. The fact that Jeremy referred to "Rich Client(s)" a lot indicated that he to must of struggled with constantly calling it "Rich Internet Application" as well, the wording around Rich Client vs "Rich Internet Application" kind of doesn't resonate as well - that and his focus *by way of reading the whitepaper* was on Client.

Secondly, Rich does not cover the UX story, it simply implies that it the degree of blending/breeding stock of a client or application is greater than what we normally see in today's mainstream software. Keeping in my mind the premise for Rich Client was to empower junior developers the ability to essentially go beyond their paygrade in terms of shipping software.

Conclusion.
Ryan and a few others may get very passionate about this and encourage the usual Adobe Community crowd to swarm any whom oppose, but in the end most whom have developed in this space since 2002 will notice that a common trend occurs. The most mature RIA solutions are developed behind the firewall, not in front and the emphasis of such clients was on "Rich Client" not "Rich Internet".

RIA is about aggregated view over disparate systems or having a rich clients ontop of a rich device.  If you were to decompose RIA you would end up with: Rich Client, Rich Device, Rich Web. The weighting however would vary and using the "Internet" is just an aftermarket add-on choice.

http://beta.blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog/archive/2007/05/03/the-rich-web-the-rich-pc-the-rich-device.aspx

Lot's of emotion, little substance is probably what I am concluding about the Adobe Community whom blindly back staffers like Ryan. The usual "Microsoft is evil" style rants are weak and assuming this is all about hijacking a Marketing term that was originally hijacked by its own internal author is humorous at best, yet sad and more to the point limiting.

I stand by my posts in this space armed nothing but experience and belief we *all* can do better.

p.s I wonder if this will boost my Google rankings further? :D (I'd prefer live.com rankings to be honest).