Comment Netiquette, Blind Faith, etc. (Score 1) 210
Disclaimer: I don't have anything to do with Artx nor do I know "Hannibal" on any basis other than the fact that I read his article.
I'm a bit concerned about both sides of this debacle. It seems to me that people on the one hand are more than willing to denounce some marketing droid from a graphics startup, but on the other hand are willing to make the leap of faith that the author of the aforementioned diatribe doesn't have an agenda and is actually capable of writing a report that isn't tainted with a high degree of subjectivity.
What he said may very well have been true to one degree or another, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that he posted *private* email. Now, maybe I'm just dating myself here by saying this, but I seem to recall that in the good old days of usenet, doing things like that would get you carbonized, no matter how right your arguments were.
It read like a very vindictive article and given what I've seen and heard from the press in the past I'm certain he's not got the entire story straight either (whether it was intentional or not). People never-the-less took for granted that he was absolutely right and the ensuing rabid lemming effect took hold, everyone is up in arms and all the city folk are storming the castle with pitchforks and torches.
I think people need to think twice before they trust anything, especially when it was published on the web.
I'm a bit concerned about both sides of this debacle. It seems to me that people on the one hand are more than willing to denounce some marketing droid from a graphics startup, but on the other hand are willing to make the leap of faith that the author of the aforementioned diatribe doesn't have an agenda and is actually capable of writing a report that isn't tainted with a high degree of subjectivity.
What he said may very well have been true to one degree or another, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that he posted *private* email. Now, maybe I'm just dating myself here by saying this, but I seem to recall that in the good old days of usenet, doing things like that would get you carbonized, no matter how right your arguments were.
It read like a very vindictive article and given what I've seen and heard from the press in the past I'm certain he's not got the entire story straight either (whether it was intentional or not). People never-the-less took for granted that he was absolutely right and the ensuing rabid lemming effect took hold, everyone is up in arms and all the city folk are storming the castle with pitchforks and torches.
I think people need to think twice before they trust anything, especially when it was published on the web.
