Daniel Lyons of Forbes Admits Being Snowed by SCO 403
certain death writes "Daniel Lyons of Forbes Magazine has admitted to being snowed by SCO, regarding their lawsuit over Linux and SCO code. He specifically mentions Groklaw's role in the case, and regrets his early articles giving the company the benefit of the doubt. 'I still thought it would be foolish to predict how this lawsuit (or any lawsuit) would play out. I even wrote an article called "Revenge of the Nerds," which poked fun at the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose. Turns out those amateur sleuths were right. Now some of them are writing to me asking how I'd like my crow cooked, and where I'd like it delivered. Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true. I've told these folks it's not true. Hasn't stopped them. The truth, as is often the case, is far less exciting than the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right.'"
I, for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Insightful)
People like you make me fucking sick.
No, it's not. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If I've learned anything from recent Presidential elections, changing your opinions due to new information is a sign of weakness. One must make a choice and ride it all the way down."
At the time of this posting, you've been modded +5, Funny. The sad part, though, is that what you say is absolutely true, and not just of American politics. It's certainly true up here in Canada, as well. If a politician sticks to his guns no matter what new information comes out, then they're seen as being decisive. If they change their minds, they're weak, wishy-washy, and clearly not leadership material.
Voters are, by and large, stupid.
Re:No, it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have generalized this to "people are generally stupid".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this my cue to call you a f***tard?
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although I do miss some of them.
"An Ominous Cow Herd" and "The Glorious Meept" for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone changes their mind, cool - esp. if someone changes it after careful consideration. But after their pet theory/ideology/etc gets squashed like a SCO's bug on IBM's windshield, and after so vehemently defending the likes of McBride & co.? Sure, he hedged his bets after awhile - all pros do that.
IMHO, I can understand what the guy is feeling. His call was bad, his credibility on the matter is toast, and he probably didn't enjoy having to write that. I will further give him at least the props for loyalty to his ideas and prognostications (then again, it isn't like he could magically change them and think no one would notice, either).
That said, his behavior was quite crass, somewhat elitist, and quite frankly, he gets what he gives, y'know?
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Informative)
Another triumph for consistency.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't realize that if someone denounces the media as biased they can't go make the daily show......
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Insightful)
- They got the outcome the wanted...no riots in LA.
- To believe OJ was innocent because he was framed. You had to believe the lead detective took a bloody glove from the scene of the crime, planted OJ's DNA evidence on the glove, and deposited it at OJ's estate. All because he was a raciest, which had to be the case. Because 12 years eariler, someone heard him use the word "nigger" one time.
Generally speaking. When the police find a glove with the blood of the victim, and the dna of the accused. At the accused's residence some miles away from the scene of the crime. The police are not grand standing and usually have a pretty good case.A better example might be the Michael Jackson case. While most people may believe that Jackson molests young boys under the age of 16. It seems that these 2 boys were NOT molested by him. It was stupid for the DA to bring that case against Michael Jackson. Even Geraldo Rivera was able to show that the DA's case was full hot air only a week after the DA decided to indite.
A reporter is not supposed to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. They are supposed to collect facts and make meaningful determinations about those facts. All information is not to be given the same weight.
As far as you charges against Groklaw. From all the reading I have done there. They would have been open to real evidence. If there had been an article where IBM said they were going to bury SCO with there own code. It would have turned heads. If SCO had actually produced code so the linux maintainers could mitigate the damage. Groklaw would of looked at the code, and I believe had admited that someone was in the wrong for putting it in Linux.
From day one, when SCO said "We are not telling you what lines of code infringe, or you will remove them and say you are not liable." It was pretty clear they were not to be trusted. Step one would have been to ask that code to be removed. Step two would be to prove that IBM put it there in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
I began reading Groklaw not long after the suit was filed. Someone on Slashdot mentioned it and I checked it out. What I found was that PJ asked the same question everyone else was asking: where is the code? Some things in the initial filing by SCO were just silly, like the whole "Linux was a bicycle and IBM stole our code to make it a Cadillac" bit. PJ objected to it, as did others. The problem was that SCO never provided any real evidence. When SCO's lawyers made assertions that were wrong, Groklaw corrected them. PJ and others dug up information and discussed how relevant it was to the case. I would agree that for a while PJ's personal comments became a little tiring, so I skipped them. But, it is rather understandable when she was being personally attacked by not only SCO and their lawyers, but also by Lyons and other journalists who could not stand being called out for their "press-release reporting."
So, please show me where (and since you say it was frequent you should have no trouble there) false "facts" were presented.
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit that I stopped thinking of him as a viable journalist shortly after he started covering this case. In his article, he mentions that he based his writing on what SCO told him, and that he'd been burned once before by not bothering to cover the whole DOS lawsuit. If I had been in his shoes, I would have immediately done a search on Unix, and found out about the BSD/AT&T lawsuit, and how that turned out. At which point, I would have (had I not already known anything about the situation) thought, "Hmm. Sounds like there might be another side to this story," and, being a technical journalist for a financial rag, used my contacts at, say, IBM, or even some uninvolved third party like Red Hat or Novell to try and get a full picture before reporting.
Corporate Feed Reporting has got so bad nowadays that unless I see evidence in the first paragraph of an article that it is either an opinion piece, or that the reporter has consulted multiple parties, not just copied and pasted some text out of some document provided to them by some other party, I just skip over the rest of the article and do a search on the topic for an article that at least clings to a shred of journalistic integrity.
An idea I came up with after reading this yesterday:
Why not apply a rating system to journalists similar to that being used on Wikipedia by the UCSC crew [ucsc.edu]? A journalist's rating is affected by whether they follow journalistic procedures in their writing, who they sell their article to (separate rating system for publishers based on the ratings of journalists who publish throgh them), accuracy of factual reporting, whether they include large blocks of text found to be non original, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me he's a 'sound bite' journalist - he sees his job as merely copying down a juicy sound bite instead of actually researching a topic. That said, it cou
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the amount of research it took. Then we applied the fact that IBM didn't have retards for lawyers and predicted a victory for IBM. This guy is pretending it took any research at all to come to the right opinion is an insult. It took five seconds of "hey these guys are lying through their teeth" to come to that conclusion. It's like finding an argument that concludes "Therefore, Bananas can fly." -- We don't need to know anything about the argument to know that it isn't sound.
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Funny)
I thought all fruit flies like a banana?
I think you mean "whore". (Score:3, Insightful)
Naw. Lots of professions have ethical standards for their professionals.
Being a "professional" doesn't mean that you just do it for money. Although it can be used that way.
Being a "professional" also means that you follow the ethical standards of your professi
Re:I think you mean "whore". (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how does a guy who writes articles in a financial magazine about lawsuits get off calling *anyone* nerds?!
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
And his rudeness in persisting to call those who were right "nerds" says a lot more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He could have just not written about it more, or tried to argue that the court came to the wrong conclusion, or something like that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More seriously, I sent in a letter to a local newspaper a few years ago criticizing them for constantly referring to software developers as nerds, like it was some terribly witty and original joke. I asked them if it was also their practise to refer to lawyers as shysters.
The letter never got printed. On the other hand, their use of the term "nerd" seemed to stop after
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep reading these comments in the thread - since when did "nerd" become and actual, serious insult? Did we have to trade it to the PC Police to get "black" back a couple of years ago, or something?
Lighten up. Personally I prefer "geek" (mostly because it's more accurate), but anyone who has strong feelings about the technical merits of "SCO vs The World" is, by definition, a nerd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt it is by accident that he used the insult instead of the adjective here. He was made to look like a tool by us geeks and clearly isn't happy about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He has a point (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps in the future these fine financial journalists, when dealing with matters surrounding technology, should do their fucking jobs and talk to the actual fucking people who know about the fucking technology, as opposed to a pack of fucking litigous bastards whose business model amounted to extorting licensing fees.
I don't think any better of this piece of Wallstreet crapola than I did ten minutes ago. It's impossible now for him to defend his indefensible position, so why the fuck should anyone give him the time of day on it.
Makes you wonder just how lacking in due dilligence and basic investigative techniques this particular cadre of journalists are. Okay, they're not liars. They're just fucking retards.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Funny)
He made up his mind, then decided the "facts". (Score:5, Insightful)
He belittled Groklaw and PJ (and he is still doing so) for digging up the real facts while he kept repeating the "smoking gun" claim of SCO as a "fact".
I could have accepted that INITIALLY, but as Groklaw collected more and more facts from the EXPERTS (the people who WROTE *nix) there is no way anyone who didn't have an agenda could have still believed that SCO had a case.
Yet he kept right on supporting SCO
Re:He made up his mind, then decided the "facts". (Score:5, Insightful)
About this NERD label... (Score:3, Funny)
Calling someone a "nerd" because he knows *nix.
Calling someone a "gearhead" because he knows how replace a clutch.
Calling someone a "health nut" because he goes jogging and takes a multivitamin.
All of these labels have something in common, they describe a single aspect of someones life (something you "do") and a judgment is made of that person as a whole. It's stupid and tiresome. Let's start making labels for people based on what they *DON'T* do.
For example, when someone puts zer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so explain to me in great detail, including the most miniscule operations of every machine, every vehicle, and person involved, how the US Post Office takes a letter from your mailbox and successfully delivers it to another mailbox across the company.
Come on. You send mail How the **** can you do that and yet not know how it all works?
Idiot (your choice of words, not mine)
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that would be an apology. This "nerds" and "amateur sleuths" isn't an apology, it's an insult and an indication that he probably doesn't even know how he went wrong.
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck him. He's not a journalist. He's a corporate whore with an anti-open source agenda who only fesses up after SCO is laying in ruins. He can take his apology and shove it up his ass, where, I'm assuming, he's recently removed Daryl McBride's manly member.
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:4, Insightful)
There seems to be a few people around here that think spreading lies, but through ignorance rather than intent, is somehow better, or less bad. They're both bad, they both can do harm. He owes every single developer of the Linux kernel, including the guys at IBM, an apology. He maligned them, and until he does that, rather than this rather shallow generalized apology to "nerds" and "amateur sleuths", he hasn't apologized at all.
So fuck him. He doesn't have a reputation in my books, and deserves all the derision that gets heaped on him.
Re:Thank you, Daniel (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people were duped into investing in SCO because a reputable magazine like Forbes backed them? How many had their shares wiped out completely because his "analysis" of the legal situation turned out to be a mere parroting of the paid corporate shills?
I'd be more than mad if I lost my money because of this man's inept journalism. I'd be hiring a lawyer.
He's only... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's only a journo who got it wrong.
I wonder about the investors who will now lose pretty well everything they banked on the crapshoot.
Then there's also the poor employees who will undoubtably suffer as they seek employment elsewhere. I'm quite certain most of them don't say a lot of bad things about Darl publicly with their names attached, but they have some real feeling of betrayal all the same.
So a journo got it wrong, not like he's Dan Rather being lead down the garden path and left there by CBS researchers and management.
of course he doesn't have a crapshoot for $70 million either...
The employees? (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, there has been no SCO for a long time.
Re:He's only... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He's only... (Score:5, Interesting)
They knew the rules, they gambled and lost. Had they done even the weakest analysis of the SCO case, they would have passed. Such is life for those that wish to play that game.
Any of their employees that didn't have a vested interest are already gone. Those that are still around have profited very well indeed by sucking the life out of SCO and shilling for Microsoft. They have been well compensated and will move on to the next scheme. Perhaps they can find employment in the Patent Troll industry.
Yes, and now he wants to redeem himself and hope everyone forgets that he trashed Groklaw and the Open Source Movement. I have no sympathy for him anymore than I will when Laura Didio admits she was wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that reading a "reputable" financial publication would fall under "the weakest analysis".
They were not investors.... they were speculators (Score:2)
People who bought SCO during the Darl Days knew it was a long shot at getting a hefty slice of IBM. At best they were speculators. At worst they were greedy vultures. Nothing worth feeling sorry for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't feel too badly for the investors. Last I looked they consisted largely of insiders and speculators. This isn't an Enron that took people's retirement savings through underhanded machinations.
Courage. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we only had more journalists willing to do this about other things... Like Iraq, WMD etc. It takes courage to admit you were taken in, I applaud this.
Took it like a trooper... (Score:5, Insightful)
So he thought wrong. So did the people who thought the CueCat would be a tool found on every household computer.
As far as I see it, he's taken his lumps, and he's ready to go on with life.
Works for me... so am I.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I respect a man who can admit he was wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, Lyons is a lot like a passenger on Titanic who loudly denies to his fellows that they're any mortal danger about the whole iceberg thing...
I give him props for saying something about being wrong, but I still have reservations as to why he did it (to save his rep is what I'm thinking. Sucks to have that kind of prognostication on your resume'..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course she is: she's one of their creditors [wikipedia.org]. Unless she can direct some money their way, they probably won't be able to pay her what they owe her.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
His article is not an apology; it is an excuse.
He does not show sincere remorse. He refuses to recognize the qualities of the other side: knowledge, expertise, analytical skills. Instead, he excuses himself as being wrong by saying that the "nerds" got lucky in thier amateurish biaised opinion.
On top of that, it is very impolite to excuse yourself. You should (1) ask someone (2) to accept your (3) sincere apologies. If all 3 are done, then there can be forgiveness.
I will not forgive him or fo
Re:I respect a man who can admit he was wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the attitude? (Score:5, Insightful)
One step further, for someone writing on the technology field - it doesn't serve his purpose to put out condescending statements like "the nerds got it right".
Re:What about the attitude? (Score:4, Insightful)
With a history of being wrong and smearing those with a different view, he sets a precedent as being an unreliable news source and despite whatever appologies are given - a liability to Forbes as a trustworthy news source. He would have to work to regain credibility with people checking the facts against what he said.
SCO's case was at least strong enough to survive early motions to dismiss, despite IBM's high-powered team of lawyers working to debunk the SCO version as thoroughly as possible. That a judge, after years of discovery and motions, was able to finally decide authoritatively that SCO was in the wrong and the geeks/nerds/whatever had it right, doesn't mean the case didn't, at some point, appear to have at least some merit. Saying "journalist shoulda checked his facts better" misses the point, I think -- if the facts were that blatant the litigation would have been over in 3 months, not 3 years. I can forgive him for not seeing through something it took a learned and experienced jurist some time to get through.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Against the Giants? I dunno, they might be able to take 'em.
Sucks to be you, Dan-O... (Score:3, Insightful)
'fessing up to being wrong? but how much of that is just to save your reputation, and how much is true 'oh, man, I messed up...' sentiment?
Forgiveness? Heh. Please. Any fool with two neurons would've figured out that SCO was shoveling manure a long, long time ago... and wouldn't have waited until their buddy was on the gallows platform before shouting long and loud about how he'd deceived you.
You've made your bed, Mr. Lyons. Now lie in it. /P
Best analogy today. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed when his buddy was standing upon the gallows, only then did he cry (and loudly) about how evil his buddy had been for deceiving him and abusing his naive trust.
It shows his true character.
If Microsoft ever files a patent suit against Linux, do you believe that Lyons will not be the first and one of the loudest proclaiming the righteousness of Microsoft's claim?
Next Up... (Score:3, Funny)
Laura DiDio, it's your turn.
Idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
my irony sense is tingling...
AKA: Fake Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
Fake Steve Jobs gives a fake appology (Score:4, Informative)
"The nerds got it right.." (Score:2)
How about "empty suit"? (Score:2)
That's usually how I insult such people.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
What worries me... (Score:2)
That's not being mistaken, that's being IRRATIONAL and STUBBORN. We can afford that, we're hobbyists - but he's a journalist. Now I'm starting to wonder if he has committed OTHER mistakes.
A Very Funny, and Brief, Translation (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
He explains why he was fooled by SCO; for example, how Caldera won a settlement against Microsoft, which led him to believe that the SCO Group (successor of Caldera) might actually win. But he doesn't try to dodge the blame; he takes on the blame due him and apologizes.
With only about seven posts up so far on Slashdot I've already seen a couple that snipe at him for IMHO unfair reasons. He's a reporter, not a computer expert, and he was fooled by some slick con artists. Don't hold him to an unreasonable standard, unless you have never ever been wrong about anything yourself.
He apologizes very nicely and pokes fun at himself (the article is very entertaingly written). So, read it and enjoy. And please, reserve your vitriol for the actual villains of the piece, the SCO Group itself.
steveha
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. He's a reporter. And a reporter doesn't have to be a goddamn expert on aeronautics to report on a jet crash, or an expert on maritime engineering to report on a ship sinking. Neither does a reporter have to be a kernel programmer to report on a company claiming they were ripped off by Linus Torvalds and other Linux kernel developers. In all causes, a journalist is supposed to check his sources, supposed to talk to both sides, supposed to, through the process of investigation, become something of an expert. He doesn't need to know jack-shit about fork(), but he should know something about the history of Unix. With that kind of knowledge, he would have soon enough realized that there was a con going on. SCO wasn't slick. They weren't clever at all. If some "amateur sleuths" could recognize right from the word "go" that this was a scam, then that suggests that he's just an idiot, and the question becomes what is Forbes doing paying idiots?
The apology comes to late. If this guy, and his fellow SCO-whores had been doing their jobs, investor money might have been saved and a stock scam might have been prevented. All it would have required was making some phone calls to guys like Linus to get the scoop.
This guy, and all his cohorts, are shameful embarassments. They should be fired, not given kudos because, after the fucking company they were giving editorial blowjobs to has crashed and burned, they're shamed into admitting how stupid they were.
Re: (Score:2)
What Apology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still sarcastic (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Lyons, let's rephrase it to say "I fucked up big time; and everyone else with half a brain COULD see the facts but I couldn't".
Also, downplaying the fact that the journalist made a huge mistake by saying "I got it wrong, big deal", is in itself a tremendous blunder; as someone whose most valuable skill is his reliability, knowing that he fucked up big time in something so obvious should ring sirens for anyone currently paying this guy money to write.
I bet you work for CMP! LOL!
News for nerds (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, this seems like a fairly weak apology overall, considering the amount of vitriol he's heaped upon Linux developers, advocates, supporters and fans in the past. I think he owes a few people (especially PJ) a more personal apology. On the gripping hand, this move clearly shows that he's a hell of a lot mo
Being a Nerd != Being Stupid (Score:2)
BTW: We're having 1,000 humble pies delivered to your house.
Critical mistakes and rebuilding respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, he'd like it all to go away? After insulting millions of F/OSS users? I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon Daniel, sorry. The apology is a nice start, the roman catholic rosary is another option, and a whole lot of honest stories about how this community has built itself up from what many have said was a shaky foundation, to become a force even mighty MS has found itself bending to. Maybe some NICE ARTICLES about the people who have worked so hard to make sure that the code is clean, and so on.
You wanna win your respect back? The apology is a pleasant change, now get to work earning respect!
Well then why... (Score:2)
Well then, maybe Forbes should hire some actual nerds to write about technology than leaving it to bozos like him that usually "got it wrong". There are journalists out there with a much better track record who probably write just as well. There may even be one or two who will listen to all sides of a technology story and not just go with whatever corporate spin say.
Oh, I forgot. This is Forbes. The business "PRess". They are so objective and truth-seeking. You'
As God is my witness... (Score:4, Funny)
Mod parent funny (Score:3, Informative)
Note to Daniel Lyons (Score:3, Insightful)
Scox's lies were glaringly obvious - no sluething (Score:3, Informative)
* Remember scoforum 2003? That is when scox did the great unvailing of the infringing code. It was proven bogus within one hour.
* Why did scox require journalists to sign an NDA to see the code?
* Scox claimed they could, and would, stop IBM from selling AIX - an outright lie.
* Scox claimed they would audit all AIX customers, they didn't.
* Scox told the court -twice- that scox would provide evidence of UNIX being dumped into Linux. We're still waiting.
* Scox claimed to own UNIX, even though the trademark was clearly owned by the open group.
* What about the odd funding? Remember the halloween memo?
There is probably a lot of stuff I'm forgetting, but those shameless stunts were just in 2003. Scox was proven a liar over, and over, and over. It didn't take any sluething.
BAD (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, you got it wrong and the nerds got it right
You didnt just 'get it wrong', you got ALL of the facts completely and blatantly ass up. Lets not pretend it was just an unlucky guess on your part - like putting a dollar on the wrong horse. What you did is akin to turning up in court to provide a character reference for Al Capone, and lavishing the most extreme praise upon most honest self when you barely know the guy.
OF COURSE anyone with half a brain knows why you did it. Nobody thinks you are incompetant or stupid - we just think you are greedy and unethical.
The clue that no "reporter" should have missed (Score:5, Insightful)
That red flag was when SCO presented their excuse for not showing anyone (except under draconian NDAs) what the alleged copyright infringement actually consisted of. They didn't want that information getting to the Linux crew, they said, because that would allow them to remove the offending code.
That there is all you need to know to call "BS". It is your obligation to notify someone you suspect of infringing your copyright of just how you think they are infringing your copyright so that they can remedy the wrong. You cannot say "I would rather let them continue to infringe my copyright so I can soak them for more damages"; despite what SCO might have you believe, that is not the purpose of copyright law. As for the idea that the offending code would be scrubbed from the record in order to hide the evidence of past infringement, again, that's BS. If there was copied code in the kernel, as SCO assured us there was, SCO could have downloaded copies of the kernel twice a day to have a historical record of the violation.
Lyons still refers to "amateur sleuths" as though he's some kind of professional. What sort of "professional" doesn't investigate the most glaring contradiction between what someone claims they want and what they're actually trying to arrange?
Re:you're glad it's over (Score:4, Insightful)
but i'm glad i wasn't aware it started. seriously, unless u had already known about this article is 0% interesting. "the nerds were right"? of-fucking-course they were, didn't he goto highschool?
Some writers dwell on words they've written. Some don't care and are already on to something else.
Where I went to college was a small college paper. Someone I knew wrote for it and as there's a thing as "lead time" -- that amount of time between when a writer turns something in and it is published, during which anything can (and often does) happen. She wrote something scathing, including mispelling the college president's name. Before the issue came out it was revealed the president had nothing to do with it and for the most part there really was no scandal. When the paper came out and I asked her how she felt about it she was "meh, whatever." Maybe it did bug her she listened to the wrong source or didn't bother to quiz the president directly, but she didn't appear to lament it one bit.
This bloke is doing his mea culpa, so he's of a different cut of cloth. There's all kinds, just like there's all kinds of people who run a business, from Warren Buffet to Darl McBride.
How on earth can parent be flamebait? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)