Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Michels Letter to LI Board 20

Posted by justin++ from the drenchworthy-not-flameworthy dept.
Ektanoor writes "Found this today on "Linux Today". Michels "retracts" several earlier citations attributed to him and clarifies his position regarding Linux. " Man - and I thought I have been misquoted (well, assuming Doug was, of course)! Hopefully, this will ease some of the furor regarding Michels supposed earlier comments.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michels Letter to LI Board More

Michels Letter to LI Board

Comments Filter:

  • Well, good, but ... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hardly a point by point retraction. He is not saying (and has not said, as I have followed this closely) that he was misquoted in a way that suggests that he really was. For instance, he has not asked any publication to retract the quotes. This is standard. So standard that it leads me to believe that the was not misquoted. He may have been tired/annoyed/had a few martinis/whatever, but not misquoted.

  • Whatever. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't buy it.

    Sure, you can be mis-quoted. We've all been there, done that, I'm sure. But I'm having a really hard time imagining a context in which some of Michel's comments would be acceptable.

  • Re:another one.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What's Kernigan got to apologize about?

    /me thinks you meant Ken Thompson?

  • Like algore? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That seems to be the largest and most current one. And the magic of Memorex makes it hard to deny. Of course, there is always "I never has sexual ralations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky," except, oops, that was on videotape. Damn. That electronic media again.

    How much do you want to bet that the interview was Micheals spouting off for 45 minutes in a rambling and "unusually animated" (i.e., perhaps just a wee bit loaded) fashion INTO A REPORTER'S MICROPHONE? That would explain why the anger has not a)seemed righteous, b)been directed right at the publication and the reporter in question.

    I have sympathy for the dude -- I have had friends who had similar "problems" and they would say some pretty interesting things, and at a mile a minute, and they would not have a proper memory after the fact. But most of them wouldn't talk to reporters in that state. It is a problem with C (E, F, T, O) Os that people rarely tell them to shut the fuck up, and so they get into the habit of not watching what they say. Add some chemicals and ego into the mix, and there you go ...

  • Re: I do (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I buy it. It is not difficult to mis-construe, mis-report, and mis-quote something to sound entirely different.

    Given that, even if he wasn't mis-quoted, this could be taken as a very reasonable appology for saying something he shouldn't have, while maintaining some sort of dignity.

    Like my mama always taught me... ;) If you want to get someone to agree with you, you have to give them a way to save face, then make it so they look like a fool if they don't take it. Otherwise, they will fight you all the way to the end. That isn't productive for anyone.

    Moving on to the next topic...

  • Re: I do (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    But on the other hand, we already gave him one chance (or didn't you get that lovely letter SCO mailed me a few months back)?

    Like *my* mama always said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

    ;-)
  • I only wonder who he labelled "punk kids".

    Smooth of him to list that point and then not addressing it properly. Politician in the makings?

    /mill
  • Oh yea. That's who I meant. At least I didn't say Ritchie.
  • Seems kinda strange that the only negative comments are AC postings, while posts by ppl with logins actually have something positive or constructive to say.

    coincidence?

    -Sean
  • Taking statements out of context can radically skew the tone of a comment, but is not strictly misquotation. I recall an article which took some of Linus Torvalds' comments way out of context (I think he called the distro companies "leeches," and there was the "we shall crush microsoft" comment that was blown out of proportion).

    The SCO CEO probably did say those things, but they probably didn't have the meaning put upon them by the reporter. It's hard to say anything substational and not be vulnerable to stuff being taken out of context. This is why politicians seem to talk and talk and yet say absolutely nothing.

  • Are we being a little bit paranoid? (Score:3)

    by Edd ( 24120 ) on Monday May 10, 1999 @02:20PM (#1899031) Homepage
    WHy can't slashdot readers (or the majority of them) accept that he has made an apology and get on with life. He had nothing to gain by saying what he initially was quoted as saying (except a lot of bad press) so now he has retracted the statements and apologised can't we just have a big hug and get on wih life?

    --
  • "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."

    I think the long term result will be similar, if perhaps somewhat less dramatic.

    I mean, not too many corporations are strangled to death by Darth Vader's use of the Force. :)

  • 'Nuff said. Move on.


  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    (just a joke, folks)
  • Like yours?
  • At the end of the article there are comments from readers at linuxtoday. I see those as being reasonable compared to some of the things said here.

    http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5788_flat.html

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close