|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 09:29 AM EDT |
I like the assumption that I work for Oracle or someone else
and am failing to disclose. Nice. Thanks for that. Proves
my point, actually.
No, I don't work for any particular company pertinent to the
lawsuits. And I'm generally in agreement with Groklaw's
positions - this site has been and continues to be a public
service in the interest of truth, for the most part.
What bothers me, and has bothered me for a bit now (probably
since the late days of the SCO trial) is the voice I'm
seeing is a little more editorial, and a little less
journalistic. Less "this contradicts what someone said
previously, or what they filed" and more "I don't trust this
person, so I think what they said is a lie."
And, sorry, that's what the original quote was to me. Your
response above is a little more "here's what I'm seeing that
makes me skeptical." The original line was, frankly, trash
talk. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
You could also note that initially the links to material from Oracle's site were
unpublished. You couldn't discover where on the site such material could be
found. The links were provided for his use apparently exclusively.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
>He used Microsoft Outlook, incidentally, which
>doesn't surprise me at all, given that he
>takes Microsoft money too. And it is a very
>amazing coincidence that he invariably predicts
>Microsoft success too. What are the odds?
Am I reading this wrong or are you implying that using outlook somehow implies
that someone is a MS shill?
While I certainly don't dispute that FM almost certainly *is*, using outlook is
hardly evidence of that...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
