That darned bought and paid for Groklaw!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2007 5:46 AM EDT |
The attack is completely fair, even if it is idiotic. We do much the same thing when we sneer at TCO reports, etc that are funded by Microsoft. Fair and advisable, however, are two different things. As you point out, the claim of bias doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The tie, in fact, is so weak as to paint the writer as (choose one): a: Moronic b: Paid for c: Desperately in search of clicks d: All of the above. |
| tuxchick Mar 24, 2007 7:50 AM EDT |
OK, you lost me. Ibiblio has many different sources of funding, and hosts thousands of sites. When Microsoft (or any vendor) funds some silly study, it's direct one-on-one funding of a single event. So of course we sneer at them. I don't see how they are comparable. Paul McDougall's article is a waste of a time and a non-story, though I don't see it as being a major slime job. Just a pointless re-hash of SCO's silly attacks on Groklaw, so I would call it a minor slime. The main point I got was Ibiblio is very cool, so I've been spending some time exploring it. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
>I don't see how they are comparable. I didn't say they were comparable, only that the question of bias is a fair one. Ibiblio relies on funding from IBM, company in the midst of legal action against SCO, a company about which Groklaw has had many unkind things to say. Them's the facts and it would be wrong not to disclose them. The nature of IBM's funding and the way ibiblio works should dispel any concern that it could influence Groklaw's editorial content. That's why it's stupid to make any noise about it. Fair, but stupid, which is what I said. |
| swbrown Mar 24, 2007 3:31 PM EDT |
It's a completely bogus attack. It'd be like saying since my anti-IBM site has a hotmail address for webmaster it's funded by Microsoft. That's a hell of a lot different from directly funding something like SCO, which Microsoft did. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2007 6:44 PM EDT |
>It's a completely bogus attack. You're confusing the legitimate with the credible. If somebody furnishes you with resources with which you attack that somebody's enemies, it is fair to ask the question of undue influence. It is equally fair to explain why the resources don't actually influence you. |
| moopst Mar 24, 2007 8:37 PM EDT |
Is it fair to be stoopid? To give Pamela Jones 90 minutes to respond to an email request? To imply that her "untimely" response is further proof of their defamatory mis-statements? |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2007 8:48 PM EDT |
>Is it fair to be stoopid? I guess that I could ask you the same question. Did you even read anything that I wrote? Edit: The morning makes your question look different than it did when I read it yesterday. I think I would respond a little more kindly this morning, but the substance wouldn't change radically - The question of bias remains a fair one, albeit easily answered. I think we've already established that the guy is not on the up and up for pushing the issue at all, given the facts. |
| jsusanka Mar 25, 2007 11:00 AM EDT |
"The attack is completely fair, even if it is idiotic." this may be true but really no reason to write the article after article about it. just a little research would put the argument to bed. sco and friends are just trying to get something from blabbing about this - what it is I don't know and don't care. so really this guy just wasted his time and really in the end this article does nothing and is pointless just like sco's lawsuit. |
| moopst Mar 25, 2007 2:23 PM EDT |
Dino - I've read all your posts up to now. You say it's fair to ask the question of whether IBM's donation to ibiblio may unduly influence groklaw. I agree. I say it's incumbent upon a journalist to provide a competent answer to the question he/she poses. Given how poorly Information Week has acquitted themselves it's now fair to ask if they have an editorial department. It's fair to ask if their treasurer has more influence on editorial direction than their editor. It's fair to ask if their editor is competent. The piece has all the hallmarks of a yellow journalistic hack job. The title is an indictment of Pamela and the rest of the piece supports conclusion they want you to draw, whether you read the whole piece or just the title. It's also in the style of the Boston Globe / "Where's the Ombudsman's promised report" / "Peter Quinn did not respond to our requests" 3 hours before Thanksgiving vacation-ish. That's what I was getting at with the "Fair to be stoopid...?" remark. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2007 2:36 PM EDT |
moopst - Yeah. That's how I read it this morning. For some reason, it struck me differently last night. But you are exactly right -- the guy took a fair (if flimsy) question and used it as an excuse to butcher the truth. |
| tuxchick Mar 25, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
I'm still cackling over 'fair but idiotic.' Man, that covers a lot territory! |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2007 5:27 PM EDT |
>Man, that covers a lot territory! No kidding. Here's the sad part - fair but idiotic is 50% better than a lot of the stuff out there! |
| Aladdin_Sane Mar 26, 2007 6:58 AM EDT |
>50% better than a lot of the stuff Hmm, sounds like an analysis I might make. Liberal Arts major, I take it? >fair to be stoopid Now this was a popular Weird Al song years ago. Don't tread on his copyright. Oh, wait, that was "Dare to be Stupid." Never mind. What I wanted to ask is if my recollection of ibiblio's history is correct: This site was originally SunSite UNC. There are still "SunSites" in Europe, I believe. If that is correct, then the establishing funds for ibiblio can from Sun Computers, a company that PJ is known to be occasionally unenthusiastic about. |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
> This site was originally SunSite UNC. My memory matches yours. Of course, that's not worth much as proof goes. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 7:30 AM EDT |
Dino - One thing I don't like about PJ's reply to your post on Groklaw (which reads the same as above). She claims that the article by McDougall is "libel". As a paralegal she should know better. Makes me wonder about her qualifications. Especially when she's also stated that if anyone tried to give her children a stuffed animal with RFID implanted that she'd sue them for "invasion of privacy". [url=http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070321144218656&title=Same Slime, Different Day - updated 4Xs&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=549431#c549532]http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070321...[/url] [url=http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20061026193539402&title=RFID teddy bears ...&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=496140#c496161]http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20061026...[/url] What do we really know about PJ? Shouldn't "experts" running websites which are funded by public money (Ibiblio is publicly funded through UNC) be subject to the same vetting that we put all public servants through? |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2007 8:01 AM EDT |
"What do we really know about PJ? Shouldn't "experts" running websites which are funded by public money (Ibiblio is publicly funded through UNC) be subject to the same vetting that we put all public servants through?" Are you serious? Who would do this "vetting"? And why? Are opinions valid only from "qualified" people? By that reasoning, nobody can comment on anything they're not "qualified" to. So you can't say PJ is wrong about saying "libel." You're not paying for the maintenance and upkeep of LXer, and the Internet itself was born from public funding. Aren't you capable of evaluating the content on Groklaw for yourself? PJ always provides source documents. She always provides a basis for her opinions- what's yours? Why is her comment about libel incorrect? What does her views on RFID have to do with anything? Sounds just like the same anti-Groklaw attack that SCO et al keeps feebly trying to get some traction with. Discredit the messenger to distract from the message. As for public funding of Ibiblio, God forbid a country that bases its law and governance on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights should support free speech. Oh wait.... |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2007 8:12 AM EDT |
> Shouldn't "experts" running websites which are funded by public money (Ibiblio is publicly funded through UNC) be subject to the same vetting that we put all public servants through? How much vetting has the supervisor of your local DMV been through? And how much of it is public knowledge? That's about the equivalent status of PJ. She's not an elected official, or even the equivalent of a movie or rock star, so those standards shouldn't apply. And, if such disclosure/vetting is appropriate, it's probably Ibiblio's responsibility to do so. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
TC - What you said. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 8:38 AM EDT |
tuxchick - Nothing in the McDougall article is libelous. PJ's has put forth that she is a paralegal. Paralegals are trained to know basic legal definitions such as "slander" and "libel". By stating that McDougall's article is "libel", she is implying that there are false statements impugning her reputation and that the reporter knew the statements to be false. Also there is the element of "malicious intent". Everything in that article relating to PJ is a matter of public knowlege - except perhaps the statement by the reporter that PJ did not reply to the request for comment before the story published. And she'd have a tough time proving that to be "libelous". This is something that every paralegal of any experience would know. Your comment about LXer.com is a red herring - LXer.com is not publicly funded. Also, we know much more about the editorial staff of LXer.com (including pictures) than we do about Pamela Jones. We know more about *you* than we do about Pamela Jones. In most of the places where your name is given as the byline, we can click on that and find a short professional history of you. People running publicly funded projects are under a special obligation that does not apply to a "free press". The exact qualifications of the people running the Department of Education is public knowlege. We know where they went to school, what degrees they earned, and even how much they're getting paid. The exact qualifications for the regents, presidents, and deans at public universities is public knowlege as is the exact qualifications for each and every professor and department head. Since she's using public money from UNC to run a website about law and technology, then there should be a vetting of her qualifications by the head of the UNC Law School at the very least. |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2007 9:11 AM EDT |
> Since she's using public money from UNC to run a website about law and technology, then there should be a vetting of her qualifications by the head of the UNC Law School at the very least. Not necessarily. If Ibiblio is under control of UNC, then yes. But if they're and independent agency that's not the case. Then, UNC only has to review Ibiblio's status as a legitimate charity on a regular basis, and it's Ibiblio's responsibility to review the status of their contributors. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 9:20 AM EDT |
>then there should be a vetting of her qualifications by the head of the UNC Law School at the very least. There is a problem with vetting somebody like PJ in her use of public funds, and that is the effect on free speech. The state is restricted in its ability to limit speech based on content. I haven't noticed Pamela giving out legal advice or claiming to be a lawyer. Those things would be a problem because lawyers are supposed to be licensed. Trying to apply some professional standards to a simple reporting site, however, could be construed as censorship based on the fact that the subject of her reporting involves the legal system. Very bad, methinks. |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2007 10:02 AM EDT |
"Malicious intent" is obvious. Plus PJ's comment that you linked to discusses a widespread pattern, it's not limited to a single article. I don't know if it meets the legal definition of libel, but it is a deliberate attack. What do you base your definition on? Are you a lawyer or paralegal? Does having public funding change the definition of libel? Ibiblio has a set of criteria for inclusion, and Groklaw met those. Ibiblio is providing an incredibly valuable public service, and I wish there were more sites like it. I can't think of a better use of public money than funding public speech. Perhaps they should verify that the people running the sites that they host should pass a minimal "I am who I say I am" test. For all we know they do. Do you know that they don't? Mostly I don't care, because their work speaks for itself. The whole concept of "free press" is interesting. Some folks think it means "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." Yeah, our for-profit media and all them professional journalists sure do a bangup job, don't they! I don't despise Enderle, O'Gara, Lyons, or DiDio because of their qualifications, appearance, where they live, where they went to school, what they get paid, or where they go to church- I despise them based on what they write. I don't look down on McDougall because of whatever his qualifications might be- I don't even know what they are. But I can read, and this particular article is a plain old hatchet job, and it's practically a carbon copy of dozens of similar attacks. All the qualifications in the world can't remove that stench. If it turns out that PJ is not a paralegal, that will damage her credibility severely. However, it won't change the quality or truthfulness of her work. I don't see any particular value in questioning her qualifications, or anyone's, until they give a reason to do so. Given her facility with using all the usual paralegal tools, navigating courts and clerks, that she has access to expensive online legal databases and other resources, and patience with reading and dissecting reams of dull-as-dirt filings, I see no reason to doubt that she's a paralegal. No faker could keep it up for as long as Groklaw has been going. I know this is going all long-winded, so sorry. :) The short story for me is "by their fruits you shall know them." |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 10:08 AM EDT |
>it's not limited to a single article. I don't know if it meets the legal definition of libel, but it is a deliberate attack. Nothing in the law protects you against a deliberate attack. Attack does not equal libel. Lying about the facts in a way that will ruin somebody's reputation is libel. Characterizations (She's a windbag, she's a troll, etc) are not facts. Saying that she took money from somebody for the purpose of espousing a particular view would be a "fact" -- that is, something specific that can be proven right or wrong. i didn't see any libel in the article, just a bunch of mean-spirited sliming. Frankly, I think it makes the author look a whole lot worse than Pamela. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
I'm not a paralegal. I'm not a lawyer. I don't have any degrees that would qualify me in either profession. When I know something about the law, it is only reasonable to expect that any lawyer or any paralegal would also know the same thing, because they are more qualified than I. So when I see a lawyer obviously doesn't understand that the circle-C symbol does NOT necessarily mean a copyright is registered, I question the qualifications of that lawyer. The same with paralegals. And that is exactly what has happened with PJ. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060926030112100#c... For that reason, until a publicly recognised body assesses her qualifications and publishes their findings (where she went to school, what degree she received and what experience she has), I find Groklaw analysis to be no more trustworthy than analysis on Slashdot. Look at what happened with Wikipedia because they didn't bother with any kind of vetting process: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20... And it's happened too often with "anonymous experts" for my taste, even years ago with "Spencer F. Katt". But then again, even possessing the right qualifications is no guarantee of information quality: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/2142223 And if you believe that the popularity of Groklaw isn't just because of PJ's analysis and input, then you're not looking at the feedback numbers on articles posted by Mathfox during PJ's absence, compared to the articles she posts. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 26, 2007 11:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:And if you believe that the popularity of Groklaw isn't just because of PJ's analysis and input, then you're not looking at the feedback numbers on articles posted by Mathfox during PJ's absence, compared to the articles she posts. That's easily explained. PJ posts analysises of the documents. MathFox posted just the summaries and put the legal docs up for reading. More legalise means more time needed to read and less people understanding it, thus less comments. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
@sander -
Exactly my take - without PJ's input and analysis, Groklaw wouldn't be near as popular as it is. It'd be more along the lines of http://lamlaw.com . My feeling is that the vast majority of people take things found on the internet much too seriously (something that I've taken advantage of when I want to stir things up.) But hey, I've many eclectic and unusual interests such as knotting. Remember folks, when it comes right down to it, most people have never heard of Linux and could really not care less, so making calls to boycott Novell or the FSF is about as effective and pleasant as spitting into the wind. |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2007 11:20 AM EDT |
eh darren, I think you're picking nits. I think that you just plain don't care for PJ and Groklaw, and no kind of verification will change your mind on that. I don't quite understand your circle-C reference- is that supposed to be another proof that PJ is not a paralegal? While it's not necessary to formally register copyrighted material, you can, so her use of the word 'register' is correct. It has nothing to do with trademarks, as the post you link to says. And I'm sure you'll understand my chuckling at your citing an anonymous post as proof of anything.
http://www.copyright.gov/register/ If PJ is wrong that a body of attack articles with the same slant and similar wording constitute libel, that doesn't invalidate everything she writes, which is what you're implying. She is right that they are trying to damage her credibility, because they have no factual refutations. That should tell you something right there- that none of the interested parties she writes about, such as SCO, have been able to factually dispute anything she has written. That speaks more loudly to me than anything else could. That, and she always supplies her source materials. Ibiblio isn't quite comparable to Wikipedia, because it hosts discrete sites under the control of their maintainers. PJ can't go into other Ibiblio sites and alter their content. Ryan Jordan was functioning as a Wikipedia staffer and was editing content from many contributors. And even in that case it says "... no questions have been raised about the accuracy of his work." |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 11:53 AM EDT |
Tuxchick - you obviously read the reply post that I linked to, but did you find the paragraph of PJ's that it refers to? Quoting: ... and I believe that by putting the copyright symbol, Caldera indicated that it had registered with the Copyright Office, which makes me think it might be interesting to see what exactly they told the Copyright Office they registered: The copyright symbol does *NOT* indicate any such thing. In other words, she is wrong - and wrong about something very basic to the law. As I stated, when I know something about the law, that a paralegal or lawyer does not, it makes me suspect of their qualifications. Specifically: Quoting: How to Secure a Copyright Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creationhttp://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc Quoting: The “C in a circle” notice is used only on “visually perceptible copies.” Certain kinds of works—for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works—may be fixed not in “copies” but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are “phonorecords” and not “copies,” the “C in a circle” notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc The copyright symbol is simply one of three elements of a "notice of copyright". It does not signify registration of copyright. I also refer to the federalist papers from time to time: quoting anonymous sources is quite appropriate at times, and not so smart at others. |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2007 12:16 PM EDT |
> The copyright symbol is simply one of three elements of a "notice of copyright". It does not signify registration of copyright. No, it doesn't, nor is registration necessary to hold copyright. However, registration makes copyright much easier to prove, and a company which did not register its copyrights would probably be considered negligent by its shareholders and possibly by the SEC. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 12:27 PM EDT |
>company which did not register its copyrights would probably be considered negligent by its shareholders and possibly by the SEC. That would be an interesting case should SEC or shareholders get in a snit about it. They should lose. Registering a copyright does not guarantee that you own it. It is simply a piece of evidence. It is very different from patents or trademarks in that regard, both of which have a rather involved process to complete before registration is granted. With a copyright, you basically send in a copy and a form. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
@jdixon, Most definitely that is true - actually, in order to actually bring suit over copyright, I believe you *are* required to register the copyright. Dino would be better qualified to answer that. I tried saving the company I work for a bunch of money, but they insisted on registering copyrights on some code we developed instead of just using copyright notices. I didn't agree with the necessity of it, but it was a call made over my head. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 26, 2007 12:36 PM EDT |
Darren, I don't think its necessary to register copyright in order to bring suit over it, but it does make the court process easier. In order to win a suit you need to prove that you own the copyright to the work. A registration makes this easier, but it's by far not the only way to prove it. IIRC, IANAL, etcetera. I just read Groklaw a lot :-) |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
> That would be an interesting case should SEC or shareholders get in a snit about it. They should lose. Dino, the requirements for fiduciary responsibility and the legal requirements for copyright are two different things. If I knew a company I owned shares in had not registered their copyrights, I'd consider them negligent. Registering their copyrights shows a good faith effort to protect the company's assets, and as such is a reasonable expectation. Not required, perhaps, but reasonable. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 1:00 PM EDT |
>I'd consider them negligent. You might consider them negligent, but that doesn't make them negligent. Others might consider them negligent for spending the money (And for a corporation, which must pay people to do things, it is a whole lot more than the filing fees) to register everything that is copyrighted. Where, for example, would you draw the line? Consider the case of computer code (I'm talking in-house, non-commercial code). Every single time you change it, you have created a derivative work. So...Do you go to the expense and trouble of registering the derivative work each and every day? re: lawsuits... I haven't checked the law lately, but it certainly used to be true that you had to register your copyright in order to file suit. However, you don't have to register it prior to the infringement, only prior to the suit. That may have changed. I don't know. |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2007 1:01 PM EDT |
darren, when you show substantial errors on Groklaw regarding SCO, which was the subject of the MacDougall's slime piece in the first place, then I'll seriously consider the notion that PJ is an untrustworthy source. I haven't seen anything that indicates she's incompetent, writing over her head, or telling fibs. SCO certainly hasn't been able to find any errors of fact in Groklaw, nor have any of the alleged "journalists" who like to attack Groklaw. What's pissing them off is she is publishing the truth, and there is no counter to the truth. This business with 'is this libel' is arguable and something I'll leave up to real legal professionals, and I'll cut PJ some slack for being the target of this garbage, and perhaps not entirely objective. I know I'd be mightily cheesed. What if she is right? Does that change your thinking? You're going to great lengths over 'what does does the circle R mean' issue as blanket indictment of PJ without coming up with anything substantive, and missing the point of the article, which is both testimony and a paper trail showing that SCO's copyright violation claims are bogus. It's all there in the opening paragraphs. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060926030112100 As far as the notorious circle R goes, maybe formal copyright registration is a standard business practice, or was a standard Caldera practice, or maybe PJ made a mistake. She did say "I believe" and not present it as fact. PJ's point is wondering what the officially registered document looks like, if there is one. Given SCO's history of non-stop shenanigans it would have been an interesting thing to look into. Any way you look at it it's a very minor thing. If it is proven that PJ really is a paralegal would that put your doubts to rest? I rather doubt it. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 1:24 PM EDT |
Besides, guys -- A. A paralegal is not a lawyer B. There's a whole lot of law. No lawyer knows it all. That's why you have specialists. C. The law changes. Cut some slack. |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
> Where, for example, would you draw the line? If the documents have commercial value, they should probably be registered. > Consider the case of computer code (I'm talking in-house, non-commercial code). See above. I think my comment about a good faith effort to protect the company's assets should be the governing principle. That's what I'd expect from a company's management. > Cut some slack. Agreed. We're arguing minor details. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 26, 2007 1:53 PM EDT |
"C. The law changes." No kidding! It takes a government to create chaos. Who knows what will be legal/illegal tomorrow that is illegal/legal today? How can anyone make long term plans in an environment like that? Anarchy provides _stability_. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 2:21 PM EDT |
TC -
You do raise valid points. And you're right, there probably isn't anything that would change my mind about Groklaw - but it isn't just that one instance. There are a number of "dirty little secrets" including "disappearing" and "masked" posts, and I'm not the only one so disillusioned. For me it started with the so-called grokdoc project - which to me takes away much needed contributions to The Linux Documentation Project. If I see an article written up in a journal of neuroscience (which I've been reading up on to follow any new theories on learning language and how humans think), I expect to be presented with the qualifications of the author. If I see an analysis written up in a law review publication (which I've been doing with the purpose of creating Statistical Language Models for the legal profession), I expect to see the qualifications of the authors of the various articles. I expect nothing less for Groklaw since it is being presented by ibiblio as one of many collections in a sort of online "library". There are many laypeople (including apparently yourself) who seem to take the word of PJ as gospel when it comes to legal analysis, and that is a bit too much like relying on wikipedia as an authoritative source when doing thesis work, or taking programming advice from Robin "Roblimo" Miller. |
| dcparris Mar 26, 2007 5:32 PM EDT |
Qualifications are an interesting thing. I'm not qualified to run a 10-PC LAN, and couldn't get an IT job if my life depended on it. Nor am I qualified to serve as Editor-in-Chief of an increasingly popular news site. I have no journalism background - education or experience - to stand on. Trying not to be smug or boastful, it seems I have been qualifying myself over the course of the past (nearly a full) year. And I'm no anomaly either. Helios got *the* job having little more qualification than myself. That said, Darren is not the only person to question PJ's background. I can't find it off-hand, but there was a thread some time ago on suse-ot as to whether PJ shared some connection to agents Mulder and Scully. That thread brought up some assertions of disappearing posts, people being banned unnecessarily/unfairly, etc, as well as the notion that she tends to take some things too personally. I have seen for myself that she guards her privacy pretty jealously as compared to many in the community. She reacted badly when I wrote that she attacked Kevin Carmony (I wasn't defending him or attacking her, but pointing out that she had certainly spoken out against him). I haven't had much or really any cooperation from her since - none that I recall, anyway. I find some of her behavior disappointing to say the least. Yet she does seem to offer fairly solid analysis of the SCO case and others. I generally continue to be fairly supportive of her but find myself also rather guarded in how I view her. I also understand that not everyone gets it right every time. So, I consider her analysis to be akin to George Stephanopoulis when he reports on White House matters. It's an analysis. Say, aren't those a lot like excuses, which are a lot like something else everyone has? |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2007 6:37 PM EDT |
Hmm, ok darren, point taken. It makes sense as long as I don't think of slimy news articles, or the long parade of retard MSCEs I used to be afflicted with. They had all the paper qualifications in the world, but they sure were helpless when faced with an actual computer. I like the idea of someone stubbornly refusing to answer questions about identity or background, and just letting their work speak for itself. But you're right, it's not unreasonable to expect someone presenting herself as an authority to back it up. hee don, I'm in the same boat. I barely graduated from high school. Thanks goodness for drugs and alcohol, or I never would have made it. But somehow I manage. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!