I do like your articles, but the only criticism I’ve had recently is an unfair depiction that involves terms like “conspiracy theory” (or “witch hunt” in some other places). These terms have a negative connotation and are therefore used to discredit us. They are used to intercept our message.

People speak. People exchange E-mails. They exchange phonecalls and they also exchange favours. That’s the way things work, so there’s no point in denying that. Not everywhere we look do secret agreements exist. However, in order to understand what is happening behind the scenes, one must take into consideration all sorts of evidence. This isn’t a case of look and see. A lot is happening away from sight. If we identify many ‘coincidences’, we wish to draw the readers’ attention and have them reach their own conclusion.

If you spot mistakes or inaccuracies, please weight in so that we can correct them (as we regularly do).

Having an uncomfortable or an unpopular assessment is not easy. There are many people who do not like what we show here. It doesn’t falsify some factual information, such as the fact that a Novell Vice President was also the President of the GNOME Foundation, until recently.

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
- Proverbs 24:4-5

In this case, I hardly know which of these two pieces of advice to follow.

I acknowledge an error in talking about the OOXML voting; earlier today, I asked Datamation for a correction when I saw it earlier today, and I expect it will be corrected soon.

Otherwise than this purely factual point, from here on, I think that I’ll go with not answering. If nothing else, it will save me from wasting time. As an ex-English instructor, misreading and misrepresentation irk me, but I also have learned to recognize a hopeless case when I see it.