I think it’s a nice example how boy & friends interact and who is more likely to run a “smear campaign”.

Just read it and make up your own mind.

As long as the main concern of some Linuxers is not Linux but the actions, actual or alleged, of their competitor, we as a community are in a sorry state.

I really hope you simply misspelled that and meant ‘roy, start to cry cause’..and not BOY because otherwise that would read rather nasty because he does have a name.

Next, Roy’s site is rather large and to say the entire site is a smear campaign is rather irrational of you, given I don’t see you leveling a debate about each and every point made here, but feel free to do so.

FOSS deserves better than this, the ordinary people who use it and developers who work so hard creating it might also agree,to recommend against bitterness , divisiveness and generally depend on working together constructively for for all of us.

cheers
nl

It must be annoying to you that some sites criticise software that you like. And all you’re doing right now is slowing such sites down by making false accusations and provoking for response. At this stage, you and Fink are both trolls in my eyes. Neither of you is welcome here.

I believe you were dishonest from the first instant, that you in fact have been in contact with Mr. Fink before, that you approved of his efforts at harassment and even encouraged them, and that your calling what you do “journalism” is preposterous.

It’s certainly been instructive.

You said I had said “never heard of him”. False. I didn’t say such a thing.

Now you quote me as saying “I don’t know who Fink is.” True. I’ve no idea who this person is. I know the name, I don’t know who he is and whether it’s even a real name.

In my first message to you (IIRC) I even showed you that I was aware of things he did a year ago.

Not that you’d “never been in contact with him”, that you didn’t know who he is. Am I supposed to still view this as having been a truthful response…?

If you meant, “I’m aware that there’s a person calling himself Mark Fink out there who regularly incites flame wars on various email lists, pointing back to my web site each and every time, but no, I don’t know him personally”, you’d have been better off saying so. This simply seems more and more duplicitous.

Stop changing the stories.

Please feel free to detail what you imagine I’ve lied about and what facts you think I’ve changed. Please try to be specific. I warned you that persisting in this vein was going to be damaging to your credibility, but I can’t honestly say I envisioned you grabbing a shovel and pitching in to quite this extent.

Stop changing the facts and you’ll find that your accusation is bogus. You’re attacking a scapegoat and turned this into a personal vendetta.

So, Roy, you’ve felt impelled to distance yourself from Mark Fink in the past and yet you “never heard of him” before a couple of days ago…? Hm. That’s the sort of thing that would stick in my mind.

A couple of further examples of Roy’s apparent problems with truth versus his agenda turned up.

Roy insists that Yardena Arar and Harry McCracken were “bribed” by Microsoft for participating in a Vista preview (and they’re both technology writers-are they to refuse assignments because they might upset Roy?) in which they were loaned laptops with Vista preinstalled, laptops which they both stated that they returned.

Roy continues to insist that this “isn’t what he heard”, accusing the two of having received “$2000 gifts” from Microsoft.

Do you actually have any legal counsel, Roy? Because this sort of thing seems to be treading awfully close to honest-to-gosh libel, in my estimation: it’s false, you know it’s false, it’s damaging to the reputations of those against whom it’s directed (and deliberately so, as you make quite clear), and yet you continue to repeat and propagate it.

Why is that?

Yes, it is a bit of a pain to keep up with this because you keep jumping to conclusions and you make your fair share of inaccurate projections. That is why I’m quitting this discussion. I don’t think it’s a good use of time. Good day to you, sir.

If this is all getting to be too much for you to keep up with, try not to fret over it.

I really have to suggest that calling someone you’ve wrongly identified as having “censored” an article–and you know you’ve wrongly identified–”infamous” and “shameless” isn’t “neutral”, it’s “displaying a complete and reckless disregard for the truth”.

And if by “weaker”, you mean to say something like “more incredibly and egregiously irresponsible”, then I’d have to agree…

Let me be clear: I am not talking about the comments. I am talking about the article. This article. The one with the title which reads “Microsoft and Jimmi Hugh: Wikipedia Censorship or Just Vandalism?” The one which contains the paragraph reading

The person responsible for this censorship is a man by the name of Jimmi Hugh, whom I believe has a particularly infamous reputation on Wikipedia. One source describes him as “a shameless character with some kind of pro-Microsoft agenda.”

You know you’re wrong, yet not only does the accusation remain, but also the (unsourced) defamatory characterizations of Mr. Hugh as being “shameless” and “infamous”.

Is this what you think “journalism” is about, Roy? As I said, it doesn’t say good things about your commitment to the truth. A complete removal of the inaccurate information and character assassination, as well as a separate article, pointed to by the original, offering the details of your mistaken reportage and a full apology to Mr. Hugh might have done that. But that’s not what you did, is it?

(In fact, if I google “Jimmi Hugh”, the third result is an instance of this erroneous article. So which “each side” are you talking about here? The side that deals in truth, and the side that refuses to admit and correct its errors in a meaningful way…? Which side do you see yourself as being on here, Roy?)