Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Thread beginning with comment 399780
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: how about...
by SlackerJack on Wed 16th Dec 2009 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE: how about..."
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

You know, you're really getting close to the news media who claim all sorts of bullsh*t stories are true, without checking them out first properly.

I have no doubt at all that you will do this again and again and again because people like made up bullsh*t, just like the other sites to get hits.

This reminds me of why dogs lick their balls. It's disgusting but it's what dogs do, just like you and the media. I wouldn't put you quiet up there with the likes of the tabloids, but just keep on this way and you'll get there.

Edited 2009-12-16 01:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -6

RE[3]: how about...
by Junius on Wed 16th Dec 2009 01:58 in reply to "RE[2]: how about..."
Junius Member since:
2009-10-25

You know, you're really getting close to the news media who claim all sorts of bullsh*t stories are true, without checking them out first properly.

I have no doubt at all that you will do this again and again and again because people like made up bullsh*t, just like the other sites to get hits.

This reminds me of why dogs lick their balls. It's disgusting but it's what dogs do, just like you and the media. I wouldn't put you quiet up there with the likes of the tabloids, but just keep on this way and you'll get there.


Do you not think that's a bit strong? When was the last time you saw a member of the mainstream media printing a front page retraction?

As for bias; I don't see anything wrong with a bit of bias in journalism, after all it is peoples' own personal opinion that makes for an interesting conversation. The caveat being of course that this bias is made crystal clear to the audience which can be said for all but a few of Thom's articles that I have read.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: how about...
by HappyGod on Wed 16th Dec 2009 03:38 in reply to "RE[2]: how about..."
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Sigh. When I read comments like yours, I'm really sorry that I can't mod people down and comment at the same time. Because your post really needs some southward modding.

You're probably just trolling, but just on the off chance that you're serious, I would simply say: 'get a grip'. It's not like he was announcing that life had just been discovered on Mars for crying out loud.

Personally I would like my tech news in a timely manner and run the small risk that it is occassionally bollocks. It's OK as long as retractions are printed when errors are found.

So anyway, I reckon Jesus didn't exist, and he's basically a mythical solar deity.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: how about...
by vaughancoveny on Wed 16th Dec 2009 07:19 in reply to "RE[3]: how about..."
vaughancoveny Member since:
2007-12-26

It's not like he was announcing that life had just been discovered on Mars for crying out loud.

Personally I would like my tech news in a timely manner and run the small risk that it is occassionally bollocks.


Although perhaps you will waste time reading and discussing 310 comments, but do you think that is the fault of the discourse of the commentors?

It's OK as long as retractions are printed when errors are found.


There were many articles published before the correction, although many don't have that many comments. It's like we're waiting for a correction.

Edited 2009-12-16 07:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: how about...
by Tuishimi on Wed 16th Dec 2009 07:27 in reply to "RE[3]: how about..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

So anyway, I reckon Jesus didn't exist, and he's basically a mythical solar deity.


...Back aboard the Enterprise, Uhura, who has been monitoring the radio frequencies of the planet, realizes that the "sun worshipers" were actually worshiping the "Son of God" – Jesus Christ...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: how about...
by SlackerJack on Wed 16th Dec 2009 14:37 in reply to "RE[3]: how about..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I expected it to get modded right down and apologies are worth nothing if you keep making the same mistakes, rather than research stories properly first.

It may have been harsh but the damage is done and no doubt it will happen again.

Edited 2009-12-16 14:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: how about...
by elanthis on Wed 16th Dec 2009 04:14 in reply to "RE[2]: how about..."
elanthis Member since:
2007-02-17

This reminds me of why dogs lick their balls. It's disgusting but it's what dogs do


It's what every male human would do too if they could actually reach their heads down there. :p

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: how about...
by Moochman on Wed 16th Dec 2009 09:21 in reply to "RE[2]: how about..."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom writes editorials. He has never claimed to write subjective articles. Big difference.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: how about...
by kaiwai on Wed 16th Dec 2009 12:07 in reply to "RE[2]: how about..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This reminds me of why dogs lick their balls. It's disgusting but it's what dogs do, just like you and the media.


Why do dogs lick their balls? because they can ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2