To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The original article did not attack the indavidual person's character but rather used a business representation as an example of something they suggested was common across multiple business representations. This one sad booth babe is an example of the many sad booth babes here today.. sort of thing.
After the issue became focused on the single indavidual, the article author went back to follow up; find out about the indavidual and contact them in a civil manner to discuss any potential wrong doing.
Did Gruber and King followup and provide facts? Did Gruber and King provide a follow-up article saying "yeah, we where in error that first time around, here's what the correct information we've since verified"?
So sure, attack the ZD author for not showing scientific accuracy with information tangent to the article topic. Yet, don't hold Gruber and King accountable for not validating information the first tiem around and never following-up after the fact? Did you even read the article?





Member since:
2007-09-13
The only problem is that they weren't talking about apple product, but a supposed third-party apple developer... that wasn't a developer at all.
Here it's only a matter of checking the reality before making claims...
like the author of the original article did...