Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3349 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] "Linux leaders flee Novell"...
  • From: Terence McCarthy <tjmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:11:08 +0100
  • Message-id: <20050511211108.2d476dea@xxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:43:32 -0800
John Andersen <jsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > The only purpose of this site and their paper version is to stir up
> > > controversy. Most of their stories are full of "no truth" and "half
> > > truth" stories. If any of their stories are based on actual fact I
> > > would be surprised.
> >
> > That's not fair. The Inq is a decent enough rag; and Mike Magee (who
> > also founded the Register) is apparently an OK bloke.
> >
> > What the Inquirer is not is the whole, complete, and unvarnished
> > truth. It's a tabloid site, and includes speculation, rumour and "we
> > heard $foo from $bar". It holds gossip; some of which is correct and
> > some of which isn't.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Gideon.
> So then it would seem that Ken and Gideon agree 100% on
> the quality and believability of the rag in question....

This is "next".

One says that there is no factual basis to ANY of the INQ stories: the other says that, in common with the rest of the world's media, that some of it may not be "the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth". I don't think the latter creature exists ( and I know of no fossilised remains, either).

I don't see an equilvalence here. The first is merely silly, the second, a rational approach to what is offered on the INQ site.

Fred has called me a "total moron" (OK, Fred, I forgive you!), but can't we get some sense of perspective into this thread?


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups