Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Like watching a car crash
This asktom thread
In which Burleson consulting employees (and a part owner) break their own guidelines in order to offer largely baseless attacks on fellow professionals.
9 Comments
In which Burleson consulting employees (and a part owner) break their own guidelines in order to offer largely baseless attacks on fellow professionals.
9 Comments:
The whole thing baffles me. The BC groups behavior and responses are like a bunch of grade school kids arguing.
are not!
It's unbelievable isn't it. One of my colleagues just walked past and saw my mouth wide open and my head shaking from side to side - I think he thought I was having a seizure of some kind.
Sometimes when reading the stuff these guys (usually the BC guys) post I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Good to see Jonathan, yet again, cutting completely through the crap.
And I love the way that Harry Conway makes a point, has it proven wrong, so instead of arguing or conceding defeat, goes on to state some more nonsense.
So many things I want to say, but I don't want to add fuel to the fire...
Cheers,
Ian
PS - Was a great Ashes win wasn't it ;-D
Sometimes when reading the stuff these guys (usually the BC guys) post I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Good to see Jonathan, yet again, cutting completely through the crap.
And I love the way that Harry Conway makes a point, has it proven wrong, so instead of arguing or conceding defeat, goes on to state some more nonsense.
So many things I want to say, but I don't want to add fuel to the fire...
Cheers,
Ian
PS - Was a great Ashes win wasn't it ;-D
The whole thing baffles me. The BC groups behavior and responses are like a bunch of grade school kids arguing.
The whole thing baffles me. The BC groups behavior and responses are like a bunch of grade school kids arguing.
are not!
Just can't take your eyes off it, :D
Well, one of the good things that came out of it was that we now know more folks to avoid at conferences :D
Sad that the person who caused all this ruckus do not have the guts to step up to the plate.
Well, one of the good things that came out of it was that we now know more folks to avoid at conferences :D
Sad that the person who caused all this ruckus do not have the guts to step up to the plate.
define the term "criminal".
I ask this in the context of the recent US DOJ vs. Micrsoft antitrust trial when William Gates fought definition of more or less standard terms.
To me in a US-centric mindset of the English language, labeling someone a "criminal" relates to one that has been CONVICTED of a crime in a court of law.
Not charged of a crime.
Not under investigation for possibly "criminal activity".
not convicted in the media.
Is it "criminal" to post something that turns out to be factually wrong?
Is it "criminal" to post a possibly libelous statement on a blog?
IMHO, not unless DMCA comes into play.
Its a civil issue - not "criminal" (I am not a lawyer). Such lawsuits are decided in civil court, not criminal court.
THAT (DMCA) was a piece of legislation that criminalized what used to be civil turf.
Here is a decent place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law
dinnertime.
I ask this in the context of the recent US DOJ vs. Micrsoft antitrust trial when William Gates fought definition of more or less standard terms.
To me in a US-centric mindset of the English language, labeling someone a "criminal" relates to one that has been CONVICTED of a crime in a court of law.
Not charged of a crime.
Not under investigation for possibly "criminal activity".
not convicted in the media.
Is it "criminal" to post something that turns out to be factually wrong?
Is it "criminal" to post a possibly libelous statement on a blog?
IMHO, not unless DMCA comes into play.
Its a civil issue - not "criminal" (I am not a lawyer). Such lawsuits are decided in civil court, not criminal court.
THAT (DMCA) was a piece of legislation that criminalized what used to be civil turf.
Here is a decent place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law
dinnertime.
Sorry anonymous I don't really understand where you are coming from. I'm sure that no-one here has labelled anyone criminal.
Niall,
I believe (stress the word "believe") that the criminal reference has to do with that "guidelines" article you pointed to, where it states:
[quote]Recent problems with identity theft and biased moderators have led to a situation where anonymous criminals might publish serious accusations:[/quote]
At least, that's how I see it. O/P can correct me if I am wrong.
:-D
Regards,
Bill
I believe (stress the word "believe") that the criminal reference has to do with that "guidelines" article you pointed to, where it states:
[quote]Recent problems with identity theft and biased moderators have led to a situation where anonymous criminals might publish serious accusations:[/quote]
At least, that's how I see it. O/P can correct me if I am wrong.
:-D
Regards,
Bill
ah I see Bill, certainly anonymous posters posting serious and indefensible accusations has been a problem on other forums.
Anonymous. If that was what you were referring to it was rather the burleson consulting employees posting to a forum their own published guidelines say they shouldn't that I had in mind. The anonymous criminals thing is just a red herring so far as I can see.
NB this is a straight repost of my earlier comment - only without spurious pasting in caused by fat fingers.
Post a Comment
Anonymous. If that was what you were referring to it was rather the burleson consulting employees posting to a forum their own published guidelines say they shouldn't that I had in mind. The anonymous criminals thing is just a red herring so far as I can see.
NB this is a straight repost of my earlier comment - only without spurious pasting in caused by fat fingers.
