Inquirer lacks innovation (was: Linux desktop lacks innovation)
lproven at gmail.com
Mon Nov 19 20:01:42 GMT 2007
Just for the entertainment or interest of people, an example of the
sort of thing I get, which may go some way to explaining my apparent
intolerance or shortness of temper.
I am amazed that anyone would judge a person by the place that they
get published. Apparently, because this chap doesn't like some things
The Inquirer says, he thinks that any article on the Inq is rubbish
written by idiots.
Incidentally, I'm a freelance writer; I don't work for the Inquirer,
VNU Business Publications, Incisive Media or any connected or
affiliate company. I work for myself; amongst other places, I sell
articles to Incisive for publication on the Inquirer.
However, for years before that, I was an Inq reader, and still am. I
like its tone and style and I think that there are some very smart and
incisive people writing for it. Personally, I think its no-nonsense
attitude cuts through swathes of industry BS that is all too often
seen in other parts of the IT media.
One possible explanation, perhaps, is that a lot of the stuff on the
Inq is deeply satirical, ironic or sarcastic, and I have often noticed
that a great many people on the Internet are unable to spot this, and
if it's pointed out to them, they hate it. I've been kicked off
mailing lists before now for giving entirely informative, helpful and
factual answers couched in a sardonic tone. I find this face rather
On Nov 19, 2007 1:18 AM, Richard A. Johnson <nixternal at kubuntu.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007 16:30:41 you wrote:
> | You really don't know the first thing about what you're pompously
> | lecturing about, do you? You don't know what the article's about, who
> | wrote it, anything about the site that published it, nothing - and
> | yet, you feel that you are able to make pronouncements about that
> | site's worth?
> Ya, you're right, I don't know what I am lecturing about. The Inquirer is
> known for BS just as Slashdot and Digg are. I read the article, and just like
> the other 100 non-innovative articles I have read, it doesn't interest me.
> You are right about one thing, I don't know anything about the person who
> wrote it, you, that I will admit to. If you write great articles that's
> great, as I have heard from a couple of people now that you write the better
> articles on the Inquirer, so congrats.
> | What a remarkably insightful commentator you must be, to be able to
> | judge that about which you know nothing.
> I think I know enough of the innovation articles to judge, that I just don't
> care any more. Regurgitating topics isn't innovative to me in the least bit.
> I have read your article just so you know, you are obviously a good writer
> from what I read, just not interested in the whole "this and that isn't
> I mean no disrespect to you whatsoever, but the Inquirer would need to do a
> ton in order for me to even think about reading it again. It wasn't the BS
> Linux articles in the past that ruined it for me, it was the lack of
> knowledge that was obvious when dealing with IT in general. There are a ton
> of sites that fit in the category as well. After working in the Linux field
> since 1994, I have seen all of the articles come back year after year, and
> the other big topic, that is way more annoying the innovation tree that has
> been beat to death, is "the year of the desktop" ones. It is all old, not
> innovative, and so forth.
> Richard A. Johnson
> nixternal at kubuntu.org
> GPG Key: 0x2E2C0124
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com • MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508
More information about the sounder