Skip to main content

Home/ IBM: Standards and Double Standards/ Group items tagged deceits

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Paul Merrell

No one supports ISO ODF today? - 0 views

www.adjb.net/...ne-supports-ISO-ODF-today.aspx

rob weir Groklaw deceits

shared by Paul Merrell on 10 Jun 09 - Cached
  • In particular, Rob takes issue with a statement that he condemns as “Microsoft FUD […] laundered via intermediaries”: There is no software that currently implements ODF as approved by the ISO Now Rob Weir is a great blogger, a much-praised committee chair, and somebody who can, on occasion, fearlessly produce the blunt truth like a rabbit from a hat. For this reason, I know his blog entry, “Toy Soldiers” of July 2008 has enjoyed quite some exposure in standards meetings around the world, most particularly for its assertions about ODF. He wrote: No one supports ODF 1.0 today. All of the major vendors have moved on to ODF 1.1, and will be moving on to ODF 1.2 soon. No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft. No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.
  • So, far from being “Microsoft FUD”, the idea that “No one supports ODF 1.0” is in fact Rob Weir’s own statement. And it was taken up and repeated by Andy Updegrove, Groklaw and Boycott Novell, those well-known vehicles of Microsoft’s corporate will. Today however, this appears to have become an inconvenient truth. The rabbit that was pulled out of the hat in the interest of last summer’s spin, now needs to be put into the boiler. Consequently we find Rob’s blog entry of July 2008 has been silently amended so that it now states: Few applications today support exclusively ODF 1.0 and only ODF 1.0. Most of the major vendors also support ODF 1.1, one (OpenOffice 3.x), now supports draft ODF 1.2 as well. No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft. No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.
  • The pertinent change is to item 1 on this list, which now has a weasel-worded (and tellingly tautological) assertion that might make the unsuspecting reader think that ODF 1.0 was somehow supported by the major vendors. Well, is it? Who is right, the Rob Weir of 2008 or the Rob Weir of 2009? Maybe I’ve missed something, but personally I’m unaware of an upsurge in ODF 1.0 support during the last 11 months. My money is on the former Rob being right here.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • As a general rule, when making substantive retrospective changes to blog entries, especially controversial blog entries, it is honest dealing to draw attention to this by striking-through removed text and prominently labelling the new text as “updated”. Failing to do this can lead to the suspicion that an attempt to re-write history is underway …
  • You have the unique opportunity now to prove wrong my assertion, and the widespread belief, that you are a Microsoft lackey.
  • Paul Merrell on 10 Jun 09
     
    Rob Weir gets caught in another deceit and an apparent attempt to rewrite history. He condemns as Microsoft FUD what turns out to be his own statement, since removed from his web site but still preserved on other sites that quoted his article including Groklaw, which republished Weir's later article and called for an antitrust investigation of the Microsoft FUD Weir complained of. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009061001520015 That call is somewhat problematic when Weir and Groklaw were the original sources of the information. Dare the world hope for retractions?
Paul Merrell

Notes on Document Conformance and Portability #4 - 0 views

www.adjb.net/...ormance-and-Portability-4.aspx

rob weir ad hominem attacks

shared by Paul Merrell on 20 May 09 - Cached
  • It seems you like to ignore requirements in order to defend Microsoft
  • Do you get paid to spread FUD like this, or is it merely a dilettantish pursuit?
  • I am unable to even imagine that you would be ignorant of basic standards terminology. So why do you persist in intentionally misleading your readers?
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • But at all relevant times you knew that you could not respond on the merits if Alex took the time to write the same analysis I did. I call foul. Foul 1: You accused Alex of ignorance and deceit. Foul 2: You had no informed basis for those insults.Foul 3: You knew you had no informed basis for your insults.Foul 4: You have put me to the work of repeating the conversation we already had. Shame on you, Rob Weir. The position you took was unprincipled. You are the one who has intentionally misled Alex's readers. You are caught. If you are a principled person, you will immediately retract your insults and apologize to Alex Brown for your deceit in as public a manner as you inflicted your deceit. If you do not do so, the undeniable record lies here of a man who is not man enough to take responsibility for his wrongs and apologize.
  • Ah, Marbux, what circus is complete without the clowns?
  • Paul Merrell on 20 May 09
     
    Here on a single page, we see several Rob Weir ad hominem attacks, including his ad hominem circumstantial innuendo suggesting that Alex Bown's motive in writing a bug report is to defend Microsoft's implementation of ODF. There is also a notable accusation that Brown is intentionally misleading his readers, which attacks Brown's honesty.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page