tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2037439678547803550.post3093871825618186135..comments2008-01-21T16:33:27.444-05:00Comments on Open Source Fact Check: False attributionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2037439678547803550.post-66403036408890456842007-12-18T06:33:00.000-05:002007-12-18T06:33:00.000-05:00I would disagree that it's "editorial". The headli...I would disagree that it's "editorial". The headline said, paraphrasing, "Miguel defends OOXML".<BR/><BR/>Looking at the source, we can see that he didn't make any statements defending OOXML. So, I think we both agree that fact-checking that is right.<BR/><BR/>Usually, I wouldn't care about the actual comments Miguel made, but I think in this case raising them is valid: he was actually attacking OOXML, albeit lightly. <BR/><BR/>So I wasn't highlighting them because I was trying to say "Look, Miguel is making good points here the article didn't pick up". The point was the article said he defended OOXML, the facts say he was attacking it.Fact-Finderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915992292958137056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2037439678547803550.post-25135582378664873142007-12-17T10:39:00.000-05:002007-12-17T10:39:00.000-05:00I think that your editorial comments are taking aw...I think that your editorial comments are taking away from the intended objective of this blog.<BR/><BR/>For example: "And why is no attention paid to the statements he makes against OOXML (...)" <BR/><BR/>You have demonstrated that all the quotes in the article do not support the headline, but then your comments are implying an intentional personal attack on de Icaza, which I think is unnecessary from an objective point of view of a fact checker. This could easily balloon into a flame war under different context, thus defeating the purpose of the blog, as originally stated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02837025743561795256noreply@blogger.com