On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Nathan Myers wrote:
> This is probably a good time to point out that this is the _worst_
> _possible_ response to erroneous reportage. The perception by readers
> will not be that the reporter failed, but that PostgreSQL advocates
> are rabid weasels who don't appreciate favorable attention, and are
favorable attention??
> dangerous to write anything about. You can bet this reporter and her
> editor will treat the topic very circumspectly (i.e. avoid it) in the
> future.
woo hoo, if that is the result, then I think Vince did us a great service,
not dis-service ...
> Most reporters are ignorant, most reporters are lazy, and many are
> both. It's part of the job description. Getting angry about it is
> like getting angry at birds for fouling their cage. Their job is to
> regurgitate what they're given, and quickly. They have no time to
> learn the depths, or to write coherently about it, or even to check
> facts.
Out of all the articles on PgSQL that I've read over the years, this one
should have been shot before it hit the paper (so to say) ... it was the
most blatantly inaccurate article I've ever read ...
> It will be harder than the original mailings, but I urge each who
> wrote to write again and apologize for attacking her.
In a way, I think you are right .. I think the attack was aimed at the
wrong ppl :( She obviously didn't get *any* of her information from ppl
that belong *in* the Pg community, or that have any knowledge of how it
works, or of its history :(
