2 ms·

Jobs’s leave of absence is cause for concern — and for good thoughts and well-wishes. It is not cause for panic. Like any shareholder would say.

by keyle 16y ago

raganwald 16y ago
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
isleyaardvark 16y ago
> I do not own a single share of Apple Inc.; nor do I own stock in any other individual company I might write about on Daring Fireball. I do not expect this to change, but I pledge that if it does, I’ll disclose it here. (http://daringfireball.net/2007/08/taking_stock http://daringfireball.net/2007/08/taking_stock) I haven't seen him disclose anything about owning Apple stock since 2007. I wouldn't blame you for the assumption, but I don't think he's a shareholder.
- zzleeper 16y ago
  Weird. Gruber's page sounds like www.apple.com/pr , or like Apple's Blog. Maybe he only owns options? :D (j/k)
- lallysingh 16y ago
  I think Gruber's honest and sincere in his beliefs. But, even without shares in AAPL, his own business is rather tied to apple's well being. He's the huffington post for mac addicts. I think Jobs has been engineering a healthy Apple that can withstand his absence for some time now. Still, I don't know many better showmen than Jobs in the tech sector.

2 ms·

Jobs’s leave of absence is cause for concern — and for good thoughts and well-wishes. It is not cause for panic. Like any shareholder would say.

by keyle 16y ago

Jobs’s leave of absence is cause for concern — and for good thoughts and well-wishes. It is not cause for panic. Like any shareholder would say.

raganwald 16y ago
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
isleyaardvark 16y ago
> I do not own a single share of Apple Inc.; nor do I own stock in any other individual company I might write about on Daring Fireball. I do not expect this to change, but I pledge that if it does, I’ll disclose it here. (http://daringfireball.net/2007/08/taking_stock http://daringfireball.net/2007/08/taking_stock) I haven't seen him disclose anything about owning Apple stock since 2007. I wouldn't blame you for the assumption, but I don't think he's a shareholder.
- zzleeper 16y ago
  Weird. Gruber's page sounds like www.apple.com/pr , or like Apple's Blog. Maybe he only owns options? :D (j/k)
- lallysingh 16y ago
  I think Gruber's honest and sincere in his beliefs. But, even without shares in AAPL, his own business is rather tied to apple's well being. He's the huffington post for mac addicts. I think Jobs has been engineering a healthy Apple that can withstand his absence for some time now. Still, I don't know many better showmen than Jobs in the tech sector.