4 ms·

>By the way: you get a million extra points for ghost editing your Matrix recommendation out of your post after being called out on the fact that it didn't even

>By the way: you get a million extra points for ghost editing your Matrix recommendation out of your post after being called out on the fact that it didn't even do E2E by default. It's still right there on Archive.org. I issued a correction and I'm still the bad guy? You simply can't even pretend to engage me in good faith today, can you?

kick 7y ago
To be fair, normally when corrections are issued on posts, the corrections are noted. You've even done this before: https://drewdevault.com/2018/02/05/Introduction-to-POSIX-shell.html#fnref:2 https://drewdevault.com/2018/02/05/Introduction-to-POSIX-she... I don't think you're the bad guy here, but the criticism was that you ghost-edited, not that you issued a correction. Of course, your blog is publicly version-controlled, so it probably wasn't intentional on your part.
tptacek 7y ago
Until November of 2019 your post recommended Matrix (and, a few weeks after you originally posted it, Tox, which recommendation was accompanied by a changelog entry noting the inclusion of Tox). When you decided to stop recommending Matrix, you simply removed the recommendation and the changelog from the post. It's a blog post, not a work of journalism, but I don't think you get to use the words "issued a correction" here.
- ddevault 7y ago
  "It was wrong, so I changed it" How about that? Any more language you'd like to nitpick? At any time you're welcome to rebuke the actual points I made in my article, by the way. There were no longer any recommendations so there was no longer any need to show why the list was changing. It's my blog and I can put what I want on it. Again, at any time you can feel free to level any good faith rebukes whatsoever about the actual content of my arguments.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I'm happy to address any substantive rebuttal you come up with to my original argument. I'm sorry that the argument is so simple that it only takes a sentence or two, and thus may seem superficial. It is not. I think it's well articulated in the comment upthread.

kick 7y ago

To be fair, normally when corrections are issued on posts, the corrections are noted. You've even done this before: https://drewdevault.com/2018/02/05/Introduction-to-POSIX-shell.html#fnref:2 https://drewdevault.com/2018/02/05/Introduction-to-POSIX-she... I don't think you're the bad guy here, but the criticism was that you ghost-edited, not that you issued a correction. Of course, your blog is publicly version-controlled, so it probably wasn't intentional on your part.

tptacek 7y ago

Until November of 2019 your post recommended Matrix (and, a few weeks after you originally posted it, Tox, which recommendation was accompanied by a changelog entry noting the inclusion of Tox). When you decided to stop recommending Matrix, you simply removed the recommendation and the changelog from the post. It's a blog post, not a work of journalism, but I don't think you get to use the words "issued a correction" here.

ddevault 7y ago
"It was wrong, so I changed it" How about that? Any more language you'd like to nitpick? At any time you're welcome to rebuke the actual points I made in my article, by the way. There were no longer any recommendations so there was no longer any need to show why the list was changing. It's my blog and I can put what I want on it. Again, at any time you can feel free to level any good faith rebukes whatsoever about the actual content of my arguments.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I'm happy to address any substantive rebuttal you come up with to my original argument. I'm sorry that the argument is so simple that it only takes a sentence or two, and thus may seem superficial. It is not. I think it's well articulated in the comment upthread.