4 ms·

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/17/dilger-misek http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/17/dilger-misek

• pohl 13y ago
  I'm disappointed. I thought you would link to something where he told someone that they were wrong. Instead, he said conditionally that if the speculation pans out, then he "may be" wrong about a reason why something was observed. It wasn't a refutation, but just offering an alternative hypothesis. That seems like a perfectly guarded statement, self-aware of its speculative basis.
  • jessaustin 13y ago
    I wonder when the two instances of "may" were included in that piece?
    • comex 13y ago
      If the piece was edited after the fact, I'd eat my hat. Gruber is biased, not a complete hypocrite.
      • gbog 13y ago
        How do you know? I always thought journalists had some basic level principles about their jobs, until I heard from a first hand witness that you can actually buy some of them with good money...
  • jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Hmm... Then I have no idea what Gruber meant when he said: More on the very-wrong Peter Misek.... Not just wrong.... but very-wrong.
    • macrael 13y ago
      The link Gruber had posted right before this one was: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/17/claim-chowder-peter-misek http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/17/claim-chowder-pe...