"The identification of my wife and daughter [sic] is not privacy-invasive at all"
Can someone tell me why there is a patch of puke in this sentence? Am I missing something?
Camera maker Canon has attempted to have a spoof executive blog removed from the internet but the blog operator has continued to publish after making some minor changes to the site. Fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com is an obviously made up blog supposedly written by Chuck Westfall, Canon's director of media and customer …
Is that a real question?
If so: Stated In Context - Means the mistake was that of the original auther and is replicated exactly. Not the mistake of the repeating journo.
In this case the plural 'are not' should have been used instead of the singular 'is not'
IMO the [sic] should follow the error and not preceed it.
Not happy to stand by the sidelines and watch as Canon's misfire shot themselves in the foot, the www.dpreview.com website has censored a thread in the 5D forum on this same topic.
Evidently a meaningful discussion about IP, Fair Use and Take Down Notices leading to rampant anti-viral marketing was deemed inappropriate on a site that many photographers used to go to for frank and honest discussions in the past.
Also interesting is how the dpreview website (now owned by Amazon) finally posted a full review of the 5D MKII (along with a link to purchase said item at Amazon, at hundreds of dollars more than the list price everywhere else)
I used to admire the dpreview website but it appears that they are now so closely aligned with at least one camera manufacturer and retail source that it begs the question as to whether their reviews are still objective.
Lets face it, the original blog post was over the line, but a total take down notice sent by Canon's legal team gone wild was 'going nuclear' when perhaps a simple reasonably worded letter would have accomplished the same task without backfiring. They could have upped the ante if that failed, but who needs civility when you have rabid lawyers on retainer?
I no longer trust the dpreview site for objective reporting and no longer go there because of its censorship. I am also quite concerned about the reliability of my 5D as it seems (according to canon) to have a systemic problem with the mirror assembly falling off. Thankfully it only took Canon about 3 years to fess up to the problem and state that they will fix the defective units without charge. As for those who's cameras failed unexpectedly over the past 3 years and who had to pay for repairs, it is unclear if they will be compensated the cost of the repairs.
All in all not a good time for a camera manufacturer or web site that I used to hold in very high regard. But individuals (and even corporations) may be capable of learning from their mistakes. Dpreview.com could improve their seeming lack of objectivity and resist the rush to censorship, and Canon may indeed get their Quality Control and Pre-Sales Testing house in order once again. In fact I suspect it was dodgy quality control that may have stimulated the blogger to write his blog in the first place.
FWIW I love my 5D and continue to cross my fingers that it doesn't expire at an awkward moment in the field.
I was confused on the [sic] as well. Surely the "is" is appropriate - there is only one act of identification being made... else it would read "the identificationS of my wife and daughter" - but that would imply (to these American eyes anyway) that he made multiple postings identifying wife and daughter, not one.
Perhaps I shouldn't have made the mistake of leaving out basic statements of comprehension - I know the meaning of 'sic', but thanks anyway. I am simply unsure as to why it is being used. Clearly 'my wife and daughter' is wrong in a literal sense (they have nothing to do with the fake Chuck) but it follows the first person narrative being used in the rest of the blog. And I'm with Peyton on the identification thing.
@AC no.2: did you get that answer from wikipedia, failing to notice the word 'erroneously'?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019