Space-cadet Schwartz blows chunks out of Oracle's Java suit

Re: For completeness...

"Right, that's it. I've had enough. The gloves are off. You can only comment on trials if you understand trials from now on.

..and what about an understanding, however limited, of the matters being discussed - that could, possibly, be useful ?

"Be aware that trials are 'he said, she said' affairs. One party argues their side. The opposition fires off their side."

One party argues it's side, with the other party also questioning witnesses and the other counsel. Then it reverses. There is plenty of too and fro in both cases. There is also a large amount of prior knowledge and discussion about much of the detail. These things can be reported and discussed - if the author is willing and able.

" We can only fairly, accurately and contemporaneously report on proceedings as the trial progresses."

Then report accurately.

"Thus accusing us of censorship or bias implies your inability to read previous coverage, or appreciate the above point."

Hardly, that's logic stretched way beyond breaking point - there has been a lot of ranting (which can't help either way) but I don't think measured and/or legitimate queries about missing information or perceived bias is always out of order. '[T]he above point' is also not entirely correct.

"No one's side has been omitted."

Much of Google cross earlier, and a huge amount of pertinent background information, has been missing in the two previous articles i've read. Oracle cross is largely missing here... most of this part has been missed in truth.... previous days coverage has been largely AWOL as well.

" It's an ongoing trial, if you can't keep up, be quiet."

Well put. With the greatest of respect, please do one or the other.


Back to the forum


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017