“Never try to teach a pig to wrestle. You only get muddy and the pig enjoys it.”
Inara Pey may be a nice lady. I don’t know her. Some of my friends evidently do. But I call bullshit.
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, here we go again. Ms. Pey has decided to take me on for what she calls my “Attitude.” In case you are unaware, I recently called her on a factual error she made in her summary of Rod Humble’s keynote address to SLCC. In a comment to her blog I pointed out that she had reported that the Linden Lab CEO had claimed that “LL’s income is over $75 million,” when in fact what he said was that LL’s Gross Revenue is over $75 million. For you non-accountants out there, Revenue is the “top-line.” Revenue minus your costs (like labor and rent and servers) = Income. Income is the “bottom-line.” To confuse the two is a big mistake and very misleading for an unaware reader.
I’m sure Linden Lab would love for people to think it was true.
Irregardless, as I was posting a second comment to her blog, she corrected her error in the Blog text and then proceeded to delete my comment. I watched it happen in real time. I posted several comments then and each one was deleted until I informed her that I had screen shots.
She is now claiming that she reacted in this manner because of a previous blog comment of mine, where I complained that her many misspellings of “patent” as “patient” were distracting me from what she was trying to say. In that blog she did a similar thing — corrected her mistake and then deleted my comment.
In both cases, she directed her ire at me personally, for my attitude. This is known as the “Ad Hominem” attack — attack the person instead of addressing the issue.
The day before yesterday I blogged about these incidents, only because they are so outrageous. I let the first incident go, in fact I had forgotten about it. But the second incident exposes a pattern and requires some attention.
Ms. Pey has now responded to my blog post. http://wizardgynoid.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/todays-dramas-6/#comments
She continues to assert several interesting things. She claims that she deleted my comments because of my “immature threat.” In fact, she deleted the comments before I told her I had screen shots that showed she was doing so. She then claims that I followed her on Twitter so as to tweet about the matter. In fact, I tweeted first about what was happening. Some time afterwards I searched to see if she was on Twitter. Finding her, I tried to follow her but found that I was already blocked from doing so. She then calls me “childish.”
It is not necessary for me to follow someone to tweet about them.
Next she challenges my account of the number of misspellings of “patient” for “patent.” She makes the claim that she only found two and corrected them. So she admits that there were a significant number of them, since two remain. It so happens that I found the original version of that blog in Google cache. There it is in its pristine glory, before I alerted her to the many misspellings. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XtoRMZkyL5sJ:modemworld.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/the-viewer-licence-to-patent/+http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/the-viewer-licence-to-patent/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
As you can see for yourself, in a blog on the topic of patents, she misspells patent as patient SIX times. My comment simply was that this was distracting.
As a matter of fact, her blog with the Income mistake (before my comments) is recorded for all to see in Google cache here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J59oEcSQN-YJ:modemworld.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/rodvik-at-slcc-2011-the-gist/+http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/rodvik-at-slcc-2011-the-gist/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
I might ask who is being childish?