Re: Warning: Gibson's GENESIS is broken as published

From: Genesis Flaw (genesis_flaw@netzero.net)
Date: 03/08/02 

From: "Genesis Flaw" <genesis_flaw@netzero.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:57:06 +0000 (UTC)

[Day 12 and counting .. no fix to Steve Gibson's GENESIS pages]

Sam Schinke wrote:
(on Steve Gibson saying he would correct the false GENESIS pages)
> These headers should help you find the message I was thinking of:
> news://news.grc.com/MPG.16e9ab7131d0449298a3af@207.71.92.194
> ============================================
> Path: news.grc.com!.
> From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
> Newsgroups: grc.news.feedback
> Subject: Re: Who said wishes can't come true?
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:15:33 -0800
> Message-ID: <MPG.16e9ab7131d0449298a3af@207.71.92.194>
> ============================================

Oh Sam, Sam, Sam.
I'm bitterly disappointed in you.
This week you've proven you can grasp the technology
better than the man you defend. You've argued his case,
paving the way for him to improve his design.

You defend him "to the last drop of blood" as he repays
you by hiding in his cave.

Here is Steve Gibson on Mar. 1, when he knows the GENESIS pages are
wrong:

>At this point doing so would be reactive, defensive, and time
>consuming. I don't care what TC Green, or anyone else with a cross to
>bear, says or thinks.

I was right. Steve is reacting based on public perception.
To defend himself from Greene's "rant", he responded the same day.
In his personal newsgroups, he gets the gentlest, most motherly
prod to "do the right thing":

A snippet from BullBar's reply:
>I'm not thinking of TC Greene or other 'comentators', I'm thinking of the
>folks that want to understand how you have achieved what you have achieived.
>Seeing that you have quite generously placed it in the public domain (if I
>remember correctly) wouldn't it be a plus for the information to be
>accurate?

And what do you say, Sam?
This:

>I see no need to take them down, personally. They _are_ in your "r&d"
>section, afterall.

Oh Sam!
Is it that you now understand better the flaws in the posted GENESIS?
If so, what have you posted since in Steve's private world to say so?
Please tell me you are not the Gibson groupie others have suggested.
I'm sorry folks.
I know this is off topic for the newsgroup.
I'm disappointed.
I tried to be fair and objective with Steve Gibson and it was fruitless.
BullBar was kindly and it was fruitless.
Thomas Greene got results.

Daily, the evidence mounts against honest Steve, populist champion
and support the Georgie Porgie Steve. Daily it is harder to look at
what he's done - and continues to do - and characterise it as acting in
the interest of his readers.

> It looks like it might be a little while before they are fully updated,
> though. Would you settle for an interim "blurb" noting that the pages are
> out of date until they are updated?

Would I settle?
You speak like a mediator but deny that you are.
If you don't speak with authority, don't make offers Gibson isn't held
to.

Do I want him to write an interim "blurb"?
Yes. I've already said so.
But they aren't just "out of date".
Those are ambiguous words and can be used by him as weasle words.
The pages are wrong.
That's well established.

> > I'm happy to review the revised web pages when Steve Gibson comes out of
> > his cave.
>
> Another curious characterization. Don't you get bored of them? They are so
> easy to make, after all.

I'm searching for what best described him.
Honest, trustworthy, ingenious, beautiful and perfect?
Doesn't seem to fit so well.
But this is off topic.
I'll let you have the last word.

...
> But when or if you publish another review I will read it, and if it contains
> what amounts to personal attacks, I will reply and point them out. As I have
> done in our back-and-forth here.

The ball is not in my court, Sam.
You want another review?
You write it.
Post it here and in Gibsonland and I'll comment on it.
 
> > Forgive me for speculating on his character, but the longer he hides
> > and does nothing, the harder it is to view him as respectable.
>
> And the longer you continue to characterize being busy doing other things as
> "hiding" and "doing nothing" the harder it is to view you as unbiased. Fair
> enough?

No.
Gibson took no time to post a defensive "blurb".
He can make time to post an "I was wrong" blurb.
I don't buy the "he's busy" excuse you make for him.
He admits he is waiting for the attention to die down.
That's pathetic.

In an effort to let the advocacy part of these threads die Sam,
I leave you the last word.

And Steve, here's your olive branch.
Post a blurb that warns readers of the errors in the posted GENESIS,
so that a new reader of those pages will know it isn't something they
should run off and implement, and I'll drop the warning campaign.

Simple as that.

Do it by 12:00 AM Monday, Mar. 11, 2002, and I won't crow about it
like I achieved a victory and you were frogmarched. After all, it's
Sam's idea, not mine.

Leave it any longer and the need to spread the word remains. 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG