Make sure you read this post and all the comments for the history behind it, but Gene Steinberg replied today to a post I made over a month ago about how he was clearly not reading my original Apple Matters article by claiming that I clearly wasn’t reading his article. What was really funny is that he takes issue that I hid my rebuttal on my “personal blog.” Here’s part of my reply:
Man, you really can’t read yourself well then can you? Your critique is filled with points that talk about me rather than the issues I raised in my original article. Actually, you call every point that I make in the Apple Matters piece into question by saying things like “I don’t know if Sample, who considers himself a Mac guru, did that, since it’s not mentioned in the article.” Now, considering that I am a Mac guru, wouldn’t you assume that I did? I mean, that’s not arguing my article, that’s making assumptions about me that imply that I am misrepresenting myself.
Oh, and Gene, if you ever get around to finding this reply, I’d like you to explain the difference between my well-trafficked personal blog and your website where you concealed your original critique of my Apple Matters piece without a heads-up (and just in case you’re not following, that’s what you accuse me of doing in your comment, even though it doesn’t make any sense).
Update: I closed comments on this, because I can, and I’m sick of hearing it.
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments }
This blog is well trafficked? Who knew? ;)
Without a heads-up? And just exactly how were you supposed to give a heads-up to a guy with a blog that doesn’t have comments or trackbacks, and forces you dig into the source to find the freaking permalink?
And that’s ok, because “he didn’t write the software”? I guess he expects personal email from everyone who references his articles on their blogs. Which leaves me with only two questions: what is he on, and where can I get some?
But then what can you really expect from someone who has a headline on his site proclaiming “July 21st, 2005! New! Try our RSS feed!”. At least now we know why he didn’t understand your complaint about Safari and feeds…and why no one seems to have offered him a book deal on technology less than tree years old.
Gene: you don’t have to write it; you just have to use it. May I suggest Moveable Type or Word Press? You can have comments and trackbacks this afternoon. Probably with your existing database. You’ll never miss a “heads-up” again.
I’m still awaiting some valid criticisms, rather than personal attacks. Personal attacks are the last refuge of people who have nothing valid to say.
As to the alleged “heads-up,” well since you don’t have a clearly available email address (and I have better things to do than hunt for one), it wasn’t possible. However, my article was nonetheless widely quoted. What’s more, and I guess you didn’t notice, every single page at macnightowl.com has a clearly labeled email link for reader responses and I didn’t get a response from you. I’m happy to run a point-by-point rebuttal if you can bring yourself to deliver one, but you have to stop the personal attacks and try to talk about the issues I raised.
As of today, all I see are more personal attacks. It’s pathetic.
Message to the reader: You may see more inaccurate, irrelevant personal attacks against me in the days to come. If you enjoy playing in that sandbox, fine with me. But the only response you’ll see from me from here on is one that addresses valid criticisms or comments about my articles. If one appears, write me at gene@macnightowl.com and I’ll take a look.
Gene Steinberg
Gene, you continue to overlook that your original article implies that I don’t know what I am talking about with no real information; your only evidence is conjecture which is strewn throughout the article. That’s my point. And that is a valid criticism of your article that has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal attacks against you.
Could you consider for a moment how your article was the first pie thrown in this situation? You didn’t comment on Apple Matters to ask me if I had tried any of the troubleshooting techniques that you suggest in your article. You instead went to your own site and started off by saying: “While I seldom criticize other writers in public, I’m going to use one specific article strictly as a typical example of the ‘my problem is really your problem’ syndrome. Please don’t take this as a personal attack. It’s just a sample case history.” So you yourself admit that it is a criticism of me, the other writer in question.
You then go on to say things like the following: “Sample wants to be able to turn Dashboard off, which is an absurd request, for obvious reasons. If your Mac is suddenly beginning to slow down, you can use Activity Viewer (in the Utilities folder) to check which applications might be memory and/or CPU hogs. That’s a crucial step in finding out what’s wrong. I don’t know if Sample, who considers himself a Mac guru, did that, since it’s not mentioned in the article.”
A. You offer no suggestion for why this is an absurd request. If a user never uses the Dashboard, why should he/she have it running all the time.
B. I did check the Activity Viewer. I also ran top from the command line. Some of the widgets were taking up more memory than they should. But you didn’t bother to ask any of these questions of me on Apple Matters, instead you launched in this “instructive” article that in its tone is very negative towards me.
I’m sending this to you via email in addition to posting it here. My email is available via the pic of me in the sidebar on the left.
I still await your alleged email, which somehow never arrived.
In any case, for those who still haven’t read the original article I wrote, I made it perfectly clear at the outset that it was not intended as a personal attack. My statements were made in response to your article, not your personality. I did not make assumptions about what you didn’t say, since I do not pretend to be a mind reader.
In any case, your comment in point “A” is incoherent, and in “B,” you never reveal which widgets are using excessive amounts of memory. And, even then, you don’t state whether you made any effort to see if the problems you claim to have encountered were experienced by others, and that IS a main point of my criticism.
I await a real rebuttal to my article, if you can offer one on a point-by-point basis, shorn of personal attacks, but it appears it’s going to be a long, long wait. But it has to come to me via email.
Gene Steinberg
Well, I did email you; I’m not doing it again. Also, it would be nice, if you stopped talking to my audience in your replies and actually talked to me, as I did in the comment above yours. I do point out exactly where you veer away from valid criticism and begin attacks against me. Whether you intended it or not, the wording and tone of your original post is none too kind to yours truly, as it continually implies that I do not know what I am talking about. Address that, and then perhaps I’ll listen to you.
Also, don’t come on my blog and tell me that my reply to you has to be via email. You haven’t ever emailed me once. Instead, you keep haunting my comments with your rhetoric and spin, trying to get a little Google juice from my rebuttals to you. I’m done with it. If you want to chat, email me. Click my picture in the top of the left column, or go to my About page and click on the ID picture there (where it also appears in the picture. Don’t bother commenting again if you are going to continue to try to spin a picture for my readers that is clearly your own distorted view of the issue.
If you want to deal with real points of my original article, I first want to see you address the problems with your rather rude rebuttal piece. Until then, I’m done with you and this conversation.
As to your alleged email, feel free to send me evidence that you really sent it, for otherwise I find little reason to believe you. Once again, the address is gene@macnightowl.com.
Now let’s try this one more time, since you seem to be trying to do everything you can to avoid the issues.
A case in point: I responded to your point “A’ and point “B” in message number 4. You avoided my response completely, and then went off half-cocked with nonsense about “Google juice” and other imaginary concepts.
For those of you wondering what this is all about, my original article referred to five questionable items in your article, covering Dashboard, Spotlight, Safari’s RSS reader, iChat’s file transfer feature, and iPhoto. You made a feeble attempt to respond to the Dashboard issue, but essentially ignored the others.
The real point of your original article is that you assume the problems you may or may not have with Tiger must be Apple’s fault, and that because they affect you, they must affect lots of people. My response is that your assumptions are not necessarily correct for the reasons I stated and there may be other issues involved.
Unfortunately, you seem to have some strange aversion to talking about those issues, and would rather make silly charges, that, for example, people who dare to disagree with you must be rude or are engaged in making personal attacks. That is simply non-responsive. Perhaps you are just seeking material for your blog. I have no idea, but my mailbox remains open if you can bring yourself to make a point-by-point rebuttal to what I said.
In the absense of said rebuttal, my comments stand as written, and it’s clear from your response, that my points were absolutely correct.
Gene Steinberg
You clearly cannot read very well. I’ve told you several times how to email me. You haven’t. You keep commenting on my site that I need to email you. If you want me to email you, then email me, and stop bothering my site with your repetitive blinders-on comments.
This would appear to be a trait of yours though. Someone faults you for an article you wrote full of ad hominem attacks against that someone, and your response is to pop up in the comments to that someone’s post on that person’s website and accuse that someone of attacking you with ad hominem attacks and for not emailing you directly. Then when that someone points this out and asks that you email him, you continue to argue the point publicly, all the while decrying that someone for not just emailing you.
Hello, kettle.
Comments on this entry are closed.