Roy, you are insulting, you are stirring hatred and mutual distrust in the community, you know that? You alone have caused much more damage to the Linux community than everything Microsoft could ever do.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

http://geekpi.com/?p=27

“Oh, and just a note, other than this loaner laptop, I receive zero compensation from Microsoft (or from any other entity), my regular job is covering my travel expenses to the conference, and I receive no advertising dollars from this website.”

It sounds like this chap considers his “loaner” (not “loaned”) laptop to be compensation.

Back in Vista days, bloggers were not required to return the laptops, either.

It seems to me like quite a few people are doing some ‘damage control’ at the moment.

I have the advantage of having been at the “secret” event in question–which, of course, I disclosed that I attended, which is an odd thing to do with a secret meeting–and you’re smearing people without knowing what you’re talking about.

-Harry

I wouldn’t worry too much about this, Roy Schestowitz also employs (in his word) shills, nymshifters and munchkins that spew drivel about Microsoft everywhere, insult people and promote his website. So his credibility is right around the zero mark now. This guy:

http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377

is one of them, currently on loan from Slashdot. If you use Google Site Search for ‘twitter’ you’ll get an idea of how all that works.

And don’t be surprised if ‘twitter’ makes an appearance to insult you, your dog, family, etc. Apparently that’s his main task around here, partially hidden behind who-knows-how-many identities. A few days ago he was let loose on Alex Brown of ISO as well. Defending yourself from Roy’s libel can be an adventure in itself thanks to his cadre of loopy ninjas

Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

1) I received no “$2000 gift”–as I stated (and you quote), the laptop is a loaner which I will return to Microsoft.

2) Okay, one of your posts says that the laptop is on permanent loan and therefore indistinguishable from a gift. News to me–I received both verbal and written notification from Microsoft that they expect me to return it. And I will, most likely well before their deadline.

3) It was of some value for the first 40 hours or so after I received it, when I used it to use Windows 7 and develop some opinions about it. Once I received the code on DVD, I installed it on two machines I own, and haven’t used the loaner since (I may or may not use it further before returning it to Microsoft).

4) In one of your earlier posts, you discuss a “secret” Microsoft meeting and say that nobody there talked about it or the laptops distributed at it; I disclosed both the meeting and the laptop in my story, so that I had nothing to hide and readers could draw their own conclusions.

5) Every word I wrote about Windows 7 was my sincere take on it, and the fact that Microsoft loaned me a laptop had no impact; my credibility as a journalist is worth way, way more than $2000 and if I lose it, I lose everything. Even if I was willing to be bribed, it would be a moronic financial decision.

6) If you Google for me you’ll find that last year I quit a job that paid a -lot- more than $2000 rather than being forced to make decisions about editorial content based on money from a company I covered.

7) I have about 18 years of public track record of writing about Microsoft, and if you check it out (including stuff I’ve written since the post you quote) you’ll see that I’m hardly a shill for them.

You’re perfectly entitled to discuss this laptop loaner program and even express opinions on whether it has an impact on coverage of Windows 7; it’s a legitimate topic for discussion, which is one reason why I disclosed I’d accepted the loaner. But your posts would be far more effective if you stuck to the facts.

–Harry McCracken, editor, Technologizer