Thousands of books, government courses in high school, law schools, etc.
It's different from the word "censure" which means a judgement of condemnation, which can be from anyone.
Censorship is a term that is used incorrectly many times. That doesn't give those incorrect uses authority.
Editorial judgments are made all the time. Appropriateness is the job of the editor. What is published in one journal may not be fit for another. Editorial judgements are not the same as censorship.
However, if the government says that no journal may publish it, that's censorship.
An example would be those seven words not allowed on TV (though they are now coming out after all). The network "censors" were there to make sure they, and other matters, didn't appear. But it was understood that the government would have legislated its own rules had the networks not acceded to their expectations. That's censorship. You can see what the networks are doing since the government has loosened up.
Yes I know what it means mate, but you are defining it at purely as an act of government. This simply isn't true; while governments are most often the censor by the nature of their position it is possible for any body or individual in a position of power to censor information.
Steve Jobs is president and CEO of 2 companies which belong to the top 100 companies listed on the NASDQ stock exchange.
Quite naturally, there is interest in his life and upbringing. The fact that he was adopted makes his life even more fascinating. And his success more rewarding.
In any biography of Steve Jobs, there can be a mention of his adoptive parents who raised him and gave him values. But has Steve Jobs ever met his biological father? I doubt it and don't believe they keep in touch. Therefore, the biological father of Steve Jobs is of little, if any, interest to anyone.
Why would I want to read about some unknown character who never played any significant role in Steve Jobs life? And pay to read about it?
To quote William Shatner on the fans who obsess about his character of Captain Kirk "Get a life!"
"Like me, Jane was born out of wedlock, grew up with a single mother, moved 13 times, and began the slow process of getting to know her father later in life."
The only thing that bothered me about Jobs various biographys was the suggestion that he had abandoned his daughter to live in poverty as a child - but it looks like it worked out in the end.
BTW - she verifies the biological grandfather: "Jane di Natali, her full name in the novel, sounds very much like "Jondali," my Arabic grandfather's name which, by a twist of fate, I didn't inherit."
"Like me, Jane was born out of wedlock, grew up with a single mother, moved 13 times, and began the slow process of getting to know her father later in life."
The only thing that bothered me about Jobs various biographys was the suggestion that he had abandoned his daughter to live in poverty as a child - but it looks like it worked out in the end.
BTW - she verifies the biological grandfather: "Jane di Natali, her full name in the novel, sounds very much like "Jondali," my Arabic grandfather's name which, by a twist of fate, I didn't inherit."
It doesn't really sound like that in her writing. It seems as though her mother was as much a part of the decision, and that she got to know him fairly young.
I agree, the guy is a nutcase, there's no news here, and it's not censorship to say that AppleInsider shouldn't have posted this "story" in the first place. What the hell difference does it make to anybody who Jobs's natural parents are? What new computer they're making, that's interesting. Butt out of the guy's private life.
I should clarify my original post. I was not saying that AI shouldn't have posted the "story" -- though it's a bit questionable -- but instead that objective "journalists" don't use the wording as italicized in the quotes.
So much to say, so little time to say it (i. e. the attention span of the average person (nee AI reader) is like what, 10 seconds)!
Censorship, BIG subject, many forms (i. e. state, private, individual (you're still listening aren't you?)). This is definitely related to 'eliefs (both big B's as well as small b's). Most of us censure ourselves on a daily basis (i. e. social PC), or censure others in our own minds (we ignore or don't listen (in one ear out the other)). AI forum ruleZ, anyone? Trying to define the debate by dictating a narrow definition of censorship, is IMHO a flawed premise. Why even debate it, narrow definition, you win, broad definition, I win. No boundaries for me, thank you! I definitely prefer a free exchange of ideas!
On Jobs, reading this thread, y'all sound like minions, for Christ's sake . NOT interested in the man behind the RDF curtain? NOT even a teeny-weeny-itsy-bitsy curious bone in your body? I wonder what the emperor's wearing today? I wonder how many of you would hold the same position if this was about BG (or SB) trash talk? What's that H word? Jobs is a major raincoater, get over it! If someone exposes themselves, I think it's appropriate to ask why (and who, what, when, where, and how). It's definitely a double-edged sword.
On a more serious note, this guy has been known to be writing a book about Jobs (i. e. MWSF05) for sometime now, apparently it's in publication now, this WILL happen. It's certainly appropriate for AI to give us the head's up!
On a less serious note, can someone please provide links to Hollywood Insider (nee HI) and Africanized B's?
What...are you...talking...about? Where is there any implication of racism towards Syrians in this entire thread or article?
The implication/tone was NOT intended I'm sure, but I too got an impression of racism here. I agree with him on that.
People are talking about the BAD things wealthy business leaders do, and how those things should be uncovered for the public. Phrases like "should be publicly critisized," "anything to hide," "Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship" (when in fact the article was pulled BEFORE Jobs responded), "pulling down other people," etc. are all focussed on BAD things about Jobs. And Jobs' ancestry is the fact in question here, after all. How is that bad?
Now, those phrases did NOT come from people talking about THIS situation. They were general statements about people in general, or maybe about the iCon book. So nobody was really saying that Steve' Jobs' racial background is a bad thing. It's something to be proud of, obviously, and yet far less important than the people who raised him.
So the implication may seem to be "Steve Jobs is of Syrian descent and the public deserves to know this awful truth!" But reading more carefully, I'm sure that position was never actually intended.
I see some editing on your part. I looked for the quotes you had and i did not see that in the article. Interesting.. was this a troll article, did you expect people not to have read the original article?. I haven't read all the post yet, i will just to see how many people fell for this troll.
I see some editing on your part. I looked for the quotes you had and i did not see that in the article.
Dirty poker on some administrator or moderator's part. The italicized parts WERE there in the article. Notice I'm the first to respond to it. After I pointed it out they might have edited it.
Third though: He could have been more communicative than "are you a nut case?" and stripping of press credentials. Like "yes I am a public figure but I would like to keep my private life private and I would prefer that you respected that". Then there would not have been a story at all.
you know, it's possible that he did (i know, unlikely, but possible... like maybe meteor crashing into the earth tomorrow killing us all kind of possible, but possible nonetheless), but you know, the media ONLY finds out about/pushes the "are you a nut case" e-mail, because it's jucier.
really, you've got to assume half to three-quarters of all info you receive is being spun for profit and advertisers for those information outlets. you've (not you-personally, anders, "you" in the generic sense) also got to stop worrying about how others handle their lives. heck, i live in "nosey-busy-body central" down here in my little 'burb of louisiana, where getting into the rumor mills and gossip is practically a contact sport, and it's truly just to fill up space in some people's very empty lives.
It can be difficult to be calm and moderated about something that affects us personally. And if this subject is something that Jobs hasn't wanted to think about over the years, seeing it in print might very well have caused him to respond that way.
His response could have been far worse. I think the authors' response to Jobs' remark shows even less care and intelligence. He must have realized that Jobs was upset about it. But he didn't think when he responded. His response was more on the order of "Oh yeah, you too".
It's sort of the response someone will make when they can't think of what to say.
It can be difficult to be calm and moderated about something that affects us personally. And if this subject is something that Jobs hasn't wanted to think about over the years, seeing it in print might very well have caused him to respond that way.
His response could have been far worse. I think the authors' response to Jobs' remark shows even less care and intelligence. He must have realized that Jobs was upset about it. But he didn't think when he responded. His response was more on the order of "Oh yeah, you too".
It's sort of the response someone will make when they can't think of what to say.
"Your mother wears combat books!"
"Yours too!"
Brilliant thinking.
Well, Jobs response "are you a nut case" is just as brilliant as the author comeback (not that i am defending the author). Also, just because Jobs doesn't like something does not mean that other people should care. He doesn't run the world. You write as if the author should have been deeply caring about Jobs feelings, please!!.. Jobs is no pushover. You think Jobs hasn't been uncaring to some journalist?.. Now, I agree that were I in jobs position, i would not have wanted my private life published and i might have said something but at the same token, the author has a right to respond to whatever Jobs said. Asking someone if they are a nutcase is not caring. If someone asked me if i was a nutcase, i would not care about hurting their feelings or showing lack of care in my response, would you?.
Please people!!!.. stop the insanity. This is a story of a guy trying to make a buck and another guy doesn't want him to make a buck at his expense. End of story. Move on!!.. nothing here to see.
Dirty poker on some administrator or moderator's part. The italicized parts WERE there in the article. Notice I'm the first to respond to it. After I pointed it out they might have edited it.
Well, Jobs response "are you a nut case" is just as brilliant as the author comeback (not that i am defending the author). Also, just because Jobs doesn't like something does not mean that other people should care. He doesn't run the world. You write as if the author should have been deeply caring about Jobs feelings, please!!.. Jobs is no pushover. You think Jobs hasn't been uncaring to some journalist?.. Now, I agree that were I in jobs position, i would not have wanted my private life published and i might have said something but at the same token, the author has a right to respond to whatever Jobs said. Asking someone if they are a nutcase is not caring. If someone asked me if i was a nutcase, i would not care about hurting their feelings or showing lack of care in my response, would you?.
Please people!!!.. stop the insanity. This is a story of a guy trying to make a buck and another guy doesn't want him to make a buck at his expense. End of story. Move on!!.. nothing here to see.
I think you missed my point. In fact, I know you did.
The very idea that the author sent Jobs a copy meant that he wanted to know what Jobs thought. His publishing company didn't think that his work was worth publishung so there is that as well.
I'm asure that if you were important enough for someone to go digging in your past, the past that you might want to forget about, and sends you the article through your own e-mail, you might get upset and mail an annoyed reply back as well. Look at all of the guys here who insult someone just because they disageee with them. It's human nature.
I'm not saying that Jod's reply was the best. But it was understandable. The author must of known that JOBs wouldn't have been pleases, as he has gone out of his way not to talk about it over the years, even when asked.
The authors reply was therefore childish. He was obviously looking for a reaction from Jobs, and he got it.
And to answer your last question. His answer back to Jobs, proves the point of "showing lack of care in my (his) response."
I think you missed my point. In fact, I know you did.
The very idea that the author sent Jobs a copy meant that he wanted to know what Jobs thought. His publishing company didn't think that his work was worth publishung so there is that as well.
I'm asure that if you were important enough for someone to go digging in your past, the past that you might want to forget about, and sends you the article through your own e-mail, you might get upset and mail an annoyed reply back as well. Look at all of the guys here who insult someone just because they disageee with them. It's human nature.
I'm not saying that Jod's reply was the best. But it was understandable. The author must of known that JOBs wouldn't have been pleases, as he has gone out of his way not to talk about it over the years, even when asked.
The authors reply was therefore childish. He was obviously looking for a reaction from Jobs, and he got it.
And to answer your last question. His answer back to Jobs, proves the point of "showing lack of care in my (his) response."
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
Your problem can be seen very quickly. "the mighty Jobs", the "rock star of technology", There's some jealousy there no doubt, some anger as well.
To me, Jobs is a neutral character. I don't care one way or the other about his personal life, except to point out to my daughter, who is adopted, that here's another person for whom adoption wasn't a detriment (she likes to see people who were adopted).
This was a very difficult aspect to some people's lives. But I have nothing against him writing the article.
The point I made about it being rejected was that if it weren't, he most likely would never have sent it to Jobs in the first place. It was a publicity stunt on his part. He was hoping for a reaction from Jobs, who is known to be mercurial about discussion of his past personal life. As he has a right to be.
The author had to know, since he had researched him, that Job's response would be something like that. He was, if anything, hoping for it. So his response in turn, was childish.
The whole point to his sending this to Jobs was to rev up interest in it by some other publisher after it had been rejected by his own. It was a very cynical stunt. He should have come away from it, if anything, satisfied that he had gotten what he wanted out of it. His publicizing it, which he didn't have to do, shows that it was a stunt. his reaction, therefore, was strange, to say the least. He saw how sales of "iCon" rose after Jobs banned it from his stores. He was counting on this reaction to help hin as well.
Should Appleinsider have reported it? I don't know. Should the Star and The Enquirer, and People magazine, plus a hundred other publications, as well as Entertainment Tonight, and other TV shows like it, as well as gossip columns exist? I don't know that either.
But as long as people show an interest in what the "Rich and the Famous" do and think, they will.
Your problem can be seen very quickly. "the mighty Jobs", the "rock star of technology", There's some jealousy there no doubt, some anger as well.
To me, Jobs is a neutral character. I don't care one way or the other about his personal life, except to point out to my daughter, who is adopted, that here's another person for whom adoption wasn't a detriment (she likes to see people who were adopted).
This was a very difficult aspect to some people's lives. But I have nothing against him writing the article.
The point I made about it being rejected was that if it weren't, he most likely would never have sent it to Jobs in the first place. It was a publicity stunt on his part. He was hoping for a reaction from Jobs, who is known to be mercurial about discussion of his past personal life. As he has a right to be.
The author had to know, since he had researched him, that Job's response would be something like that. He was, if anything, hoping for it. So his response in turn, was childish.
The whole point to his sending this to Jobs was to rev up interest in it by some other publisher after it had been rejected by his own. It was a very cynical stunt. He should have come away from it, if anything, satisfied that he had gotten what he wanted out of it. His publicizing it, which he didn't have to do, shows that it was a stunt. his reaction, therefore, was strange, to say the least. He saw how sales of "iCon" rose after Jobs banned it from his stores. He was counting on this reaction to help hin as well.
Should Appleinsider have reported it? I don't know. Should the Star and The Enquirer, and People magazine, plus a hundred other publications, as well as Entertainment Tonight, and other TV shows like it, as well as gossip columns exist? I don't know that either.
But as long as people show an interest in what the "Rich and the Famous" do and think, they will.
Jealous of Jobs?.. I want to be Jobs!!!!.. I just think apple fans are irrational. When this happens to Bill Gates, does it get reported?. Don't you think this has happened to Bill Gates?.. To other rich and famous people?. Mac people still have the inferiority complex.. anytime something negative about Apple or Jobs is said, we all go crying "mommy, the bully is picking on me". Geez.. my point is this is a non-story. We mac fans are so thin skinned. Apple is growing into a big company. It's time we shed the "us against the world" mentality. So someone tried to get a reaction out of Jobs to sell a book, BIG FUCKING DEAL. Today, somewhere in the world, someone else did the same thing to another famous person and tomorrow, they will do it again and the next day again, and again and again.
Ok.. maybe those people discuss it as much as we do.. If so, then i apologize. Let the discussion continue!!!. (besides, it's friday.. nobody gets real work done in the office on fridays)We might as well bash an author, it's seems a fun thing to do.
Maxwell wrote that article probably with the idea of directing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment against Steve Jobs. He probably thinks he can embarass Jobs by claiming that he is of Syrian descent, especially after the UN claimed that Syria was responsible for the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Maxwell clearly is nuts. Who knows, he may even be dangerous and turn violent.
Since you haven't read the article, nor ever met me, why do you find that you can post this libel?
What...are you...talking...about? Where is there any implication of racism towards Syrians in this entire thread or article? And how on earth could you possibly derive that as your summary...hahaha. I do hope you were joking.
No, you didn't read a few pages of the "nut case's" work because it's not being sold on Amazon! The "nut case" text was read and subsiquently denied by his publisher. You are referring to the iCon biography, which is entirely seperate from the person whom Steve called a nut case and has nothing to do with the bulk of this appleinsider article except that it is another case where Steve did not endorse or warm up to works about him.
They were only using that example because otherwise the content of the article would have been entirely too short and even less news worthy then it already is.
The reason why they taught you that in ethics class and not Law class is because it is not at all true in a legal sense. A private citizen public figure is called a voluntary or involuntary public figure who may have to prove malice vs a fully private citizen who just has to prove negligence.
Steve Jobs is an all-purpose public figure, a member of a publicly traded company and someone who casts his image into public light on a regular basis.
Again, I and others just felt that this was not worthy of being covered by AI. But at the same time it's funny to see the "classic Steve" and this is a great discussion.
Again, I wrote the piece, and you haven't read it, yet somehow find that you can act as an expert not only on the piece but on my person. FYI: my former publisher hadn't read a word from the manuscript when he canceled the contract two days after MacWorld. But when has knowing what one is talking about been a requirement to post on a forum?
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Thousands of books, government courses in high school, law schools, etc.
It's different from the word "censure" which means a judgement of condemnation, which can be from anyone.
Censorship is a term that is used incorrectly many times. That doesn't give those incorrect uses authority.
Editorial judgments are made all the time. Appropriateness is the job of the editor. What is published in one journal may not be fit for another. Editorial judgements are not the same as censorship.
However, if the government says that no journal may publish it, that's censorship.
An example would be those seven words not allowed on TV (though they are now coming out after all). The network "censors" were there to make sure they, and other matters, didn't appear. But it was understood that the government would have legislated its own rules had the networks not acceded to their expectations. That's censorship. You can see what the networks are doing since the government has loosened up.
Yes I know what it means mate, but you are defining it at purely as an act of government. This simply isn't true; while governments are most often the censor by the nature of their position it is possible for any body or individual in a position of power to censor information.
Quite naturally, there is interest in his life and upbringing. The fact that he was adopted makes his life even more fascinating. And his success more rewarding.
In any biography of Steve Jobs, there can be a mention of his adoptive parents who raised him and gave him values. But has Steve Jobs ever met his biological father? I doubt it and don't believe they keep in touch. Therefore, the biological father of Steve Jobs is of little, if any, interest to anyone.
Why would I want to read about some unknown character who never played any significant role in Steve Jobs life? And pay to read about it?
To quote William Shatner on the fans who obsess about his character of Captain Kirk "Get a life!"
Pierre
Gatineau, Quebec
http://www.theharvardadvocate.com/archives/driving.html
"Like me, Jane was born out of wedlock, grew up with a single mother, moved 13 times, and began the slow process of getting to know her father later in life."
The only thing that bothered me about Jobs various biographys was the suggestion that he had abandoned his daughter to live in poverty as a child - but it looks like it worked out in the end.
BTW - she verifies the biological grandfather: "Jane di Natali, her full name in the novel, sounds very much like "Jondali," my Arabic grandfather's name which, by a twist of fate, I didn't inherit."
Originally posted by e1618978
An article by Lisa Brennen-Jobs (namesake for the Lisa computer, Jobs first daughter):
http://www.theharvardadvocate.com/archives/driving.html
"Like me, Jane was born out of wedlock, grew up with a single mother, moved 13 times, and began the slow process of getting to know her father later in life."
The only thing that bothered me about Jobs various biographys was the suggestion that he had abandoned his daughter to live in poverty as a child - but it looks like it worked out in the end.
BTW - she verifies the biological grandfather: "Jane di Natali, her full name in the novel, sounds very much like "Jondali," my Arabic grandfather's name which, by a twist of fate, I didn't inherit."
It doesn't really sound like that in her writing. It seems as though her mother was as much a part of the decision, and that she got to know him fairly young.
So much to say, so little time to say it (i. e. the attention span of the average person (nee AI reader) is like what, 10 seconds)!
Censorship, BIG subject, many forms (i. e. state, private, individual (you're still listening aren't you?)). This is definitely related to 'eliefs (both big B's as well as small b's). Most of us censure ourselves on a daily basis (i. e. social PC), or censure others in our own minds (we ignore or don't listen (in one ear out the other)). AI forum ruleZ, anyone? Trying to define the debate by dictating a narrow definition of censorship, is IMHO a flawed premise. Why even debate it, narrow definition, you win, broad definition, I win. No boundaries for me, thank you! I definitely prefer a free exchange of ideas!
On Jobs, reading this thread, y'all sound like minions, for Christ's sake
On a more serious note, this guy has been known to be writing a book about Jobs (i. e. MWSF05) for sometime now, apparently it's in publication now, this WILL happen. It's certainly appropriate for AI to give us the head's up!
On a less serious note, can someone please provide links to Hollywood Insider (nee HI) and Africanized B's?
Originally posted by Mero
What...are you...talking...about? Where is there any implication of racism towards Syrians in this entire thread or article?
The implication/tone was NOT intended I'm sure, but I too got an impression of racism here. I agree with him on that.
People are talking about the BAD things wealthy business leaders do, and how those things should be uncovered for the public. Phrases like "should be publicly critisized," "anything to hide," "Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship" (when in fact the article was pulled BEFORE Jobs responded), "pulling down other people," etc. are all focussed on BAD things about Jobs. And Jobs' ancestry is the fact in question here, after all. How is that bad?
Now, those phrases did NOT come from people talking about THIS situation. They were general statements about people in general, or maybe about the iCon book. So nobody was really saying that Steve' Jobs' racial background is a bad thing. It's something to be proud of, obviously, and yet far less important than the people who raised him.
So the implication may seem to be "Steve Jobs is of Syrian descent and the public deserves to know this awful truth!" But reading more carefully, I'm sure that position was never actually intended.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
AppleInsider stories: Journalism at its finest.
I see some editing on your part. I looked for the quotes you had and i did not see that in the article. Interesting.. was this a troll article, did you expect people not to have read the original article?. I haven't read all the post yet, i will just to see how many people fell for this troll.
Originally posted by wnurse
I see some editing on your part. I looked for the quotes you had and i did not see that in the article.
Dirty poker on some administrator or moderator's part. The italicized parts WERE there in the article. Notice I'm the first to respond to it. After I pointed it out they might have edited it.
Originally posted by Anders
Third though: He could have been more communicative than "are you a nut case?" and stripping of press credentials. Like "yes I am a public figure but I would like to keep my private life private and I would prefer that you respected that". Then there would not have been a story at all.
you know, it's possible that he did (i know, unlikely, but possible... like maybe meteor crashing into the earth tomorrow killing us all kind of possible, but possible nonetheless), but you know, the media ONLY finds out about/pushes the "are you a nut case" e-mail, because it's jucier.
really, you've got to assume half to three-quarters of all info you receive is being spun for profit and advertisers for those information outlets. you've (not you-personally, anders, "you" in the generic sense) also got to stop worrying about how others handle their lives. heck, i live in "nosey-busy-body central" down here in my little 'burb of louisiana, where getting into the rumor mills and gossip is practically a contact sport, and it's truly just to fill up space in some people's very empty lives.
His response could have been far worse. I think the authors' response to Jobs' remark shows even less care and intelligence. He must have realized that Jobs was upset about it. But he didn't think when he responded. His response was more on the order of "Oh yeah, you too".
It's sort of the response someone will make when they can't think of what to say.
"Your mother wears combat books!"
"Yours too!"
Brilliant thinking.
Originally posted by melgross
It can be difficult to be calm and moderated about something that affects us personally. And if this subject is something that Jobs hasn't wanted to think about over the years, seeing it in print might very well have caused him to respond that way.
His response could have been far worse. I think the authors' response to Jobs' remark shows even less care and intelligence. He must have realized that Jobs was upset about it. But he didn't think when he responded. His response was more on the order of "Oh yeah, you too".
It's sort of the response someone will make when they can't think of what to say.
"Your mother wears combat books!"
"Yours too!"
Brilliant thinking.
Well, Jobs response "are you a nut case" is just as brilliant as the author comeback (not that i am defending the author). Also, just because Jobs doesn't like something does not mean that other people should care. He doesn't run the world. You write as if the author should have been deeply caring about Jobs feelings, please!!.. Jobs is no pushover. You think Jobs hasn't been uncaring to some journalist?.. Now, I agree that were I in jobs position, i would not have wanted my private life published and i might have said something but at the same token, the author has a right to respond to whatever Jobs said. Asking someone if they are a nutcase is not caring. If someone asked me if i was a nutcase, i would not care about hurting their feelings or showing lack of care in my response, would you?.
Please people!!!.. stop the insanity. This is a story of a guy trying to make a buck and another guy doesn't want him to make a buck at his expense. End of story. Move on!!.. nothing here to see.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Dirty poker on some administrator or moderator's part. The italicized parts WERE there in the article. Notice I'm the first to respond to it. After I pointed it out they might have edited it.
Possible, probably what happened.
Originally posted by wnurse
Well, Jobs response "are you a nut case" is just as brilliant as the author comeback (not that i am defending the author). Also, just because Jobs doesn't like something does not mean that other people should care. He doesn't run the world. You write as if the author should have been deeply caring about Jobs feelings, please!!.. Jobs is no pushover. You think Jobs hasn't been uncaring to some journalist?.. Now, I agree that were I in jobs position, i would not have wanted my private life published and i might have said something but at the same token, the author has a right to respond to whatever Jobs said. Asking someone if they are a nutcase is not caring. If someone asked me if i was a nutcase, i would not care about hurting their feelings or showing lack of care in my response, would you?.
Please people!!!.. stop the insanity. This is a story of a guy trying to make a buck and another guy doesn't want him to make a buck at his expense. End of story. Move on!!.. nothing here to see.
I think you missed my point. In fact, I know you did.
The very idea that the author sent Jobs a copy meant that he wanted to know what Jobs thought. His publishing company didn't think that his work was worth publishung so there is that as well.
I'm asure that if you were important enough for someone to go digging in your past, the past that you might want to forget about, and sends you the article through your own e-mail, you might get upset and mail an annoyed reply back as well. Look at all of the guys here who insult someone just because they disageee with them. It's human nature.
I'm not saying that Jod's reply was the best. But it was understandable. The author must of known that JOBs wouldn't have been pleases, as he has gone out of his way not to talk about it over the years, even when asked.
The authors reply was therefore childish. He was obviously looking for a reaction from Jobs, and he got it.
And to answer your last question. His answer back to Jobs, proves the point of "showing lack of care in my (his) response."
Originally posted by melgross
I think you missed my point. In fact, I know you did.
The very idea that the author sent Jobs a copy meant that he wanted to know what Jobs thought. His publishing company didn't think that his work was worth publishung so there is that as well.
I'm asure that if you were important enough for someone to go digging in your past, the past that you might want to forget about, and sends you the article through your own e-mail, you might get upset and mail an annoyed reply back as well. Look at all of the guys here who insult someone just because they disageee with them. It's human nature.
I'm not saying that Jod's reply was the best. But it was understandable. The author must of known that JOBs wouldn't have been pleases, as he has gone out of his way not to talk about it over the years, even when asked.
The authors reply was therefore childish. He was obviously looking for a reaction from Jobs, and he got it.
And to answer your last question. His answer back to Jobs, proves the point of "showing lack of care in my (his) response."
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
Originally posted by wnurse
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
Your problem can be seen very quickly. "the mighty Jobs", the "rock star of technology", There's some jealousy there no doubt, some anger as well.
To me, Jobs is a neutral character. I don't care one way or the other about his personal life, except to point out to my daughter, who is adopted, that here's another person for whom adoption wasn't a detriment (she likes to see people who were adopted).
This was a very difficult aspect to some people's lives. But I have nothing against him writing the article.
The point I made about it being rejected was that if it weren't, he most likely would never have sent it to Jobs in the first place. It was a publicity stunt on his part. He was hoping for a reaction from Jobs, who is known to be mercurial about discussion of his past personal life. As he has a right to be.
The author had to know, since he had researched him, that Job's response would be something like that. He was, if anything, hoping for it. So his response in turn, was childish.
The whole point to his sending this to Jobs was to rev up interest in it by some other publisher after it had been rejected by his own. It was a very cynical stunt. He should have come away from it, if anything, satisfied that he had gotten what he wanted out of it. His publicizing it, which he didn't have to do, shows that it was a stunt. his reaction, therefore, was strange, to say the least. He saw how sales of "iCon" rose after Jobs banned it from his stores. He was counting on this reaction to help hin as well.
Should Appleinsider have reported it? I don't know. Should the Star and The Enquirer, and People magazine, plus a hundred other publications, as well as Entertainment Tonight, and other TV shows like it, as well as gossip columns exist? I don't know that either.
But as long as people show an interest in what the "Rich and the Famous" do and think, they will.
Originally posted by melgross
Your problem can be seen very quickly. "the mighty Jobs", the "rock star of technology", There's some jealousy there no doubt, some anger as well.
To me, Jobs is a neutral character. I don't care one way or the other about his personal life, except to point out to my daughter, who is adopted, that here's another person for whom adoption wasn't a detriment (she likes to see people who were adopted).
This was a very difficult aspect to some people's lives. But I have nothing against him writing the article.
The point I made about it being rejected was that if it weren't, he most likely would never have sent it to Jobs in the first place. It was a publicity stunt on his part. He was hoping for a reaction from Jobs, who is known to be mercurial about discussion of his past personal life. As he has a right to be.
The author had to know, since he had researched him, that Job's response would be something like that. He was, if anything, hoping for it. So his response in turn, was childish.
The whole point to his sending this to Jobs was to rev up interest in it by some other publisher after it had been rejected by his own. It was a very cynical stunt. He should have come away from it, if anything, satisfied that he had gotten what he wanted out of it. His publicizing it, which he didn't have to do, shows that it was a stunt. his reaction, therefore, was strange, to say the least. He saw how sales of "iCon" rose after Jobs banned it from his stores. He was counting on this reaction to help hin as well.
Should Appleinsider have reported it? I don't know. Should the Star and The Enquirer, and People magazine, plus a hundred other publications, as well as Entertainment Tonight, and other TV shows like it, as well as gossip columns exist? I don't know that either.
But as long as people show an interest in what the "Rich and the Famous" do and think, they will.
Jealous of Jobs?.. I want to be Jobs!!!!.. I just think apple fans are irrational. When this happens to Bill Gates, does it get reported?. Don't you think this has happened to Bill Gates?.. To other rich and famous people?. Mac people still have the inferiority complex.. anytime something negative about Apple or Jobs is said, we all go crying "mommy, the bully is picking on me". Geez.. my point is this is a non-story. We mac fans are so thin skinned. Apple is growing into a big company. It's time we shed the "us against the world" mentality. So someone tried to get a reaction out of Jobs to sell a book, BIG FUCKING DEAL. Today, somewhere in the world, someone else did the same thing to another famous person and tomorrow, they will do it again and the next day again, and again and again.
Ok.. maybe those people discuss it as much as we do.. If so, then i apologize. Let the discussion continue!!!. (besides, it's friday.. nobody gets real work done in the office on fridays)We might as well bash an author, it's seems a fun thing to do.
Originally posted by rtamesis
Maxwell wrote that article probably with the idea of directing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment against Steve Jobs. He probably thinks he can embarass Jobs by claiming that he is of Syrian descent, especially after the UN claimed that Syria was responsible for the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Maxwell clearly is nuts. Who knows, he may even be dangerous and turn violent.
Since you haven't read the article, nor ever met me, why do you find that you can post this libel?
Originally posted by Mero
What...are you...talking...about? Where is there any implication of racism towards Syrians in this entire thread or article? And how on earth could you possibly derive that as your summary...hahaha. I do hope you were joking.
No, you didn't read a few pages of the "nut case's" work because it's not being sold on Amazon! The "nut case" text was read and subsiquently denied by his publisher. You are referring to the iCon biography, which is entirely seperate from the person whom Steve called a nut case and has nothing to do with the bulk of this appleinsider article except that it is another case where Steve did not endorse or warm up to works about him.
They were only using that example because otherwise the content of the article would have been entirely too short and even less news worthy then it already is.
The reason why they taught you that in ethics class and not Law class is because it is not at all true in a legal sense. A private citizen public figure is called a voluntary or involuntary public figure who may have to prove malice vs a fully private citizen who just has to prove negligence.
Steve Jobs is an all-purpose public figure, a member of a publicly traded company and someone who casts his image into public light on a regular basis.
Again, I and others just felt that this was not worthy of being covered by AI. But at the same time it's funny to see the "classic Steve" and this is a great discussion.
Again, I wrote the piece, and you haven't read it, yet somehow find that you can act as an expert not only on the piece but on my person. FYI: my former publisher hadn't read a word from the manuscript when he canceled the contract two days after MacWorld. But when has knowing what one is talking about been a requirement to post on a forum?