Go Back   nV News Forums > Website Related > Feedback Forum

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-10-02, 07:12 AM   #25
Matt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by rmannstaedt
Actually, posting rumours and non-credible information and passing it off as factual in a way which is financially damaging, is illegal under most western laws and as such subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. But, that is not what the Inquirer is doing. I don't recall reading a single article (though with so many I could be wrong here) where they did not clearly mark the source and its credibility, and sometimes in the byline as well as in the article itself.

And speaking of the relative merits of your site and the Inquirer, I would have to say that as far as I can see the Inquirer scores rather higher on the ethics and morals scale than your site do. At least they do link to your site when they refer to it (as eg. in http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327). You don't. When I read a debate on the Net, I far prefer to be able to read both sides of the issue. But you prefer me not to be able to do that (ref. http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=895&category=1). Or what?
I wasn't talking about libel or defamation, or anything of that sort. I'm talking about people believing rumors as facts, due to either ignorance or they didn't notice small words like "may" or "indicates" or "perhaps". People tend to overlook little things like that, and take things seriously on the net. Then stock prices go down, investors get jitterish, the competition can use the info as a weapon, customers-to-be get a bad taste in their mouth, and so on. That's the kind of damage I'm referring to in regards to rumors.

While I do like to link my sources of information(and that is the first time Inquirer has linked to us), I am not going to link to the Inquirer for reasons I've made perfectly obvious.

But using your preferations and logic that you've stated above, it seems The Inquirer is low on the ethics and morals scale according to you as well, since they didn't link to my site when they posted a debate (see http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4801). Bet that won't change your perspective on them though.

I also don't believe in linking to a site for a debate on the front page to "build an army", so to speak. Then the site ends up getting emails like I did when the Inquirer links to me - for example:

Quote:
My opinion -
Not only do you and your pathetic site suck a fat coloured ass, but you are personally a pimple-faced ignorant moron pretending to be human.
Just my (and many others) opinion.
Do the world a favour; eat ****te and die.
Essentially, if I linked to a site announcing my dislike for them, stupid people will try to defend me and issue death threats similiar to the one you see above. Or vice versa. I did however posted about it in my forums, just to get opinions on the matter.
__________________
Matt Burris - 3DGPU.com
Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 08:00 AM   #26
rmannstaedt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Default in response to nihongaeri...

Thanks, nihongaeri, for your sober and informative post. No, I had not read your translation of the article - it is the first link I have seen. But I have read it now.

Yes, it is true that the translated text makes no claim to "insider information", and if that was what the Inquirer referred to, it would indeed be a fabrication. And fabrications, as opposed to rumours and unverified/unverifiable information, are worse than useless - they are misdirecting.

However, not all of the article has been translated, and the Inquirer has posted an at least partial reply to your mail here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327) where they point out that, (quote): "The information we referred to was in a graphic of a roadmap."

The graphic - including, I note, the comment box to the NV30 launch - is still untranslated, so I cannot verify the truth of this (and no, I do not read Japanese, unfortunately). But I would very much like to know what it says.

However, even with the untranslated graphic, I still think that the thrust of the article is correct. If you move back a step and just look at the Japanese article linked to in the Inquirer, it seems to me that the graphics (the time-table) is the actual item that the Inquirer refers to. At least that is how I understood the piece in the Inquirer when I read it first. The graphic table in the Japanese article contains verified and unverified nVidia GPU schedules, and the unverified bits could certainly be drawn from "insiders" - indeed, that would usually be the case with such. And the information it contains concerning the NV30 certainly does seem to indicate that the launch may - for all practical purposes (which is the purpose of actually getting it to the consumers in time) - miss the yule-tide. It is hovering right there at the very end of 2002, and that does makes it look improbable that we will be able to see it in actual graphics boards in time. So seen in this light, yes, then the Japanese article does indeed contain "insider information" that indicates that I may not be able to buy a graphics board with the new chip until january.

Personally I would have preferred the Inquirer to refer to a "late december" launch rather than a "first quarter 2003 launch". That bit I do find misleading - unless the note in the graphic clears this up. This could all very well depend on how you read and understand the schedule graphic however. There is a significant difference between launching a technology and launching finished board products. And they do state - in the very next paragraph - that (quote):

"But we still think the company is on target for the margins of Q4 and believe Nvidia will show off the NV30 at the Comdex jamboree in the US this year, to a massive roll of publicity."

Now, having said all that, I still think it is disappointing that they seem to have made no effort to point this out to you. I would have expected them to do that. So in this respect, yes, I agree with you. They did, however, respond to a correspondance they had with a Mr. Craig, saying that the information they referred to was in the graphics not in the text.
rmannstaedt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 09:02 AM   #27
rmannstaedt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Default In response to Matt...

Hi Matt. I am sorry you ran into abuse that way (the quote you give at the end of your post). Still, whenever someone go public with an opinion, we see this kind of response, no matter the subject or the person. Some people have culture and brains... and some don't - and show it. An unfortunate but inevitable consequence of the Net being open for all. Still, I do understand why you don't exactly go out of your way to invite such comments; I wouldn't, either.

I have made a search at the Inquirer, looking for references to 3DGPU. I found exactly two occurrences, one with and one without a link. And looking at your site, I find that you are actually linking to the Inquirer far more often than not. So yes, I owe you an apology. My mistake.

By the way, the link at the end of your post does not work but returns a fatal error.

I do stand by the rest of my post, however. And there is a significant difference between humour, factual information, rumour/indications based information, and misinformation. With a site like the Inquirer, those small words like "may" or "indicates" or "perhaps" are immensely important. I doubt very much you could write an intelligible article about budding trends and indicators without them. And you certainly can't remove them from an article and then criticize it for its lack of accuracy. Yes, I guess articles like that may have an impact on the stock markets. But then, any kind of article - factual based or expressing personal views - may impact the stock markets. This does not mean that we should refrain from writing them.
rmannstaedt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 10:34 AM   #28
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

WoW! This thread has turned... Hehe.

It's amusing to read the posts defending the Inquirer. I'll just give you a couple of reasons why the inquirer is a joke.

If what you defendants say in regards that it's just "humour". Then tell your good friends at The Inquirer that they better stop using the words, "True, Fact, Release Dates, etc..." Using those words apply that what they saying is legit and true to a "T"...

Once they lose those words, then we can all rest assure that the dong they spew is just that, dong and not hopes and prayers that their news post end up being true.

Besides the wonderfull feature of "Editing" allows them to re-word any of their news posts if they realized that it's false.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 12:04 PM   #29
rmannstaedt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Default

I think you are missing the point. Like I said (quote):

"... there is a significant difference between humour, factual information, rumour/indications based information, and misinformation. With a site like the Inquirer, those small words like 'may' or 'indicates' or 'perhaps' are immensely important."

Using words like "may" does not constitute humour. It constitutes speculation. Using sentences like (quote from Inquirer article http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327):

"... the highly respectable and hugely talented D. Solomon Jr., who loves us to bits."

That constitutes humour. Reading your post I gather you are interested in neither the humour nor the speculations, so I honestly don't know why you are reading the Inquirer. Go read a benchmark somewhere instead.
rmannstaedt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 12:17 PM   #30
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

<--- Looking at Benchmarks
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 12:50 PM   #31
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

I don't know if I want to cry our laugh, but this is truly sad. I guess if you don't agree with what The Inquirer posts you are automatically included in a news post. What is funny is that there are alot of people that hate *********.com and you know what? They are entitle to that opinion. I'm not going to try to win over ever single individual to get them to dedicate their life to my website.

People have their own opinions and attitudes. My philosphy is that if you don't like what I have to say? Don't read it. Is this really that hard of a concept to grasp? Apparently it is with the Inquirer. I will continue on with my controversial posting of what I think about the certain product, company or what not.

Apparently Matt Burris and I are public enemy #1 when it comes to us voicing our opinions on various subject matters. Neither I or Mr. Burris is going to back down on what is on our minds about a particular subject matter. Thanks to the link from the previous poster we can conclude that they go as far as sending their henchmen into forums and then reporting back to camp. This is truly sad.

We have fans and we have enemies. It's all apart of being in the spotlight of running a website. If you can't hack the negativity toward your site, you shouldn't be running one. It's as simple as that.

So to all Inquirer's henchmen and Mr. Paul Hales, if you don't like what I have to say.............. What is that popular saying hear in the states? Lifes a bitch...

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 12:58 PM   #32
nihongaeri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6
Default I think this should sum things up; to rmannstaedt

Well I for one am glad that we can be civilized about this discourse without being at each others throats.

Anyhow, thank you for pointing out the Monday Inquirer article where they actually refer (or rather mis-refer as Bob Craig is my dad) to me. I had not realized until then that the Inquirer’s previous statement was based purely on an interpretation of the graph contained in the PC Watch article. In retrospect I suppose that would have been the natural assumption knowing now that Mr. Magee does not speak any Japanese. Nonetheless, there is no indication in the original Inquirer article that would lead one think that their statements were based on a graph, and I personally would suggest that the wording of the article would actually infer that the said statement was based also on the article and not purely on the graph. I truly wish Mr. Magee would have cared to clarify the source of his interpretation in the email correspondence that we have shared since then. I do however question whether it was wise for the Inquirer to make the statement that they did based on nothing more than a graph surrounded by characters that they couldn’t read. For all Mr. Magee knew, the title of the graph could have been “Nvidia graph which I pulled out of my ass”. I believe that without knowledge of the context of the graph, statements such as the one the Inquirer made can be described as little more than premature, perhaps even ‘just plain stupid’ if you wish to be critical.

I suppose a discussion of the graph is in order though. Assuming that the only graph in question is the first, I would like to quickly point out that the NV30 box is still placed partially within the year 2002. I appoligize for not translating the graph text in addition to the article, however, I felt it to be outside of the scope of my translation as well as just not relevant to the issue. Plus it’s a bitch to edit graphics in the first place. I will, however, lay down a short translation here.

In my translation I titled the graph as “Nvidia’s Projected Roadmap”, although the title “Projected Nvidia [GPU] Roadmap” may be more accurate, as Nvidia did not create this roadmap in particular. As for the text boxes of the graph, I will translate now going top to bottom, with horizontal position having no relevance.

Box pointing to NV31 – “Die-shrunk derivitive part?”
Box pointing to NV35 – “New generation core”
Box pointing to NV3x – “Even further shrunk die value aimed design?”
Box pointing to NV28/18 – “AGP 8x support”
Box pointing to NV31/31M - “Mainstream and mobile [parts] are the same core”
Box pointing to GeForce4 MX/GO / nForce2 - “Mainstream, mobile, and integrated [parts] are the same core”
Box pointing to NV3x / ?? - “These 2 cores the same?”

The title at the top of the actual graph graphic was of course the same as the text title in the article. I hope that you are able to come to the same conclusion that I have now that you have the same knowledge of the PC Watch article as I do. I suppose that I will leave now with a copy of an email which I just sent the inquirer this morning after reading their most recent article in relation to this issue.

##########################################
Well, I seem to have at least caught your attention with what I did over the weekend. I would ask that we try to avoid any kind of personal war from this point on, if that is possible. Is it?

At any rate, I would have treated you much differently, and probably think of you differently now, if you would have simply told me that your interpretation of the PC Watch article was based on its graphs. However, even with this insight, it does not change the fact that your interpretation of the article, or rather its graph, was incorrect. If you would look closely at the graph that you based your statement on, you will notice that the box representing the NV30 is placed such that it is still partially inside the year 2002. Likewise, if you have read my translation of the article (http://home.attbi.com/~bobcraig4/kai...ranslation.htm), I am sure you have been made even more clear that your paraphrasing of the article is not correct.

I can see how someone could take the graph as indicating the presence of 'inside information', however I do not believe that the graph in and of itself is sufficient to say that PC Watch 'claims to have inside information'. That came off on me as being a fabrication when I read it. I can also see how someone, particularly if that someone were to have poor eyesight (not that you do), could misinterpret the said graph as being one that "indicates Nvidia will introduce its next graphics chip technology in the first quarter of new year", however, in light of what I have told you it should be apparent that this interpretation is incorrect.

Lastly, as you seem to have felt it necessary to bring it up in a Monday article, I will admit that perhaps my first email to you was a bit over the top. I suppose the only excuse I can make is that I was prompted by the "flame editor" hyperlink that clicked before sending it. But surely you must be used to things like that by now?

Oh, and just for the record, my name is Nick Craig, not Bob Craig, who happens to be my dad. Hopefully misunderstandings like that won't occur anymore once I'm able to amass enough money to move into an apartment of my own this term, but, as I'm sure you can imagine, college student isn't exactly the most profitable existences to hold on this planet.

Truly,

Nick Craig
##########################################

And that’s that. I very much so hope that I receive a competent response from Mr. Magee, although to be frank, I’m not expecting all that much.
Nick Craig
nihongaeri is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-02, 01:14 PM   #33
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

WoW! Do you feel threaten that you have to make personal attacks now?

Making the assumption amercians = dumbf&cks... Well you won't be gaining any kind of ground of acceptance off of that one. And you call me acting 12 years old?

You still don't get it. Taking something as a chart or an excerpt and turning it around into a news post that sounds something more when it's not is called, MISLEADING and not humour as what you put it.

Please explain then when companies such as Briefing.com take excerpts from the so called, humorous posts which the Inquirer is doing according to you and uses them to inform their investors, business clients of what may come out of it ? ? You find that humorous? I find that sad and very damaging to business's.

Are these the type of people that The Inquirer's viewers are based off of? Ouch... But it's o.k. we American are dumbf&cks. I forgot...

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 01:30 PM   #34
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Someone ought to take that article and the translation to NVIDIA and let them lay the smack down on the Inq. That might shut 'em up for a while.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 01:38 PM   #35
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

Where is Hampshire, IL. ? Is that up north or something by Gurnee ?

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-02, 01:55 PM   #36
rmannstaedt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Smile in response to nihongaeri...

Nick, thanks again for your posts. They are a pleasure to read. I much prefer an intelligent discourse to a flame war, and you are clearing things up masterfully.

Yes, with the information you supply I definitely concur: the Inquirer article was misinformed and misleading in parts. There is no reference to an "insider source" in the Japanese text, and (as I also pointed out) the box does lie within (the very last part of) 2002 and not at the start of 2003.

The Inquirer does qualify their statement in the next paragraph however. Which, taken together with Nvidia's official reply to the story as referred in the updated article, means that I don't think the article as such is misleading. But the PCWatch reference is wrong.

I do hope you receive a competent reply from Mr. Magee.

With respect,
r.
rmannstaedt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lmao!!!The inquirer....!! Fotis Rumor Mill 15 10-15-02 04:17 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.