I certainly regret this development..
However as I said Here
Honestly, I don't see where you or your site were accused of anything. "Related links" - that doesn't put you on one side or the other.
Wild accusatory emails are unfortunately a fact of life - Mike gets masses of them accusing him of creating spyware (because the word is in the site name, one supposes) and anything else they can somehow imagine.
And as I said here:
Aside from the Tomcoyote thread which - i say again - was not linked to or even mentioned in the newsletter - the only source of info on this story was my site!And The Register article which covered it!
Now unless the Tomcoyote thread was choc full of journalists, the only possible sites he can be referring to are The Register and my own.
If you were also to believe that these accounts were written by competant journalists who have checked their facts, you would be wrong on both counts.What
The situation to which these people are "reporting" (to use the term loosely) is about a malware installer using Sun's Java runtime environment.What
What is truly sad here is that the news sites I mentioned earlier are portraying this as a spyware targeting and infecting the Firefox web browser. These news sites are doing a grave disservice to their readers by misleading them.What
The people publishing this libelous nonsense should be ashamed of themselves and should print a prominent correction.What
And then directly below the above words, two links - two sites - the only sites that had anything on this.The register and my site.
It also kind of gives the game away that after hearing the commotion, Mike updates the newsletter and inserts an "update" saying not to send the article authors hate mail.
Now - forgive me for being dense here - but seeing as I complained about recieving a ton of abuse mail and posts after he sent the newsletter - i ask again:What article authors could he possibly be referring to other than either myself or John Leyden?
Why are you persisting in keeping this debate running publicly?
Would it not be more beneficial for Mike to discuss this?
If you insist on trying to "defend" the indefensible, please do what so many other people asked of you in the thread at Spywareinfo and post links to the "other sites" that ran the story.
That may be difficult, as my site is the only site that ran this story
To date, I am still awaiting some sort of debate or discussion with Mike Healan - the longer he leaves it, the worse it looks. This could have been resolved quickly and withut fuss - instead, he chose to leave it.
To date, I have still
had no contact from Mike - not an email, a pm - nothing.
I had to resign my site and membership from ASAP to actually get some sort of dialogue going on this awful chain of events - although the silence is currently deafening and the dialogue rather one sided. I had hoped this wouldn't be the case.
He also chose to send out a newsletter that defamed the name of a fellow ASAP site
Let's not forget that.
I believe Moore
said it best:
If this disappointing attack was not aimed directly at Paperghost , his site and his article referenced by the Register , then instead of having him listed as a related link it could perhaps say something like "Now for the real story" ...
If the comments in the newsletter are aimed at other sources , then why not include links to those sources or at least make it clearer that the vitalsecurity article isnt the intended target.
The newsletter in it's current form is clearly pointing a finger directly at Paperghost , and as he has pointed out in this thread quite well the accusations against his article are clearly wrong.
It's a shame because both Vitalsecurity and SpywareInfo are not the kinds of sites to feed people false information , and I would hope this will be resolved in a way that doesnt continue to suggest Paperghost is some kind of hack journalist and that his site delivers misleading information.
I dont think that is too much to ask.
EDIT - Roshi, thank you for the kind words.