Comments on: Not interested in a Netbook computer? Consider the Honda Fit

If you're not interested in a small, underpowered laptop computer, the Honda Fit shows that small can be done well.

[tenc21]

You're citing the WSJ for car and computer advice? That's like going to the plumber (Joe, of course) for an appendectomy.

[ghosford]

Umm, no it's an analogy. It's more like a medical researcher looking for a better way to repair an artery, and thinking of his plumber cutting out a piece of pipe then replacing it with a new pipe. The researcher then draws inspiration from the plumber to find a way to replace the artery with a new one. The analogy isn't quite as good as the Fit -> Netbook one, but I hope you get the idea. It might be better if I were a medical researcher.

[dave_westwood]

Why is the WSJ incompetent for offering either car or computer recommendations? Isn't it possible that a contributing journalist/writer could have some knowledge of either or be able to gather enough information to offer an informed opinion.

I own a Honda Fit Sport and I agree with the WSJ review. We find the Fit is an excellent vehicle for our family. BTW the Honda Fit is available with a 5 speed automatic transmission, so one doesn't need to know how to drive a stick (use a clutch) to drive one. I'm still looking for a netbook that meets most of my needs for mobile computing. Keyboards approaching full size and 10 inch screen are among the features I want.

[fletchb]

Got the Sport ver as well and it's a great little car. About 2 weeks ago talked with a former Versa owner and she said it was not nearly as nice as the Fit- specifically weaker engine and trunk space as the seats don't fold flat.

[tenc21]

gosh ford, if I had any faith in the WSJ citation, I would be offering a more accurate analogy. However, I'm trying to show what this blogger did was completely off the wall and as bad as the broken analogy. On the other hand, if you find credible what he did, you can try and twist my words around any way you want to suit your purposes. But for the real truth...see below.


woodman, you might ask Horowitz why WSJ offers incompetent advice.
This what he has said in previous blogs--(I had neither the time nor inclination to dig out every instance):

1. Ending ?Mistakes in WSJ Editorial? (7/10/07)

To quote myself:

"You don't read PC magazine for mutual fund advice and you shouldn't read the Wall Street Journal for computer advice."

When I said this in the past I was often referring to Walter Mossberg who, in my opinion, has on multiple occasions offered bad computer advice. But this editorial was written by someone who doesn't understand computers at all. It is more off base than Mr. Mossberg ever was.

2. Last sentence in ?Debunking Walter Mossberg?better PC-buying advice? (10/20/07)

You don't read PC Magazine for mutual fund advice and you shouldn't read The Wall Street Journal for computer advice.

3. Repeated in ?Parsing disk-partitioning advice? (12/13/07)

You don't read PC magazine for mutual fund advice and you shouldn't read The Wall Street Journal for computer advice.


These were Horowitz?s own statements in his own blogs here, so address your query to him. It 's obvious this blogger was stalking Mossberg online for some reason, because I find Mossberg totally acceptable and the WSJ staff too. Now, this blogger?ll probably suggest not every WSJ writer (like Sabatini here) is incompetent, but he only determines competency by whether or not he (Horowitz) agrees with the content of the article.

WSJ fanboy.

[mhinnewyork]

Pay no attention to tenc21. He is a stalker. From the time this blog started, all he has been doing is arguing and insulting. If I say left he says right, if I say up he says down. The subject is irrelevant, he has commented on many postings on this blog. He is only interested in personal attacks, nothing else. CNET should be ashamed for letting this happen. Michael Horowitz

[ghosford]

Michael, it does sound like a personal attack. From this one posting by tenc21 (I'm sorry, "I had neither the time nor the inclination to dig out" his previous posts), it appears ironic that he is doing exactly what he claims you are doing to Mossberg. I am astonished that he is dragging statements from 2007 to attack you at the end of 2008. If I were he, I might have thought that you had developed respect for the WSJ, as he apparently has, rather than assuming you were being inconsistent in quoting that journal. But I'm not in the habit of attacking people.

It also reminds me of trolls in other blogs, such as AppleSuxLeo and AppleProLeo, who spar on any Apple article. It smacks of extremism - obviously, WSJ and Mr. Mossberg have something of value (WSJ has quite a large circulation and Mr. Mossberg is apparently still employed by the former). But unless you know the author personally, how would one determine one's opinion of a person's competency other than whether you agree with that person or not?

BTW, I read the article again, and in this particular article, I find no evidence of you "citing the WSJ for...computer advice." I understand that you may have done that in the past, and he is trying to bring that up and to relate your previous words to the present article. But you did distinguish between Mr. Sabatini's article on a car and your opinions on computers. And obviously my reply to tenc21 was made without knowing that he was trying to imitate your words in previous articles. I got the analogy you made.

[tenc21]

Dear Ghosford, it appears two people can't distinguish a personal attack from impersonal criticism. If someone attacks a person without relation to anything else, e.g. you're a genius, you're a musician--I have deliberately chosen value-laden words like genius and musician, because subjectivity enters into this quite easily and subtly-- then it's ad hominem. If someone attacks what someone else wrote, contending that the writing is illogical, grammatically childish or inconsistent, then it is an impersonal criticism. Of course, it can be viewed as an attack on the person because by implication it is a negative opinion of that person's command of logic, grammar or consistency..at least in those instances. In that sense, saying Spielberg directs turquoise movies may be a criticism, while calling Spielberg turquoise is ad hominem. The latter bears no relation whatsoever to what the person does, if that's what the issue is about.

If you had read as closely these blogs over the years and even my original post as you should, you would have noted that I first made a simple observation. My second post was an explanatory reply to you and woody. Also, you ask that I draw an inference that Michael might've changed his views on the WSJ; I go by the evidence as everyone should--not on emotion, not on a feeling, hunch or guess. There is no evidence anywhere to justify an inference that Michael has retreated from his position in 2007. If the Netbook post is to be construed as a change in position, it is a radical 180 degree flip flop that cries out for an explanation, which is missing. BTW 2007 is a year ago; if I had drawn from posts in 2003 you might have an argument.

Your idea that competency is founded on agreement astonishes me--makes two us who are astonished. I can disagree that space is curved and still think Einstein competent. Do really believe that scientific researchers who disagree think of each other as incompetents? You can easily adjudge competency by referring to other 3rd party sources, logic of presentations, and bases--evidentiary--for positions taken. By your method, your momma is probably not competent because you surely disagreed with her?

Your apologia at the end is empty. You carefully mentioned rereading the article and how you were unaware --I'm carefully avoiding "ignorant" because some sensitive people might take it the wrong way-- of my imitating words. Well, perhaps, before shooting from the hip one might do some research...read the entire blog, know its history. It is far easier to suggest someone with whom you might disagree is a troll than to dig into the evidence to find out why that troll has said what she has said.

Lastly, what I have done, that is, critique someone's writing, is done every day by all manner of people. Lawyers argue their respective positions; doctors give second opinions on other doctors' opinions. Movie critics write movie reviews, food critics rate restaurants, and sports services rate teams. No one of these persons or organizations directs hisr comments, criticisms, ratings, opinions at the performers (doctors, lawyers, directors, chefs, colleges) but only at the specific thing being evaluated. If I said Columbia had a terrible football team, would you say I'm calling Columbia a terrible school academically? I sarcastically implied Michael was inconsistent in certain specified instances; there was never any mention of what an idiot he might actually be. If there is any personal attack going on, I am the victim of it.

How about a bit of levity in a blog ? This blog is a running commentary of one man?s opinion who wants to share his observations on various items relevant to keeping your data and computer safe. One is free to disagree with his opinion. If one chooses to go out of his way to criticize a posting by citing previous blogs, the author should be honored (?) to have such an avid reader who could certainly spend his time in better ways.

The author of this bog, he has written many an item and valuable posting reporting first on some very relevant topics. He has been quoted in other journals and news letters for many of his in-depth articles. It is obvious that he has gone to great lengths to substantiate his information when he believes it relevant to the internet community. If you get exasperated with this world of technology you may find your ally here. This is an open forum, so comments are welcome and not supervised as letters to the editor ? but it isn?t much help to harass the author ? it?s a waste of time.

[DrollTroll]

to mr anonymous: well said...your comments should be the post leading off every blog. BTW was "author of this BOG" your attempt at "levity"? 8-)