A while ago I posted some comments on exchanges I and others had on two Curt Monash blogs which he started to complain about challenges to his nonsensical opinion article proposing a “new radical view of data management” called “DBMS2”. I also documented instances of Computerworld editing my and Alf Pedersen comments, without notifications, which amounts to deceptive practice and outright censoring. My debunking of DBMS2, Monash Balderdash, is forthcoming.

 

In the course of the exchanges Monash called me and Chris Date frauds, and together with others we proved that Monash had neither the competence, nor a basis for that claim and that, in fact, as a consultant, he is the fraud, because he made all sort of absurd claims and arguments, without any evidence or explanation.

 

Then this morning all the exchanges in the blogs disappeared, leaving only Monash’s own opening comments (cleaned of insults) online. This time Computerworld, probably sensing the problematics of what it was doing, issued the following notification:

 

"This blog post has been edited.  Additionally, this comment thread has been closed, in line with Computerworld's Terms of Service. Computerworld wants to foster a civil and respectful debate over important IT issues, but this thread has become too personal and not useful to Computerworld's audience of IT professionals. Certain comments may be reposted at a later date, but new comments will be disabled.

Ian Lamont

Online Projects Editor

Computerworld.com

ian_lamont@computerworld.com

 

So at Computerworld “editing” means deleting all response in blogs and leaving only a sanitized version of  the blogger. And that’ blogging to them.

 

Now, in his comments Monash questioned the competence of those who challenged him without, as I said, addressing any of the challenges, or an iota of evidence for his arguments. So leaving his comments on, but deleting all challenges to them is self-serving, and not worthy of a quality publication. Do Computerworld editors think that it is useful for its audience to read Monash’s unsubstantiated bullshit, but no demonstrations that it is exactly that, bullshit?

 

Consequently, I sent Ian Lamont the following email:

 

So you operate public blogs, and then pick and choose which content you keep and which you delete. Quite a nerve.

 

I am sorry, but this is not acceptable.

 

You should either delete the whole blogs, including Monash's initial comments, or leave everything on. To leave his initial comments on and delete all reactions that challenge them is deceptive practice, which is more self-serving to Monash and CW, than your declared purpose.

 

I should have also added that if they choose to publish trash, they should accept the consequences.

But then the media has stopped being media a long time ago, so it’s not just Monash that is a fraud here.

 

For Alf Pedersen’s perspective on this matter see How to save face when you don't have a clue?

 

 

Posted 09/23/05