NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jasperak" data-source="post: 4750038" data-attributes="member: 2487">Not necessarily but I will address the bolded section. My responses in this thread have to do with some that seem to believe that if you are not going to believe someone if you ask them a question, then don't bother asking them the question. I posit that asking those types of questions are exactly what journalism is all about, getting the objective truth. Whether it is revealed directly by the respondent or derived from logic and deduction doesn't matter, only that the questions are asked and the respondent held accountable for his answers.To be fair, what I do have a problem with is people that would take a CEO's answers and manipulate his responses to fit their agenda, whatever it may be. I think that is what led others in this thread to say if you're not going to bother understanding and only stay with your preconceived notions then don't bother reading.What drew me in though was the implication that we should not have bothered to do the interview in the first place (bolded in following quote).Again to be fair, Mustrum in his last sentence says exactly what I agree with (underlined). This is what i believe others responded to. Though he prefaces his comment with why bother asking if you think you will get lies and deception. The question is not about whether the respondent is lying or not. You will never know if he is or not unless you ask the bloody questions in the first place. It is how can we understand what is going on based off of what one of the main players within this issue has to say. I choose to believe that the CEO is forced to answer any questions in a manner that is in the best interests of the company not for "objective truth." If revealing the truth benefits the company great, but in my experience, if you are asking tough questions because of perceived missteps then I hold all responses suspect until proven otherwise. In this specific case, stopping the legal purchase of PDFs of OOP products does not seem to be the step one would logically take to stop the pirating of said products. Mr. Leeds implied that they had to do something because the problem seemed to be escalating. Taking away the only legal course of action would logically force people to move towards illegal means. Will it decrease pirating? Risk/reward and all that. Who knows? I don't, but it does seem to be a bonehead move and implies that either the key decision maker doesn't understand the problem or there are as of yet unannounced reasons for the decision. We won't know until we have more information.</blockquote>

Verification