Rachel, you write:
> Slight clarification: Nick and Brett are contributors ... it would be inappropriate for them to speak on behalf of InfoWorld.
Hmmm . . . Yes, but they could still speak for _themselves_, couldn't they?
And Nick Petreley, at least, _did_ so, on the forum held after the previous poll.
Might be (completely unsubstantiated, but not unfounded, hypothesis following: ) that they were given to understand they should shut up?
Maybe not in so many words -- I don't expect it would take too many hints for bright guys like these to figure out which side their bread is buttered on . . .
So the mere fact that they haven't spoken out against InfoWorld's handling of this second poll can't really be construed
as speaking in favour of the magazine's leadership and editorial stance on the matter -- if anything, quite the opposite.
The sensible null hypothesis must be, though, that they're just sick and tired of it all and see no use in getting involved.
In which they would be quite right, of course -- even you, Rachel, who are not the one primarily to blame for these repeated debacles,
seem more interested in defending ms Reed, than in hearing opposing views and perhaps letting your own be swayed by them.
Sincerely,
Christian R. Conrad
For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor