tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post5973605833440324754..comments2007-05-21T17:56:47.593-04:00Philip Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-37614853360230945272007-05-21T17:56:00.000-04:002007-05-21T17:56:00.000-04:00

Agreed ..<BR/><BR/>But a point needs to be made. There is no club, no rating, no clique - called "Journalists".<BR/><BR/>What is news to some is not to others. Points discussed are moot to some; philosophical masterpieces to others.<BR/><BR/>There should never be a time in history or definition when a journalist is made to "qualify" to write.<BR/><BR/>Some of the greatest reporting, greatest

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-79649661178934076042007-05-21T16:07:00.000-04:002007-05-21T16:07:00.000-04:00

Journalist is NOT a credential, it is a broad term for a particular profession. "Editor" is a title.<BR/><BR/>A credential is completely different.<BR/><BR/>"A credential is an attestation of qualification, competence, or authority issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant de jure or de facto authority or assumed competence to do so.<BR/><BR/>Examples of credentials include

Jensonbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671138383581450412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-6003792966854868112007-05-20T17:37:00.000-04:002007-05-20T17:37:00.000-04:00

<I>I wouldn't call myself journalist unless MacWorld Expo allowed me in as such (and they did in 2006). Although in previous years I was turned down. I just wrote a better bio and sent them some stats for my site the second go around.<BR/><BR/>I hate to say it ... but Bill Palmer is also recognized under this category.</I><BR/><BR/>No, what you and Palmer are categorized as are members of the "

Roget The Bloglessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-83727919741452527362007-05-20T13:30:00.000-04:002007-05-20T13:30:00.000-04:00

Good points ... I don't claim to be credentialed here, but I am ... I have won awards throughout my life for my writing. (Two notable ones for this site)<BR/><BR/>Engadget is the same ... while they hold a lot more weight than this site, they have won numerous awards.<BR/><BR/>I consider a journalist as a function not a credential.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't call myself journalist unless MacWorld Expo

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-13791916728376088212007-05-19T14:00:00.000-04:002007-05-19T14:00:00.000-04:00

<I>Actually a journalist is not a credential .. it's a function. A jourmalist is not a job title. Engadget does serve news and news commentary - two key elements that make the editors journalists.</I><BR/><BR/>Forgive my ignorance. I thought journalism was a job, ergo it would be a job title?<BR/>Better not tell my Journo friends when I see them next....<BR/>I know you have previously written in

Roget The Media Mogulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-140234228118116412007-05-19T12:18:00.000-04:002007-05-19T12:18:00.000-04:00

Actually a journalist is not a credential .. it's a function. A jourmalist is not a job title. Engadget does serve news and news commentary - two key elements that make the editors journalists.

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-91155613072610107452007-05-19T11:15:00.000-04:002007-05-19T11:15:00.000-04:00

Just because you stick a white coat on does not make you a scientist or a doctor. Just because you "publish" a blog does not make you a journalist. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Ryan Blockhead's CV....<BR/><I>Well then.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but I’m just not done with the CV yet. Ok, fine, so maybe I am just too lame to post it; you probably wouldn’t be impressed anyway. The long and short of it is I’m Managing

Roget The Editornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-78442586258666455232007-05-19T03:30:00.000-04:002007-05-19T03:30:00.000-04:00

Roget ...<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure this is just what Apple will do and will most likely HAVE to fire the Apple employee that forwarded the information to avoid a MAJOR SEC investigation.<BR/><BR/>This is much more serious than many people think.<BR/><BR/>I spoke today with a Morgan Stanley Financial Consultant here in my home town. He said this has implications of stock manipulation and even

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-46303783385415250202007-05-18T19:43:00.000-04:002007-05-18T19:43:00.000-04:00

<I>An Apple employee who we trust then forwarded this email to us.</I><BR/><BR/>Could Apple force Engadget to reveal the identity of the employee? <BR/>If I was that employee I might be a little bit worried right now....

Rogetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-2387984845626799372007-05-18T19:35:00.000-04:002007-05-18T19:35:00.000-04:00

Apple should be concerned that an employee is feeding 'sensitive information' to a website like Engadget.<BR/><BR/>As far as I am concerend Engadget jumped on this story in an attempt to be one up on everyone else. If they had waited they might have discovered from their 'source' it was a fake email. But no, they ran it without considering the consequences.<BR/><BR/>Idiots......

Rogetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-46441813996987235072007-05-18T19:16:00.000-04:002007-05-18T19:16:00.000-04:00

<I>FixYourThinking</I> edited anonymous comment for language:<BR/><BR/>Give me a break.<BR/><BR/>So you and your greed, thought you could sell straight off, screwing everyone who DIDNT read the story, and then buy back when the stock tanked for a tidy profit when it inevitably bounced back. And your little plan backfired.<BR/><BR/>Cry me a river.<BR/><BR/>You only "lost" money if you were stupid/

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-63105358030243560522007-05-18T19:07:00.000-04:002007-05-18T19:07:00.000-04:00

To "Anonymous troll":<BR/><BR/>I am a financial advisor. Apple will have to pay out 4 Billion in stock - even if it gained 4 Billion right back. It is several thousand dollars worth of paper work and will have to be reconciled in accounting.

Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-45773385077646747602007-05-18T16:57:00.000-04:002007-05-18T16:57:00.000-04:00

Oh good lord, the fanboi contingent needs to get some perspective.<BR/><BR/>A rumor on a web site isn't something that requires such drama queenery. Engadget reported a rumor, the rumor turned out to be false. Whether investors freak out slightly or not doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.<BR/><BR/>Besides, if the iPhone is a flop (and at $599 for an obsolete EDGE-based radio, there's

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-40489834459708724422007-05-18T16:11:00.000-04:002007-05-18T16:11:00.000-04:00

Wow. You know when an "apology" is twelve paragraphs long that it's not going to be an apology at all. Only a laundry list of excuses can take that long. <BR/><BR/>Suck it up, Engadget. Take responsibility and be done with it.

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-46385269414784579262007-05-18T14:24:00.000-04:002007-05-18T14:24:00.000-04:00

I decided to post 2 of the 8 troll comments I received on this article.<BR/><BR/>Scumbag CEO?<BR/><BR/>iPhone going to have lukewarm sales?<BR/><BR/>Yeah ... I'm laughing too.

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-31610091087751702622007-05-18T13:59:00.000-04:002007-05-18T13:59:00.000-04:00

I guess the hoax was from some scumbag Apple manager to get Apple stocks for less. No surprise from a company with scumbag CEO.

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-27774566020702546142007-05-18T13:29:00.000-04:002007-05-18T13:29:00.000-04:00

What heaping load. The fault is Apple's, not Engadget's. This should serve as a warning to Apple's directors. Putting everything behind the iPhone at the expense the entire rest of Apple's product line is very, VERY dangerous. Should the iPhone fail or only get a luke warm reception (my personal prediction, based on it's high price and limited availability), the results could be catastrophic.

Scott Kittshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15235394151236256649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-13665866593947824772007-05-18T11:52:00.000-04:002007-05-18T11:52:00.000-04:00

I complete agree with Phillip. I would not have run such a story with nothing more than an internal e-mail without confirmation from Apple.<BR/><BR/>The post is not an apology, in fact it seems to lay the blame at Apple's door. <BR/><BR/>I too would like to see the list of people who traded shares in that period.

Jensonbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671138383581450412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-27398570493332744002007-05-18T10:58:00.000-04:002007-05-18T10:58:00.000-04:00

There is a concept of temporarily manipulating stock prices downwards to gain (illegal) profits.<BR/><BR/>It's called "selling short."<BR/><BR/>It's not a complicated concept. Here's one explanation from a well-known source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_selling

Ambrose Carrachohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11131838234992114048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-63316209700169135662007-05-18T10:40:00.000-04:002007-05-18T10:40:00.000-04:00

I agree with Philip.<BR/><BR/>This "letter" was a justification; not an apology.<BR/><BR/>Ryan even said, [paraphrased] "You would have done it too!"<BR/><BR/>That's like saying you'd kill your wife if your wife had been doing the things Nicole Brown Simpson was doing.<BR/><BR/>A sin is a sin. Engadget committed a professional journalism "sin". They didn't just make a mistake.

blogdognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-8495233736156259402007-05-18T10:34:00.000-04:002007-05-18T10:34:00.000-04:00

You call that letter an apology? Where are the words, "I apologize"?<BR/><BR/>It was a bunch of excuses.<BR/><BR/>Yes 4 Billion WAS LOST - and possibly illegally manipulated to do so.<BR/><BR/>Just because traders bought back shares doesn't mean that they didn't start selling them off to the tune of 60% of AAPL's daily volume.<BR/><BR/>A loss is a loss - whether it be in the red or a lower black

fixyourthinkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709596700848616677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712195.post-90981536817058006852007-05-18T10:28:00.000-04:002007-05-18T10:28:00.000-04:00

You too should get your facts straight. Four billion was not lost. A brief shift in share value does not constitute a realised loss. For many of the shareholders who did sell, the transaction would effectively be locking in profits, or are you defining a smaller than ideal profit for a trader as a loss?<BR/>And exactly what better than an apology can Engadget offer for their blunder? What would

Mikhailovitchnoreply@blogger.com