|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
Just because the subject matter of PJ's post is non-technical
does not make it political. (The reverse can also hold true:
some technical issues, e.g. DRM can be highly political.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
Its the nature of the beast. But I'm not so sure this PJ covering the Supreme
Court decision on ACA is such a radical departure. She got similar criticism
early on when she chose to write about cases unrelated to SCO vs
World+Dog. Her remark then essentially was "Its my personal blog. SCO
vs IBM wasn't the first topic I covered, and won't be the last. I write
about what interests me. Otherwise, what's the point?"
Beats me. PJ was also
reluctant to cover Apple vs Psystar on grounds of who here could
possibly be so perversely interested in a case with no possible impact on the
Free Software community and with all the inherent predictability of a
steamroller?
Turns out quite a few, and PJ agreed to do a few articles "in
her spare time".
Heh.
A similar argument might be made today. A few
months ago PJ mentioned in an off-topic comment that "constitutional issues are
always topical."
Me, I suspect she took more than a passing interest in the ACA
case as it arose, and is secretly glad for the opportunity to explain Judge
Robert's decision.
Teachers can be like that. Part of their personal creed
and calling.
[shrug]
Ed L (not logged in)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
It's not technical but it is legal.
As in Grok Law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: old joe on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
Except that todays post doesn't even discuss the politics.
The entire post is devoted to analyzing and explaining the courts decision and
that is within Groklaw's scope.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|