Errrrr...
I don't understand why some people say he was downplaying the murder of wife and kid. That wasn't' the subject of his article. Might his article have been phrased differently? Maybe so. However, his article was about the spammer and his opinion of the fellow.
He did not attack the family or make light of it. Plenty of news outlets have discussed the entire tragedy. Why would he need to repeat what everyone already knows? He wrote the article specifically about a guy he truly despised and said good riddance.
If Bill Gates or President Bush/Obama/Kennedy (or any famous name) went down in a plane crash most of the news outlets would focus on that famous person and not go much into the details of the other individuals (pilot/passengers). Why is this any different? Before people go and shout and rage they out to think a little bit.
I enjoy reading both sites and I rarely comment. But this time I felt the need to respond for 2 reasons.
#1 I don't think Charlie was in the wrong and is getting bashed for no reason.
#2 I think The Register used this story as more of a "kick in the pants/we gotcha" piece more than an actual news worthy story. I may be wrong but that's how it came off to me.
Let's get all done with the bickering and go back to enjoyable reading. It'd be a shame to lose either one of you.
Sincerely,
Joe
Biting the hand that feeds IT
