Sander Sassen replies...

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

haha... all this time I thought it meant "quit fuk'n talking". I really had that backwards.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: jasonja

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

haha... all this time I thought it meant "quit fuk'n talking". I really had that backwards.

ROFL

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I haven't been around here much lately but I read though this thread and didn't find anything about it so I desided to add it. Anyway, I'm crious to see the moron's response.

hehe.. yea, that's cause some just can't keep this stuff in one thread; the feel the need to post a new one every time, so there are like half a dozen threads related to this on AT forums..

on a somewhat moderated forum they would have been joined some time ago

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jasonja

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

haha... all this time I thought it meant "quit fuk'n talking". I really had that backwards.

I thought that too for quite awhile. That version just makes more sense, this being the Internet and all!

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: jasonja

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

haha... all this time I thought it meant "quit fuk'n talking". I really had that backwards.

QFT - Quit F'n Trolling.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

Oh, I had a far more gutteral intrepretation. Guess my Alberta roots are showing.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Have I been in touch with a few of the AIBs prior to talking to him about the launch event? Well, yes. The condesending tone of his emails however are what motivated one of the AIBs to get me some early scores of the R520 architecture. The article wasn?t meant to smythe ATI, although the introduction outlines why I feel ATI has been rather difficult to work with, that is another story though.

The benchmarks provided are not knowingly false or meant to put ATI?s new architecture in a negative light, but provided AS-IS as they are run on a pre-production sample. In all honesty I?m glad that my article has attracted such massive attention, and that a lot of people, that includes me, are now eagerly awaiting the introduction of this new architecture and are curious as to how it performs. As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.

What a load of BS . . . the numbers are less than USELESS.
:roll:

:thumbsdown:

Seriously, his defense is in his disclaimer. So I can post a # like:

F.E.A.R. Demo
X1800 Pro: 192 FPS
7800GTX SLI: 21 FPS

and add a disclaimer and then I would be saved from criticism?

WoW. Let's all post fake benchmarks and add disclaimers! Wewt.

Seriously, and its not like Sanders posted these random benches (legit or not) for a good purpose. Whether it's real or not, he posted it to aggravate ATI and to cry out to the world.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: apoppin

Have I been in touch with a few of the AIBs prior to talking to him about the launch event? Well, yes. The condesending tone of his emails however are what motivated one of the AIBs to get me some early scores of the R520 architecture. The article wasn?t meant to smythe ATI, although the introduction outlines why I feel ATI has been rather difficult to work with, that is another story though.

The benchmarks provided are not knowingly false or meant to put ATI?s new architecture in a negative light, but provided AS-IS as they are run on a pre-production sample. In all honesty I?m glad that my article has attracted such massive attention, and that a lot of people, that includes me, are now eagerly awaiting the introduction of this new architecture and are curious as to how it performs. As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.

What a load of BS . . . the numbers are less than USELESS.
:roll:

:thumbsdown:

Seriously, his defense is in his disclaimer. So I can post a # like:

F.E.A.R. Demo
X1800 Pro: 192 FPS
7800GTX SLI: 21 FPS

and add a disclaimer and then I would be saved from criticism?

WoW. Let's all post fake benchmarks and add disclaimers! Wewt.

Seriously, and its not like Sanders posted these random benches (legit or not) for a good purpose. Whether it's real or not, he posted it to aggravate ATI and to cry out to the world.

You must play "WoW" due to your punctuation on wow. It is a common mistake among the addicted WoW gamers. Yes, we are so addicted that anytime we see WoW we think "Hey they play too!" Yeah...

/Carry on

 

[jam3]

Man you guys can't see a smear campaign when it hits you with a 40 ton truck. The whole point I take away from the entire affair is that Anderzj, an official ATI PR person, openly attacked a journalist in a public forum, and did so personally. I could care less about who said what, when, in which e-mail, nor what impetous Sander had to publish the benchmark article.

That entire forum post from Anderzj was a complete all out attack and smear campaign, period. Especially since he is still working for ATI. Everyone in here who has a job at a large company knows exactly what would happen to them if they started a personal flame war with a journalist outside their company about internal company issues. This is most likely orchaestrated by ATI since there is no official statement about the affair from ATI.

ATI should distance themselves immediatly from this issue since it has gotten out of control and at the very least reprimand Anderzj.

Companies have the right to invite who they wish, where they wish, when they wish. But companies who aren't transparent in their marketing and PR practices have only themselves to blame in situations like this. The whole "your cut for 6 months" is ridiculous, its basically like the white house kicking reporters for not writing what they want them to. ATI obviously fly's journalists around the world and wines and dines them (which is not smart imho) and when they don't get what they want they "cut" people from the club. If ATI wants to engage in that type of relationship with the press then they have to be the ones who show complete transparency, not the other way around. Sander just did an expose' and if ATI couldn't see that one coming (even if sander is kinda a jerk) then there definetly responsible for their own huberis.

In the end though this is a boon for ATI and Sander, even bad PR is PR and gets the word out on ATI, getting us more rabid for the release, and Sander (heck I never even heard of him before) who gets his name plastered all over the net and everyone talking about him. Even those who come out hating the guy will end up going to his site in the future just to read up on the person they "hate".

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: jam3
Man you guys can't see a smear campaign when it hits you with a 40 ton truck. The whole point I take away from the entire affair is that Anderzj, an official ATI PR person, openly attacked a journalist in a public forum, and did so personally. I could care less about who said what, when, in which e-mail, nor what impetous Sander had to publish the benchmark article.

That entire forum post from Anderzj was a complete all out attack and smear campaign, period. Especially since he is still working for ATI. Everyone in here who has a job at a large company knows exactly what would happen to them if they started a personal flame war with a journalist outside their company about internal company issues. This is most likely orchaestrated by ATI since there is no official statement about the affair from ATI.

ATI should distance themselves immediatly from this issue since it has gotten out of control and at the very least reprimand Anderzj.

Companies have the right to invite who they wish, where they wish, when they wish. But companies who aren't transparent in their marketing and PR practices have only themselves to blame in situations like this. The whole "your cut for 6 months" is ridiculous, its basically like the white house kicking reporters for not writing what they want them to. ATI obviously fly's journalists around the world and wines and dines them (which is not smart imho) and when they don't get what they want they "cut" people from the club. If ATI wants to engage in that type of relationship with the press then they have to be the ones who show complete transparency, not the other way around. Sander just did an expose' and if ATI couldn't see that one coming (even if sander is kinda a jerk) then there definetly responsible for their own huberis.

In the end though this is a boon for ATI and Sander, even bad PR is PR and gets the word out on ATI, getting us more rabid for the release, and Sander (heck I never even heard of him before) who gets his name plastered all over the net and everyone talking about him. Even those who come out hating the guy will end up going to his site in the future just to read up on the person they "hate".

Very good points... Good read.

 

[kylebisme]

Good read? I stopped after the first two lines when I realize that he accused others of not being able to see a smear campaign, and yet failed to realize that a smear campaign Sander has been conducting. Calling Sander out on his BS attempt to "drop the stock price" of ATI is hardly a smear campaign, but quite clearly a response to one.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Good read? I stopped after the first two lines when I realize that he accused others of not being able to see a smear campaign, and yet failed to realize that a smear campaign Sander has been conducting. Calling Sander out on his BS attempt to "drop the stock price" of ATI is hardly a smear campaign, but quite clearly a response to one.

Naw, it was a good read because he provided a well thought out view point. I do not have to agree with it you find it a good read. I dissagree with many posts, but if they are presented in a proper non inflamitory manner, I generally will not comment on them.

Everyone is here to make their point. Those who do it more peacefully have my respect. Those that call names, well... Lets just say, that isn't my thing.

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1814/

Terra - This is better than reality shows! *L*

And on this episode of WHEN GEEKS ATTACK... :laugh:

 

[jam3]

Good read? I stopped after the first two lines when I realize that he accused others of not being able to see a smear campaign, and yet failed to realize that a smear campaign Sander has been conducting. Calling Sander out on his BS attempt to "drop the stock price" of ATI is hardly a smear campaign, but quite clearly a response to one.

My point is that that quote is from an a private e-mail that Anderzej took public, and regardless of whether it was a joke or a threat it is now being used to smear Sander. You can read Sanders article a bazillion times and I dont see anywhere where he attacks Anderzej publically. Sander sending an e-mail is not sander publishing a smear article, how people are making that leap is beyond me.

Thats what I think everyone here is missing is that Anderzej as an individual and an ATI PR representative publically attacked an individual journalist on a public forum, thats smear. A journalist who makes claims against a corporation (for whatever reason) is just plain journalism. If his facts are wrong then its bad journalism, if there right then its good journalism.

ATI should have made a corporate statement diasvowing the allegations made in the article and not attacked Sander personally.

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: jam3

Good read? I stopped after the first two lines when I realize that he accused others of not being able to see a smear campaign, and yet failed to realize that a smear campaign Sander has been conducting. Calling Sander out on his BS attempt to "drop the stock price" of ATI is hardly a smear campaign, but quite clearly a response to one.

My point is that that quote is from an a private e-mail that Anderzej took public, and regardless of whether it was a joke or a threat it is now being used to smear Sander. You can read Sanders article a bazillion times and I dont see anywhere where he attacks Anderzej publically. Sander sending an e-mail is not sander publishing a smear article, how people are making that leap is beyond me.

Thats what I think everyone here is missing is that Anderzej as an individual and an ATI PR representative publically attacked an individual journalist on a public forum, thats smear. A journalist who makes claims against a corporation (for whatever reason) is just plain journalism. If his facts are wrong then its bad journalism, if there right then its good journalism.

ATI should have made a corporate statement diasvowing the allegations made in the article and not attacked Sander personally.

I agree. It looks like a case of impugning the source when you cannot refute the evidence.

 

[jam3]

I agree. It looks like a case of impugning the source when you cannot refute the evidence.

It sure does. I mean how many people here are just simply forgetting that Andrzej is an official ATI Public Relations person? [Sarcasm on] I mean theres no way a PR rep could intentionally and with malice of forethought, publish private e-mails on a public forum in an attempt to discredit the person when they can't discredit their statement/article?

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: jam3

Good read? I stopped after the first two lines when I realize that he accused others of not being able to see a smear campaign, and yet failed to realize that a smear campaign Sander has been conducting. Calling Sander out on his BS attempt to "drop the stock price" of ATI is hardly a smear campaign, but quite clearly a response to one.

My point is that that quote is from an a private e-mail that Anderzej took public, and regardless of whether it was a joke or a threat it is now being used to smear Sander. You can read Sanders article a bazillion times and I dont see anywhere where he attacks Anderzej publically. Sander sending an e-mail is not sander publishing a smear article, how people are making that leap is beyond me.

Thats what I think everyone here is missing is that Anderzej as an individual and an ATI PR representative publically attacked an individual journalist on a public forum, thats smear. A journalist who makes claims against a corporation (for whatever reason) is just plain journalism. If his facts are wrong then its bad journalism, if there right then its good journalism.

ATI should have made a corporate statement diasvowing the allegations made in the article and not attacked Sander personally.

The ATI PR rep took the email public because Sander started signing up on multiple boards and starting painting a picture of his relationship with ATI & its PR department which was far from reality.

I still believe ATI wouldnt have responded (at B3D & elsewhere) if it wasnt for Sander to have gone out of control.

Sander in his mindless spamming even admitted that this controversy is getting him good money... Hence you have to read the whole thing to form a "better" conclusion.

 

[jam3]

The ATI PR rep took the email public because Sander started signing up on multiple boards and starting painting a picture of his relationship with ATI & its PR department which was far from reality.

It doesn't matter if Sander painted "ATI Sucks" all over himself and then ran around nude outside ATI's corporate offices. (Although ATI calling in another news agency to get him for such a ridicuolous act wouldn't be a bad idea).

It is possible to smear someone who deserves it, but your definetly taking the low road And it has nothing to do with whether or not the assertions Sander made in his publication are accurate. In other words a real jerkwad of a journalist can still write a good accurate story, these things aren't mutually exclusive.



This is basic ad hominem logical fallacy. It basically says NOTHING about the truth or validity of the article and insteads attacks the person writing the article, and of course its obfuscated in vague generalities, with the exception of mentioning the product by name one-time, thats your "lead-in" to a direct assumption of the r520 article.

"CONCLUSION: When it comes to R520 results, you should only believe journalists who have established a reputation for being trustworthy"




And the following is just plain huberis on Andrzej's part.You really think that a JOURNALIST isn't going to write a story of his own making? The onus is always on the vendor or the corporation, government agency, etc to be TRANSPARENT in order to get coverage. The second they start hiding things, or demanding coverage on specific topics your not interested in, any good journalist is going to go after them.

Lets look at it another way.

What? You won't write an article on Coke ONE , no more free lime coke samples for you!

You say the people aren't interested in the relationship between the president and his dog? Get out of the white house press room!!!

Any journalist in this situation would cry foul and would be more likely to do an expose against the entity in question.

"CONCLUSION: If you choose NOT to work with a vendor - don't cry 'foul' when they
decide NOT to work with you"




Here is where he ties in the previous link in the first assertion to the article and ties it to the e-mails, which are related in no way at all, if Sander would have posted those e-mails in the article then he would have set that as "the rules of engagement". This is nothing more than trying to confuse people that the e-mails and the article should somehow be summed and the judged together which is ridiculous.

"Email conversations

As I have pointed out, honesty is crucial.

Emailing several people at ATI to explain that you are very important, that you have a series of specific demands that must be met as soon as possible and then going on to explain just how bad a job we are doing of keeping you happy is one thing.

However, including ATI's direct competition on 'cc' in such an email is another thing entirely.

To then 'jump to the moral high ground' when your 'threats' have been exposed is laughable.

CONCLUSION: Once you pick the rules of engagement - don't get upset when your true character is revealed later on"





Again, nothing but obfuscations and generalities, nothing that says

r520 XT beats the 7800 gtx in those benchamrks in your article, we'll prove it, then prove your lying, and then sue you for liable.

But it sure is meant to make you think that. I don't understand how PR people sleep at night.

"The Figures
When considering the performance of our next-generation products, you need to ask yourself one very simple question:

"Would ATI seriously bring 100 of Europe?s top press to a Technology Day where they can run whatever benchmarks they choose if we thought that we were going to lose?"

Sander claims that these numbers were given to him by a trusted source.

The numbers shown do not match any pattern that we have for our next generation products.

CONCLUSION: Either Sander lied - or his 'trusted source' set him up to look stupid on a global stage for printing made up results"





Apparently the only valid "conclusion" he makes, apparently Sander retracted those comments soon after posting the article. Although this should have been released in a different way than an individual ATI PR Rep attacking Sander mon a mono.

"Edits
Intelligent readers also need to be aware that the first version of the story he posted seemed to accuse every site who attends the ATI Tech Day of a fundamental inability to be independent in their testing and copy.

Needless to say that I am sure several sites have 'web-wacked' that original version and will be considering taking action to defend their names.

CONCLUSION: If you are going to accuse the largest independent publications in Europe of being bent - make sure you have enough money in the bank to retain good council"




All of this is pure spin and smear from someone TRAINED in spin and smear.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: jam3
It doesn't matter if Sander painted "ATI Sucks" all over himself and then ran around nude outside ATI's corporate offices. (Although ATI calling in another news agency to get him for such a ridicuolous act wouldn't be a bad idea).

It is possible to smear someone who deserves it, but your definetly taking the low road And it has nothing to do with whether or not the assertions Sander made in his publication are accurate. In other words a real jerkwad of a journalist can still write a good accurate story, these things aren't mutually exclusive.

His latest piece on 7800 GT (his "favorite hardware") is a big joke. Sander forgot what his profession was when he took the crybaby part too seriously. He wasnt a "journalist" at all to begin with because he decided to throw his ethics out of the window because his wish wasnt granted by ATI. He also managed to accuse all review websites falsely. Now point me ONE journalist (jerkwad at that) who has done that. Can you ?

Originally posted by: jam3
This is basic ad hominem logical fallacy. It basically says NOTHING about the truth or validity of the article and insteads attacks the person writing the article, and of course its obfuscated in vague generalities, with the exception of mentioning the product by name one-time, thats your "lead-in" to a direct assumption of the r520 article.

So how could ATI prove his "article" was a joke ? I hope you dont suggest that they should have broken their own NDA.

Originally posted by: jam3
And the following is just plain huberis on Andrzej's part.You really think that a JOURNALIST isn't going to write a story of his own making? The onus is always on the vendor or the corporation, government agency, etc to be TRANSPARENT in order to get coverage. The second they start hiding things, or demanding coverage on specific topics your not interested in, any good journalist is going to go after them.

Lets look at it another way.

What? You won't write an article on Coke ONE , no more free lime coke samples for you!

You say the people aren't interested in the relationship between the president and his dog? Get out of the white house press room!!!

Any journalist in this situation would cry foul and would be more likely to do an expose against the entity in question.

I hope you read Sander's response where he posts up the email chains. Do you think any SANE person would ask a vendor for samples with that kind of attitude ? I dont think ANY company would have tolerated him. Sander considered himself "above all" that the IHVs desperately needed him to survive. They didnt and when they let him know about that he throws a hissy fit.

Originally posted by: jam3
Here is where he ties in the previous link in the first assertion to the article and ties it to the e-mails, which are related in no way at all, if Sander would have posted those e-mails in the article then he would have set that as "the rules of engagement". This is nothing more than trying to confuse people that the e-mails and the article should somehow be summed and the judged together which is ridiculous.

"Email conversations

As I have pointed out, honesty is crucial.

Emailing several people at ATI to explain that you are very important, that you have a series of specific demands that must be met as soon as possible and then going on to explain just how bad a job we are doing of keeping you happy is one thing.

However, including ATI's direct competition on 'cc' in such an email is another thing entirely.

To then 'jump to the moral high ground' when your 'threats' have been exposed is laughable.

CONCLUSION: Once you pick the rules of engagement - don't get upset when your true character is revealed later on"

Again, nothing but obfuscations and generalities, nothing that says

r520 XT beats the 7800 gtx in those benchamrks in your article, we'll prove it, then prove your lying, and then sue you for liable.

But it sure is meant to make you think that.

I think the PR rep's post CLEARLY said that. I dont know how you missed it. The comments from other ATI officials were exactly like that "R520 dominates the fastest competitive hardware".

Originally posted by: jam3
And do you think you would be happy if a person dealing with you decides to cc your conversation.

"The Figures
When considering the performance of our next-generation products, you need to ask yourself one very simple question:

"Would ATI seriously bring 100 of Europe?s top press to a Technology Day where they can run whatever benchmarks they choose if we thought that we were going to lose?"

Sander claims that these numbers were given to him by a trusted source.

The numbers shown do not match any pattern that we have for our next generation products.

CONCLUSION: Either Sander lied - or his 'trusted source' set him up to look stupid on a global stage for printing made up results"


Apparently the only valid "conclusion" he makes, apparently Sander retracted those comments soon after posting the article. Although this should have been released in a different way than an individual ATI PR Rep attacking Sander mon a mono.

You should really read up the COMPLETE controversy. ATI officials commented on the performance figures of R520 first, the response from the PR rep was done AFTER.

Originally posted by: jam3
"Edits
Intelligent readers also need to be aware that the first version of the story he posted seemed to accuse every site who attends the ATI Tech Day of a fundamental inability to be independent in their testing and copy.

Needless to say that I am sure several sites have 'web-wacked' that original version and will be considering taking action to defend their names.

CONCLUSION: If you are going to accuse the largest independent publications in Europe of being bent - make sure you have enough money in the bank to retain good council"




All of this is pure spin and smear from someone TRAINED in spin and smear.

Ofcourse but isnt the point valid ? Or do you excuse it because it comes from a PR rep. :roll: And this point was brought well BEFORE the PR rep showed up.

 

[jam3]

I think the PR rep's post CLEARLY said that. I dont know how you missed it. The comments from other ATI officials were exactly like that "R520 dominates the fastest competitive hardware".

Theres where I lost you, that is absolutly a generality if it wasnt they would have said
the 1800XT dominates the 7800gtx iand could be even more specific by stating which games and which reolutions.

He CLEARLY said nothing specific.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: jam3

I think the PR rep's post CLEARLY said that. I dont know how you missed it. The comments from other ATI officials were exactly like that "R520 dominates the fastest competitive hardware".

Theres where I lost you, that is absolutly a generality if it wasnt they would have said
the 1800XT dominates the 7800gtx iand could be even more specific by stating which games and which reolutions.

He CLEARLY said nothing specific.

For the (n+1)th time, providing any sort of benchmarks would mean breaking their own NDA. I'm sure most people dont realise what NDAs are and how they work because of responses like the one above.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: jam3

I think the PR rep's post CLEARLY said that. I dont know how you missed it. The comments from other ATI officials were exactly like that "R520 dominates the fastest competitive hardware".

Theres where I lost you, that is absolutly a generality if it wasnt they would have said
the 1800XT dominates the 7800gtx iand could be even more specific by stating which games and which reolutions.

He CLEARLY said nothing specific.

They clearly said nothing specific because they can't, not until reviews are done and the NDA is removed. Unforatunately, in this situation, there were only two possible recourses for ATI: say nothing, or strike back using generalities, suggestions and (if wishing to stoop down to his level), smear.

ATI, unfortunately, can't say "well, the X1800XT beats the 7800GTX in Half Life 2 at 1920X1200, 4xAA/16xAF in our internal testing by 10 fps, and beats it in game XXX by YYY." It breaks their own NDA. Plus, when reviews come out and show slightly different variations, the press would eat ATI's comments for lunch.

At least smear can be pinned down to one ATI representative (possibly acting on company orders to reply), and not reflect the (public) opinion of the whole company. Besides, trashy tabloid talk grabs all the headlines; otherwise we wouldn't give a rat's @ss who Sander Sassen (is that a porn name?) is.

 

[dug777]

what a tool

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: jam3
Man you guys can't see a smear campaign when it hits you with a 40 ton truck. The whole point I take away from the entire affair is that Anderzj, an official ATI PR person, openly attacked a journalist in a public forum, and did so personally. I could care less about who said what, when, in which e-mail, nor what impetous Sander had to publish the benchmark article.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The whole issue is Sander's impetus and the validity of the benchmarks. Why do you choose to call ATI's response unbecoming, yet ignore the article that instigated it?

This is most likely orchaestrated by ATI since there is no official statement about the affair from ATI.

No kidding, he's a PR guy and Sander called ATI a company that only works with suck-ups.

ATI should distance themselves immediatly from this issue since it has gotten out of control and at the very least reprimand Anderzj.

Agreed on the first part, not so sure about the second. They could at least make it company policy not to respond to petty flames.

The whole "your cut for 6 months" is ridiculous, its basically like the white house kicking reporters for not writing what they want them to.

When did ATI become representative government? I must have missed the PR--I mean, memo.

You must have missed the parts where Sanders insulted Andrzej, acted as if ATI owed him an R520, threatened an upcoming article would drop their stock price, then called reviewers who accepted ATI's invitations shills.

Yours doesn't appear to be a "well thought-out viewpoint" because it appears you haven't actually read all the related material, including Sander's email logs. The simple fact is he got too big for his britches, and he's refused to acknowledge it. Well, he did apologize to Andrzej in one of his last emails--then casually tells him to send out an R520 so they can forget the whole thing. Ballsy or clueless? You decide..

A journalist who makes claims against a corporation (for whatever reason) is just plain journalism. If his facts are wrong then its bad journalism, if there right then its good journalism.

Wow, you're being quite generous to journalists. Just publishing something makes it neither journalism nor good. (Surely youve heard of Jayson Blair and the NYT? Or Stephen Glass and TNR?) But Sander's facts aren't the only thing in question here. It's his motives, gleaned through his article's intro and the subsequently revealed emails, that are causing the most trouble for him.

Sander can buy his own ATI card and test it out the wazzoo, and there's nothing ATI can do to stop him. But you'd think common courtesy in communication would be helpful when you're trying to score free trips and cards in order to earn money yourself.

jam3, I think you're overthinking this, or you don't have all the available evidence.

It is possible to smear someone who deserves it, but your definetly taking the low road

Agreed. It would have been better for ATI to clam up until articles by journos who actually had cards in hand appeared.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not the assertions Sander made in his publication are accurate. In other words a real jerkwad of a journalist can still write a good accurate story, these things aren't mutually exclusive.

But you seem to imply that being a jerkwad doesn't affect your accuracy one way or another.

And the following is just plain huberis on Andrzej's part.You really think that a JOURNALIST isn't going to write a story of his own making? The onus is always on the vendor or the corporation, government agency, etc to be TRANSPARENT in order to get coverage. The second they start hiding things, or demanding coverage on specific topics your not interested in, any good journalist is going to go after them.

Again, you imply that Sander is a good journalist. I must therefore conclude you think his numbers are accurate, as a "good" journalist wouldn't "go after" ATI with lies because of a perceived slight. Big leaps.

I'm not sure why the company has to be "transparent" and undemanding, while the journalist can be demanding (and opaque in his sources).

All of this is pure spin and smear from someone TRAINED in spin and smear

Would it be a logical fallacy to conclude that since Andrzej is better at "spin and smear" than Sander, he was "trained" in it? All we know for sure is that he's paid to spin, and he seems to be doing a better job of it than Sander (who, by the way, is paid to write). Sander's last piece actually seemed to make Andrzej's job easier, IMO, as the emails painted a less-flattering picture of the author than he perceives.

Originally posted by: Pythias
I agree. It looks like a case of impugning the source when you cannot refute the evidence.

Pythias, why does the evidence get a pass? ATI impugned and refuted the evidence, too. In fact, their first public responses (published at Guru3D, IIRC) labelled the benchmarks as made up. I believe Andrzej's more personal responses came later.

 

[ronnn]

Sander certainly kick started the excitement surrounding this release. Hard to buy publicity like that. Maybe he works for Ati? Or maybe the Ati pr department was on the ball here and decided publicly flaming this guy was good politics. Not very nice though and somewhat distasteful. I just hope these new cards are as good as the show before.