Week 5 of the Q&A with Fleecy is now available.

[FarQuad]

For anyone interested (anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?), Week 5 of the "Fleecy Fluff Weekly" is now online at AmigaWorld.

I find it most interesting that his ego is so large he can make bold statements which suggest "if you don't take my words as gospel, you will fail" in question one.

His "news" is posted.  People can discuss it.  Despite his rambling, the people decide what is news here, and the vast majority don't consider a weekly q&a session news every single week.

Worthy of a forum post?  Sure.  He always says something that needs to be discussed.  It's not even necessarily what he says that disqualifies it as a news item, it's the frequency.  

For example, if he put out a press release tomorrow, it would be posted as a news item.  A weekly column on another site where he doesn't really say anything except veiled insults, hidden agendas, and failed coup attempts is not.

Keep in mind that I have zero against either AmigaWorld or DaveyD.  We get along fine, so this is not an "Amiga.org versus AmigaWorld" issue, no matter what Fleecy and others might want to push.  Don't buy into it, because it only helps further their agenda.

[Kronos]

YATWTSN  :-o

YATWTSN

[z5]

I for one am impressed by the way that fleecy manages to say NOTHING with so many words.

[Kronos]

@Wayne
Yet Another Ten Ways To Say Nothing  :-P

@z5
Right on  :-D

@z5

I'll have to agree with FarQuad that the only thing he's actually said in 5 weeks that I consider even remotely interesting is how delicately and smoothly he put "if you don't consider what I say to be important enough to give center stage, you will fail".

I hate to say this, but he'd probably make one hell of a politician.  

[Madgun68]

I'll have to agree with FarQuad that the only thing he's actually said in 5 weeks that I consider even remotely interesting is how delicately and smoothly he put "if you don't consider what I say to be important enough to give center stage, you will fail"

I guess I need a new pair of glasses or something. As many times as I've read that article, I can't find anything that suggests such a thing.

@madgun

answer 1, question 1.

[SlimJim]

Weird. And I was just saying on another site that he answered
that potential flame-bomb that is question 1 absolutely
beautifully, and that it would take a very thin hide indeed to
find any offence in his reply. Goes to show what a difference
in attitude makes to interpretation of the same text.
.
SlimJim

[magnetic]

 Hi Wayne
  I understand why you feel the way you do. This Q+A sucks! Well, at least we here something from Ainc! Hyperion have been cool on this site with posts.. I can believe the questions - what a joke it was with the OS5 questions - are you #@!@$% kidding me? They dont even have an Alpha os4 for Aone nevermind OS5... Its funny how some Amiga zealots defend Ainc. Half the questions he answers are "not my department"' bullshit answers like he doesnt know whats going on when he's a principle in the company.  He's like Ollie "Fleecy" North.
  Maybe I'm being hard on him - but he disclaims it himself when he says he has to speak like a "lawyer" He's a nice enough guy in person. There is so much heat on him - its like he's a Pentagon spokesperson - you dont know what to believe.
realize
 :-(

[downix]

I find it facinating, Fleecy, being Amiga's CTO, does not even know if his company has any rights to the Amiga technology.

[Billsey]

The way I took A1Q1 was that he almost as much as agreed with Wayne that his answers are not necessarily news worthy. He basically said "It's not up to me to decide whether or not what I have to say is news. That's up to the editors." In this case, Wayne qualifies as Editor-in-Chief of Amiga.org.

As to whether or not he knows some particular thing, I think it is far wiser—not to mention more humble—to beg off and make certain about an answer rather than spouting off and inserting foot A into mouth B.

SlimJim wrote:
Weird. And I was just saying on another site that he answered that potential flame-bomb that is question 1 absolutely beautifully, and that it would take a very thin hide indeed to find any offence in his reply. Goes to show what a difference in attitude makes to interpretation of the same text.

Point of order.  I don't take offense at all to Fleecy's stance.  Fleecy is welcome to think anything he likes, any where he likes.  I fully understand his hidden agenda and what he is trying to accomplish with these weekly questions and "answers" sessions.

I agree with Downix though, and it's a brilliant point.  For the CTO of a company -- The one person responsible for all technological decisions and direction -- not to be able to speak authoritatively and instantly on a simple, basic question as to whether or not the company actually owns a CORE piece of IP is worth a great, giant guffaw, regardless of whether "discretion is the better part of valor".

[redfox]

Rats ... now I have to go see what you guys are talking about.   ;-)