I can think someone is funny while disliking his methods. Some humor is only enjoyable in small amounts, before it starts to grate on you.

The point where we disagree on is the stereotype that Lyons is building for Steve Jobs. Jobs is a very difficult person to work for, so I am told. Does that invite ridicule?

What’s wrong with Daniel saying where Dan Lyons as Fake Steve Jobs, or the other anti-Apple pundits, gets it wrong? It’s not as though Daniel Eran wants to censor him, just set the record straight. What do you have against that?

If you seriously think that people take Lyons’ “Apple FUD” as legitimate, then you’re delusional.

I find it highly presumptuous that you’ve decided that because Lyons might be a little mean, he’s somehow a vile human being.

I love Apple. I think Steve Jobs is a genius. I also think Fake Steve Jobs is hilarious.

Why do you defend Dan Lyons? Let him defend himself if he is brave enough.

Let him stand up and say under his own name, “I have no personal animosity toward Steve Jobs or Apple inc. I just needed a hook to get people to pay attention to me. It just wasn’t happening otherwise.

“I don’t care what Steve Jobs or anyone else thinks about my writings. If anyone gets offended–screw them.

“Sure, I can be mean and sarcastic behind my persona as Fake Steve Jobs. And too, I know that I play into the hands of people looking for reasons to hate Steve Jobs and Apple. And thus, I become a source for FUD. So what?

“Forget about all that. It isn’t about the Apple haters or the Steve Jobs haters. It’s all about Me. Me. ME. And don’t forget it.”

Let him make a simple statement like that. Perhaps then, I might believe anything he says.

Pen names have been used by some of the world’s greatest authors: Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens), Richard Bachman (Stephen King), Lewis Carroll (Chardles Dodgson), etc. Daniel Lyons uses his pen name for effect, not for hiding. I think you misunderstand that. You say that Fake Steve Jobs without the Steve Jobs part would be nothing, but that’s impossible to know and ridiculous to suggest. Perhaps I am understating Fake Steve Jobs. It’s a persona, a character, more than a pen name. If it was just a pen name you might expect Daniel Lyons to use a different writing style. But he speaks differently and with a completely different tone. For that, it’s a persona.

Is Daniel Lyons a liar? Hardly. He doesn’t make predictions through Fake Steve Jobs. He doesn’t even make statements about the market. Many of the words of Fake Steve Jobs are completely untrue and only a fool would believe he’s serious when he says he hates the French or he knows a millionaire CEO who’s dating a 15-year-old or claims that Al Gore has met a Klingon or he gets people’s names wrong on purpose. But that’s part of humor. And yes, some parts of FSJ are not satire and simply silly. But is Daniel Lyons a liar for it? No.

Also, you cannot win an argument simply by resorting to insulting the other side. Please be civil. There is no need to bring in anyone’s politics into this or write such invective statements about anyone.

Lyons preys on people who can’t defend themselves, because if the people he defames did, then that would be news. Lyons is a coward in that he won’t put his lies in his own name, so he is best ignored.

I don’t care about Steve Jobs who ought to be used to people misrepresenting his positions. He collected a lot of Microsoft FUD over the years. Jobs and Apple computers do good work. Neither is perfect, but they make good computers and entertainment devises. When Apple and Jobs make mistakes they need to be called on them. But, it’s not my job to defend him.

Nor is it my job to protect Daniel Eran. DE and I have run into issues between us. I think his leftist politics are stupid. His manners to me have been quite rude. But, he is right in this instance. Dan Lyons needs to be confronted for his lies. The only place to do this is in the venue of public opinion.

The point about the above article is that, to paraphrase Edmond Burke, “All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.” It is this quote what causes me to support the Global War on Terrorism while Daniel Eran does not.

Nor do I care about the idiots who like Dan Lyons’ screed. If you brain dead and ill mannered enough to like his lies, then you are contemptible, too. I don’t care about Dan Lyons rights, but his bad manners need to be commented on.

So, what do I care about? I care about the truth. I am on truth’s side. In this, Dan Lyons is in the wrong. You are in the wrong for defending Dan Lyons lies. And Daniel Eran is in the right. Enough said.

FSJ insults, for instance, John Dvorak in his most recent post. FSJ posts a video of an invetview with Dvorak, saying how the iPhone will be a failure. It’s obviously a dumb think for him to have said. FSJ calls him “grandpa” and invites the reader to learn from what’s just happened. Is that not trying to affect change? FSJ is clearly saying that Dvorak isn’t very good at predictions. Now, is that a lie? Hell no. The iPhone has sold well over five million units!

Again and again you attack Lyons himself. I’ll admit, I never read what he’s actually said in Forbes, so I looked it up. You say Lyons never attacks Microsoft. He does it right here:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/22/vista-microsoft-ballmer_cz_dl_0322microsoft.html

I looked through several other articles written by Lyons, linked to in a separate post about Lyons, the one where Daniel Dilger mentions Lyons calling Linux users crunchy-heads. That’s not even an attack on Linux. Daniel Dilger misinterpreted the article.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html
Daniel Dilger says that Lyons is calling Linux users ignorant and delusional. That’s not what Lyons is saying. From a business perspective, Lyons is saying that it’s foolish to assume that Linux is safe because SCO is well-connected and can fund a prolonged legal battle.

Lyons is obviously wrong. His track record for making predictions (Apple as big brother? he asks in another post) is dubious at best. But is he a liar? I don’t believe he is. I think he is, in fact, a piss-poor columnist when it comes to looking at the future. He was obviously on the wrong side of the SCO vs. Linux scuffle, which is evidence enough of lack of journalistic ability.

But I believe that Daniel Lyons honestly likes Steve Jobs.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/01/29/vista-windows-reviews_tech-cz_dl_0129vistareview.html
Daniel Lyons in the last paragraph says that he prefers the Mac to any Windows computer. It would therefore make sense that he likes Jobs. FSJ is probably more a labor of love for Jobs than it is a hit job on him.

Of course, the alternative is that everything Lyons says in both Forbes and FSJ is a total lie. But no one knows that for sure except Lyons. It makes more sense that he can reflect on the past (but then again, can’t everyone) but not on the future than he just is a bald-faced liar in everything he says. It’s easy to say Windows Vista sucks when everyone else has already said it. What motive would Daniel Lyons have for lying through his teeth? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to tell the truth. Assuming that he is lying in everything he says leads to a lot of speculation that may never be proved or disproved. What would really be revealing is a list of the stocks that Lyons holds. (Perhaps he holds a conflict of interest?)

I think that through Occam’s Razor one can conclude that Daniel Lyons is simply a poor technology columnist who (I think) runs a funny blog.

You dislike the characterization that I made of you leaping to Dan Lyon’s defense. Perhaps, ‘leaping to the defense’ is too strong a phrase. You do keep supplying Dan Lyons with justifications. Why?

You never really answer the question of why it is okay to attack Steve Jobs. Saying that Steve Jobs is a worthy target because he is a celebrity is like saying that banks deserve to be robbed because they have money in them. Steve Jobs’ supposed Pretentiousness is a value judgment which Dan Lyons may be wrong about. What give Lyons the right to look down on anyone?

You say that the purpose of satire is to effect change. What change? How is a foul mouth teller of lies placed in another person’s mouth going to effect change? Lyons is more likely to reconfirm prejudices.

Is Dan Lyons a Scoundrel? Is he a mean, immoral person? I’d say yes. Why? He is not sincere. Anyone can have an opposing opinion. Part of being human is to make mistakes. How do you tell if a person is honest, but mistaken? Usually, it is by their attitude and their track record.

Dan Lyons’ track record is not good.

You say that Dan Lyons says bad things about Microsoft, but does he do so honestly under his own name? No. He puts his slanders in the mouth of his character-Fake Steve Jobs. Thus, he provides accusations against the real Steve Jobs and Apple for those not intelligent enough to make up the lies for themselves.

The point is that I can tell when a person is being teased good naturedly and when he is not. There are a number of dark humorists whom I like.

There is a danger here. Lies are not only quicker out the gate, but they persist long after their tellers are dead. The lies about Lucretia Borgia have persisted for 200 years. Was she an evil person? Did she lie, torture and use her feminine wiles to seduce men? No, she was a typical Italian noble woman caught up in a long lasting feud between families. Her family’s enemies employed crooked wordsmiths when they couldn’t get away with murdering her family members.

People are likely to believe the lies of Fake Steve Jobs rather than the pronouncements of the real one. They will impute Dan Lyons slanders on the real Steve jobs.

Dan Lyons is small potatoes as far as crooked wordsmiths go. The Political Liars in the New York Times completely surpass him.

Lyons’ dishonesty is trivial. You may like the foul results his humor. His lies may confirm your prejudices, but let’s not defend the man. He is what he is.

I am sorry that we cannot see eye to eye. I have no hate for Steve Jobs as you claim I do. Do I love humor? Yes, particularly satire. That is why I love The Onion and, recently, “I am America (And So Can You!)” by Stephen Colbert (and Colbert in general).

Unfortunately, it does not appear that you have investigated your own claims that Lyons is a terrible man. After I read Daniel Eran Dilger’s post, I went to fakesteve.blogspot.com and looked for evidence that would lead me to a conclusion. In my last post I provided such proof that Lyons would rather beat up on Microsoft rather than Apple. I read page after page of FSJ posts and, yes, I found a few jabs at Apple–it would look highly suspicious if he did not. But FSJ countless times pounded Vista, calling it slow and buggy and filled with stolen ideas from Apple. FSJ has a bias for Microsoft? It must be an abusive relationship.

Did I leap to the defense of a “scoundrel?” That depends on whether or not leaping to someone’s defense constitutes spending time actually reading through FSJ. On the other hand, you have countered with conclusion and assumption drawn from a preconceived notion. I am not trying to change your mind; I merely wish for you to show me why you have come to your decision. I have shown you mine, and I have grounded it in Fake Steve Jobs’ own words. Is that leaping to his defense? Hardly. I would care to chance that you have not even read what I said last time, because you have offered no counterpoint. Please show some reason, rather than emotion.

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/rob/?p=179

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2007/december#fri-28-enderle