I still have no intention of linking to Andrew Orlowski. But Thomas Hawk did, and he quotes from the latest installment in Andrew’s public feud with Robert Scoble. Orlowski prints a damaging e-mail supposedly sent by Scoble, and he goes on to slur Scoble’s reputation and suggest that Microsoft should muzzle him. Trouble is, the text of the e-mail that Orlowski printed doesn’t match what Scoble sent. I’ve seen the original, and Orlowski’s version contains sentences that Robert never wrote. As Thomas writes:
Now getting a source who gives you bad information is one thing, but making up emails is something else entirely. If I were the Register I’d investigate this and if it turns out Orlowski fabricated an email then he should be fired.
It’s one thing to make up quotes, but e-mails that go through corporate servers leave lots and lots of traces, all of them monitored by lawyers who are going to safeguard them as if they were about to be subpoenaed in an antitrust trial. It will be very easy to prove who’s telling the truth, and my money’s on Scoble, who has been scrupulously honest (if occasionally overenthusiastic) in all my dealings with him. Especially when the other guy makes shit up every day just for fun.
Seriously, folks, reasonable people can disagree about all sorts of things. They can yell and scream and question the other guy’s motives and even spin conspiracy theories. But if you start by distorting the available facts and then you make shit up on top of that, everyone loses.
One of these guys is a liar. I firmly believe Robert Scoble is telling the truth
In fact, Andrew may have stepped in a bigger pile than he bargained on this time around. Scoble’s professional reputation would be damaged severely with an accusation that he knowingly lied. If that statement turned out to be untrue and it was printed with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth (which kind of sums up Andrew’s working style)… Well, you’ve got all the ingredients for a libel suit that would have any lawyer grinning from ear to ear.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer hack.
More Orlowski hackery here . Counting up the A.O. errors is a Sisyphean task. Or, more accurately, I suppose, Augean.
Ed Bott 
I think what makes Scoble easy to believe is that he readily admits when he’s wrong. Orlowski could have done the same, but unfortunately he long since passed that exit and headed straight for la-la land.
Hi Ed,
Here is the email that I sent to TheRegister on the email Andrew posted.
–
From: Rick Segal
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 7:21 AM
To: ‘drew.cullen@theregister.co.uk’; ‘philip.mitchell@theregister.co.uk’; ‘andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk’
Cc: ‘Dan Gillmor’; Mark Evans (National Post)
Subject: Code of Practice (Press Complaints Commission) Inquiry
Gentlemen,
My name is Rick Segal and I’m with a Venture Capital firm here in Canada. I also write for a local print publications as well as maintain a blog. On July 29th, Andrew Orlowski wrote a story in which he claimed to have received a piece of email that a Microsoft employee (Robert Scoble) wrote disputing an issue about a beta release of Internet Explorer.
The story is here.
Scoble vehemently denied this, claiming the mail was a forgery. He provided, to me and others, the email that was sent/received which showed the full email headers, message id and other tracking information. The email can be validated via Microsoft’s IT department as you’d expect.
Leaving the Internet’s rhetoric aside, I seriously doubt that Andrew Orlowski would deliberately alter a piece of email in order to promote a story. Therefore, it’s only reasonable that the person who sent it either forwarded an out of context piece of the mail or altered it on purpose. Regardless, there is clearly a dispute and as of this morning, Mr. Orlowski’s story mentioned above remains unaltered.
Given the denial and given the existence of a clear path to validate the email or, at a minimum ask the subject (Scoble) for a comment, I am surprised this story remains in its original state.
Under the UK’s Code of Practice, it would appear that some further work on your part is warranted. I’d like to request that the The Register look into this email story further and attempt to validate the email in question or at least provide readers with Scoble’s denial.
Given the unlimited space in the electronic world, I’d think this is a reasonable thing to do.
I’d also like a response to this email, as an acknowledgement of receipt, given that I’m working on a story covering the Commission and the Code of Practice.
I’ve copied Mr. Dan Gillmor who runs bayosphere.com and Mr. Mark Evans of the National Post, both individuals who have an interest in technical reporting and whose opinions have been solicited regarding the UK’s Press Complaint Commission.
This email may be used in any publication.
Finally, as full disclosure, I used to work for Microsoft from 1992 – 1997.
rgds,