Paramagnus in Edmontonians Magazine

Post Image The September 2007 issue of Edmontonians magazine contains an article about Dickson and I. Quite simply, I think the article is terrible. Not only is it factually inaccurate and unnecessarily negative, I feel it is an extremely unfair introduction to both Dickson and myself as individuals. Every friend or family member who has read the article thus far has said the same thing: “that doesn’t sound like you guys!”

The worst part is that there is supposed to be a follow-up article. Will it be better, or just as bad? Does it even matter? I don’t know. We’ll find out soon enough I guess, and I’ll definitely be writing about it here.

In any case, I wanted to write down my concerns with the first article, so that I can look back on the experience and hopefully take something positive away from it. If you’ve got some spare time on your hands, you can read my very long entry here. If you do read what I’ve written, I’d love to know whether you think my concerns are legitimate or if instead you think I’m bat-shit crazy.

Also – have you seen Edmontonians anywhere around town? The circulation page makes it seem like the magazine is really easy to find, but I’ve had a heck of a time finding any copies. Seems the only reliable location is the airport. I guess that’s just as well 🙂

Read: Why The Article on Paramagnus in Edmontonians Magazine Sucks

6 thoughts on “Paramagnus in Edmontonians Magazine

  1. I fail to see how these so-called professionals could have gleaned that from an interview with either of you.

    If I were to ask my parents abotu you guys, they’d say something like "they’re both too smart for their own good, they are most definitely visionaries in their field, and they are both very easy to talk to when it comes to technology." I can vouch for that, and I would add that on top of being two of the brightest people I know, that both of you are genuine in your interactions with other people. Not only are you genuine, but you’re also buth genuinely fun to be around. I think that perhaps the people at Edmontonians should have framed their interview slightly differently, since they went into it convinced that your presentation abilities were lacking.

    Perhaps gaining the recognition necessary for investment in Paramagnus has been difficult for you guys. But I think that the people at Edmontonians need to remember that Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither were their own professional abilities and reputations.

  2. Mack – I would not worry about that article in the magazine because one thing that I’ve learned from my Marketing Degree, magazines always lie about their circulation numbers in order to get more advertisemnet.

    Secondly, you develop your reputation on a day to day basis – not on some random magazine article.

    The criticism in the magazine was probably unwarranted and if it was – they had really poor etiquette to put in print. If they are supposed to "mentors", then things about your presentation style should have been said in privately, face to face.

    Finally, the article sounds like defamation to me because it puts your character and reputation at issue. (However, that’s the law student in me)

  3. It reads like the opening scene to one of those "Make-Over" shows. The hosts are just telling (and exaggerating) all the "work" they are going to have to do.
    I wouldn’t take it personally, they’re just "Hollywood"ing up the story to generate interest in the story – and also to make themselves look like miracle workers.

  4. Thanks everyone. I guess I shouldn’t be so worried about the article, but I’m not one to let things go. At least now without saying something first 🙂

    Kevin – heh, tell me about it. It could have used some editing.

    Megan – yes, tracking down investment hasn’t been easy. We’ve always been back and forth about whether or not to really pursue it as well, so that doesn’t help.

    Shermie – not sure if it would count as defamation, because they don’t explicitly say "Mack is a bad person." They just recount their interpretation of a meeting. I agree with you though, it would have been better to chat with them before they wrote anything.

    Eric – I totally see your point, but like I mentioned in my long post, where does that leave us for part 2? Will they really make themselves look like miracle workers? If they do, how happy am I about that? Either way it’s wrong!

  5. Haha, you made me look up my Tort notes from last year on defamation. The 3 components of defamation are:

    1) Does it lower one’s reputation? Objectively, a reasonable person could have a diminished opinion of you after reading those articles.
    2) Was it published? Yes
    3) Referred to plaintiff? Yes

    I suppose thier defence is fair comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s