Turns out it was adobe that canceled CFDJ???

Yup, sys-con had nothing to do with it.  Adobe discontinued cfdj.  Turns out.  Ummm what?

Ok, I have read the latest press release from sys-con a few times and I am still confused.  It's title says "Adobe's Decision Upsets ColdFusion Community".  It quotes Michael Dinowitz, Sean Corfield and Ben Forta.  It even acknowledges that some are pissed at sys-con.    The coldfusion community wasn't upset CFDJ was no more (though it is still online).  It was celebrated.  Quite different.

This nugget here is where it gets wierd:

"SYS-CON's only challenge while serving the CF community was to deal with some members of that very same community, " said industry blogger James Hamilton. "People like Corfield and Dinowitz could not stand any sort of advertisement in CFDJ. They wanted their magazine delivered for free and hated the adverts that made this possible for them, as if they were two characters from the Dr. Zhivago movie."

Oh really?  How was that a challenge to sys-con?  In what way did they have any say or control?

At what point was it Adobe's problem to support and run CFDJ?  Far as I can tell when we advertised with CFDJ we paid Sys-Con.  Not Macromedia and not Adobe.  Since we pulled our ads long ago are we also responsible?

A few thoughts for sys-con:

If you actually paid the writers that would help your case a bit.

If the current article made sense that couldn't possibly hurt.

If your web site wouldn't crash my firefox browser EVERY time that would be great.

If there really is something sinister going on with adobe then spell it out.  Right now it sounds like Adobe decided not to advertise and you had nothing to fall back on.  That isn't Adobe's fault.  That is your sales and publishing team.  lots of us could advertise, but have had bad experiences.  Why would I advertise in a magazine that publishes print editions seemingly at random, got things wrong, and personally offended me more than once?  And if Adobe was in fact partnering on a larger lvl to get the magazine published, then maybe they stopped since your side of the bargain (making the magazine) wasn't at the quality it should be?  I have no problem knocking Adobe if the deserve it but either scenario here isn't Adobe's fault.  Not even a little bit.