Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: R.I.P. Byte Message-ID: <1529@ficc.uu.net> Date: 18 Sep 88 22:41:15 GMT References: <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> <674@proxftl.UUCP> <2596@sugar.uu.net> <5724@utah-cs.UUCP> Organization: SCADA Lines: 34 In article <5724@utah-cs.UUCP>, u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) writes: > We do not have to flame > each other when we disagree. My intent was just that, to disagree and > discuss. Sure looked like a flame to me. You said, in effect, that because she worked for InfoWorld her opinions were irrelevant. This is not a nice thing to say of anyone... particularly since it was so undeserved. > She may very well be objective, but for presenting > evidence in favor of InfoWorld, her comments, whatever they > were, can't be considered objective because she works for > InfoWorld. The favorable aspect was that there was someone at InfoWorld listening at all. The implication being that InfoWorld staffers are a more desirable class of people because they pay attention to UseNet. > What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then > how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond? We wouldn't. But unless you buy a magazine for its name the most important aspect of it is who's working for it. At this point in time, Infoworld has (officially or no) a channel into UseNet. Byte doesn't. > She cannot be considered objective, especially about > Pournelle. No. I would expect her to have a positive bias towards the man out of simple self-interest. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net