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