"Robert M. Hamer" <HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu> (06/27/90)
On Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:21 CDT, TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu wrote: >Many of us are still seething about the Infoworld blurb in "Notes from >It also seems that Robert Cringely's account was inaccurate in many >respects. First, the crash occured in January, not February; second, If anyone wants to tell Robert Cringely how unhappy he or she is with the story, his e-mail address is cringe@mci.com
sharon@asylum.sf.ca.us (Sharon Fisher) (06/29/90)
In article <9369@accuvax.nwu.edu> HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) writes: >On Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:21 CDT, TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu wrote: >>Many of us are still seething about the Infoworld blurb in "Notes from >>It also seems that Robert Cringely's account was inaccurate in many >>respects. First, the crash occured in January, not February; second, >If anyone wants to tell Robert Cringely how unhappy he or she is with >the story, his e-mail address is cringe@mci.com This was being discussed on another system I visit. I used to work at InfoWorld, so I gave Bob a call to let him know what was happening. He says he's gotten *lots* of calls about this -- including some from AT&T -- telling him how wrong he'd been. However, his source for the story continues to swear it's true. (As of last week.) Anyway, I suggested that he could give me some sort of reference to pass out to people who could provide information about this -- in other words, that InfoWorld might want to assign a story on this (as opposed to a mention in a gossip column) and that I'd be glad to propogate the contact information. However, he hasn't gotten back to me about who would handle the story. If it weren't for the insistence of the source, though, he said he would have been perfectly willing to run a retraction on it.