Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!lll-winken!telecom-request From: doug@letni.lonestar.org (Doug Davis) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers Message-ID: Date: 21 Mar 91 16:16:46 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Logic Process Unix Engineering, Dallas Office Lines: 53 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 224, Message 9 of 10 In article 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > If Doug Davis is going to be so snide about journalists' inability to > multiply numbers correctly, perhaps he should be a bit more careful > not to misspell "fraudulently" seven times in a single document. > After all, if he is better than a journalist, then he should be in > complete mastery of all journalistic skills. Actually I never claimed to be "better than a journalist", at most, I just claimed to be paying attention during the second grade. I also claimed *I* knew how to do a reality check when looking at something easily checked, like minor multiplication. Oh yeah, I also provided those of more, uh, journalistic skills, a handy quick reference for performing reality checks of their own. > Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes, > we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that > only the scrupulously worthy can join. The fact is, technology exists > in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make > technical mistakes about it. YOU have clearly missed the entire point. Did you even read the entire message? I was not being flip about anything of a technical nature of the cellular fraud article. That article came with an unnamed source quoting $30,000.00 loss *PER DAY* due to fraudulent LD charges. It seems a few of us were clever enough to divide this out, and what did we find? The 30,000.00 NUMBER was totally absurd. Making fun of it is just my way of debunking it. Nothing technological about it. Unless you consider the multiplication table technical? Most of the "technical" mistakes that get flamed here are by people calling themselves technical or whose job description implys an amount of literacy concerning technology. Tell me what do you expect will happen when you, knowing a little rudementary knowledge of farming, go to a convention of farmers, call yourself an expert, and start telling them how they should be doing their farming? Theres no magic priesthood of farmers, but they will all just as quickly turn on you for your blatent lack of experience in farming. > Personally, I don't find poking fun at them an ego trip. Obviously then, you find poking fun at people's spelling your prefered ego trip. Otherwise you would have refrained from even commenting on it. Oh, well, enough pointless flaming, if you don't like what I said and want to get personal, take it up with me in email. Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org