Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!telecom-request From: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.uu.net (Joe Abernathy) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers Message-ID: Date: 23 Mar 91 23:05:55 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 37 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 234, Message 5 of 10 One more time, then, since some of you have chosen to turn nasty. I find the discussion of whether the man was telling the truth to be of interest, but a couple of things need to be put into order. First: The number isn't wrong because somebody here (or anywhere) throws out undocumented numbers saying so. It isn't wrong if some rate guide you have says it is, unless you research the tariffs governing operation of the phone service in question during time of crisis -- we're talking about a war, remember. Next: Even if the number is wrong, the way it was presented is completely valid journalism. "That sort of fraud can total up to $30,000 a day." What this statement is intended to do is provide some sort of general framework so that the casual observer can get a feel for what's going on. He didn't say how much money his company had lost, and he wasn't having the conversation with me in good graces, so you couldn't expect him to throw open his books. What he gave us was a reasonable statement for a man who felt his company to be under fire. There are a lot of niceties involved in getting a reliable number in this sort of story, but as this discussion should reveal, there are also a lot of holes for you to fall into when you choose to attack such a number. If I tried to print any of the discussions I've read here, I'd be accused of spouting wild-eyed speculation. Give it a rest, guys, or do some research of your own. Joe [Wild-Eyed Speculator's Note: Yes folks, lets give it a rest, or take it to the alt.bash.abernathy newsgroup. By and large, his article was good and useful; and I was privileged to have it for use here. Of course, I may just be speculating on this last point! :) PAT]