Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mailrus!utah-gr!utah-cs!sunset.utah.edu!u-dmfloy
From: u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: R.I.P. Byte
Message-ID: <5716@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 10 Sep 88 07:11:54 GMT
References: <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> <674@proxftl.UUCP> <2596@sugar.uu.net> <5708@utah-cs.UUCP> <1435@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd)
Organization: University of Utah, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 19

In article <1435@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <5708@utah-cs.UUCP>, u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP
>	(Daniel M Floyd) writes:
>> If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials
>> are prima-facia equal.
>> If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective.
>
>Damned if he is and damned if he isn't, eh?

Nope! I said in the first instance our testimonials carried
equal weight in the argument. I don't consider myself damned in
this case. Just the same weight in evidence.

In the second case, he could have superior knowledge about Info-World
and related items; however, his conclusions still cannot be considered
ojective. That doesn't mean an objective person wouldn't arive at
his conclusions.

Are we clear on this now?