Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!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: <5724@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: 16 Sep 88 20:09:12 GMT References: <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> <674@proxftl.UUCP> <2596@sugar.uu.net> <5716@utah-cs.UUCP> <1461@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: 54 In article <1461@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Since the comments by the InfoWorld staffer were not about Byte or about >InfoWorld, but rather about Jerry Pournelle... a columnist who writes for >both papers, I think that they can be considered objective. Since this person >also sees Jerry's articles before they're cleaned up, I think they carry >more weight than those of the person who flamed about her. Particularly >since the guy who was doing the flaming had clearly never read the message >she wrote. No, no, no. I am the guy refered to here. I was *not* flaming her at all. I was not flaming anyone at the time. However, Mr. Peter da Silva may now consider himself publicly flamed, (by a candle) to a *small* degree (it isn't even a first degree burn), for looking for a flame in a relatively benign article. We do not have to flame each other when we disagree. My intent was just that, to disagree and discuss. Correct, I did not read her posting. I didn't need to because I did not reply to her posting. I replied to the guy who was extolling the virtues of InfoWorld based on her message. 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. I also read a reply that the extoller meant that her message content wasn't the evidence he was presenting, the fact there was *any* comment from InfoWorld weighed in favor of InfoWorld. To this, I say, no, that still doesn't do it. She, herself, wrote that she only replied by chance so to speak. Therefore, again this does not show the responsiveness of InfoWorld. Can we count on more from InfoWorld? What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond? As far as I know, neither magazine has any staff assigned to respond on this net. If not so, let's here it from *that* magazine assigned staffer. Sharon, the InfoWorld staffer, *can* be considered an expert witness. She cannot be considered objective, especially about Pournelle. Again, she *may* be objective. I am only talking about how to weigh the evidence presented for ourselves. Find an expert not employed or benefited by Byte, InfoWorld, or Pournelle, and show them the literature. This expert could be consider objective. I'll concede that Sharon's view may carry more weight in some respects; this isn't because of objectivity, however, it's because of her expert status. (Please forgive me if that's not her name. I didn't write it down. Sharon, please e-flame-mail me again if it's not.) Also, there was a note to the effect that if I wanted objectivity, I should look elsewhere. That same posting stated that net people are highly opinionated and that people come to the net because we have the "...facts to back up our opinions." By questioning the objectivity of the evidence, I thought I'd get a few more facts to back up the plethora of opinions. Dan Floyd 8