Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!VAX.FTP.COM!stev
From: stev@VAX.FTP.COM
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: misquoting . . . .
Message-ID: <8811161613.AA05781@vax.ftp.com>
Date: 16 Nov 88 16:13:58 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 32

*>>From: stev@vax.ftp.com
*>>>it is bad enough that articles misquote someone, i would like to think
*>>>that most of them dont know they are mucking it up, rather than not caring
*>>>or trying to twist things to prove their point.
*>
*>>Although I agree with you in spirit I'd be happy to ship you a
*>>transcript of CBS's coverage on their evening news report of the
*>>Hacker's Convention a few weeks ago.
*>
*>I think when Stev said "articles" in the above quote, he was just referring
*>to USENET/mailing list articles.  (Stev, beat me about the head and neck if
*>I'm misquoting you :-)  This spawned the discussion of problems with the
*>press.
*
*I think not.  The discussion was about stuff from postings getting
*quoted in the press, specifically something by Van Jacobsen. If it
*is then we've all lost the thread of this discussion.

*	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

sorry, shelli, barry is correct.


the question here is: should i tell reporter-type-people i am not interested
when they want to talk to me about an article? is it better to try and fail
to get the correct information across, or to just try and avoid it all 
together?


stev knowles
ftp software
stev@ftp.com