Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!dogwalk!herzog
From: herzog@dogwalk.Sun.COM (Brian Herzog)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: SIGGRAPH calendar complaint
Summary: Don't panic!
Keywords: SIGGRAPH
Message-ID: <130080@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 90 18:50:26 GMT
References: <664@calvin.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 25

In article <664@calvin.UUCP>, tomt@polygen.uucp (Thomas Tulinsky) writes:
> I know this is late, but I paid quite a bit for a Siggraph calendar ($15 or $20)
> only to find that it has  several problems and should really be
> considered a "second".  The whole thing seems to be  printed "backwards".
> Does anyone else agree?

Thomas,

I was producer of the first SIGGRAPH calendar in '88, and I know there 
was widespread praise for the much-improved quality of the '89 version, 
and hardly any complaints.  However, it's certainly possible that some
bad copies slipped through, and you were unlucky enough to get one.
Please email me directly and I'll arrange to replace your copy.  Also,
if you include more detail about the calendar's "several problems," I'll
be happy to pass the information on to the appropriate people.

By the way, the price for the 17-month calendar was $10.  If you check
your local bookstore, you'll see that was a pretty good deal (in fact,
SIGGRAPH merchandise is sold on a break-even basis, and the calendar 
was sold at a slight loss).

Brian Herzog
SIGGRAPH '89 registration chair
herzog@sun.com
...!sun!herzog