1995-12-02 - Re: Talking to Jim

Header Data

From: “W. Kinney” <kinney@bogart.Colorado.EDU>
To: wiltship@iccu6.ipswich.gil.com.au (PeterWiltshire)
Message Hash: ce095c0d05e3e9df450b57527c1d3a9497f724f61f57c4330f708000d9e29a1f
Message ID: <199512020156.SAA15123@bogart.Colorado.EDU>
Reply To: <199512012310.KAA23844@iccu6.ipswich.gil.com.au>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-02 03:02:39 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 11:02:39 +0800

Raw message

From: "W. Kinney" <kinney@bogart.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 11:02:39 +0800
To: wiltship@iccu6.ipswich.gil.com.au (PeterWiltshire)
Subject: Re: Talking to Jim
In-Reply-To: <199512012310.KAA23844@iccu6.ipswich.gil.com.au>
Message-ID: <199512020156.SAA15123@bogart.Colorado.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> I emailed Jim Clark day before yesterday about his comments re key escrow.
> He responded.  

Woah. What a radical idea.

Have any of the people busily working away at web pages slamming Netscape
actually bothered to verify that Jim Clark actually said any of the things
he is rumored to have said? I haven't seen any documentation of anything
from what I would consider to be a reliable source. 

If you want to generate publicity about something, you better make damn
sure your facts are correct, or you'll end up looking like an idiot. 
Complaining that Clark didn't deny it isn't good enough.

                                    -- Will






Thread