From: Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 17:12:24 PDT
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: NYT on Internet Flaws
In-Reply-To: <199510121454.KAA20694@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <199510122235.AA41086@junkers.lochard.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


>It was suprisingly weak for a John Markoff story (he usually gets the
>details exactly right) but it is an issue that had to be brought up
>and I see no reason to call it a bad article overall.

*snort* I've been trying to keep my views to myself on this but claiming
Markoff usually gets things right is plain misleading. His articles are as
about as one sided as you can get and full of factual inaccuracies. The
Mitnik series were a farce and his latest work is reactionary fluff and
shows his true lack of understanding of his topics.

The only value I find in his work is the humour value at laughing at the rot
on the pages. Unfortunately it really isnt a laughing matter to go around
creating incorrect impressions, especially about something with as much
potential as the inet.

Cheers,
Mark
mark@lochard.com.au
The above opinions are rumoured to be my own.