1995-10-13 - Re: The Economist on Netscape “hackers”

Header Data

From: Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
To: raph@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien)
Message Hash: e5f2ed94373d2a69f06e19fc553902dfd4ff6ef6fed04e4711cc482ae77a1f9b
Message ID: <199510130705.AA35603@junkers.lochard.com.au>
Reply To: <199510130458.VAA16480@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-13 08:31:06 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 01:31:06 PDT

Raw message

From: Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 01:31:06 PDT
To: raph@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien)
Subject: Re: The Economist on Netscape "hackers"
In-Reply-To: <199510130458.VAA16480@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <199510130705.AA35603@junkers.lochard.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

I was going to ignore this, but I feel verbose today..

>I write the letter to the editor, or does someone else want to? One
>thing I'll need is a brief outline of Damien Doligez's acheivements to
>support the idea that characterizing him as a "hacker" is not quite

Hacker good. Cracker bad. Media distort hacker to bad. Media hype merchants.
Media bad. Bad ol' Media. Degauss. Reformat.

>Raph (who's wondering if there's something inherent in the media
>process that keeps them from getting their stories straight)

Reporters. Editors. Owners.

The above opinions are rumoured to be mine.