True, but the fact that he has behaved suspiciously in the past about
something that I consider important makes me not trust him as much, and it
makes me wonder if his "insights" have really been thought through with the
rigor that you would expect from a Stanford, or any other,
professor. Anyway, I couldn't find the full reference, but here a blurb
from nytimes on the matter:
http://archives.nytimes.com/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=987439911&view=site&docrank=7&numhitsfound=14&query=%28cringely%29&query_rule=%28$QUERY%29&query7=cringely&query8=since%201996&docid=101646&docdb=1998arc&dbname=unify&numresults=10&sorting=BYFIELD%3A-skey_pdate&operator=AND&TemplateName=abs.tmpl&setCookie=1
Dhiren
At 12:40 PM 4/16/2001 -0400, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>>Cringely is an analyst, not a scientist. Whether he lied or not about
>>being a professor at Stanford doesn't have much impact on whether you
>>find his insights useful.
>>
>>- Lucas
>>
>>
>> Do you have links for reference? I'd like some objective info before my
>> credibility-o-meter gets set.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Dhiren Patel [mailto:dlists@dhiren.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:08 PM
>>>To: Karl Anderson; fork@xent.ics.uci.edu
>>>Subject: Re: Cringely adds to the XML antiFUD
>>>
>>>Isn't this the same dude who lied about being a professor at
>>>Stanford? Pretty low on the credibility-o-meter, IHMO.
>>>
>>>Dhiren
>>>
>>>At 11:34 AM 4/13/2001 -0700, Karl Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>>I found the latest Pulpit to be pretty annoying.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010412.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:48 PDT