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:
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.
>> Do you have links for reference? I'd like some objective info before my
>> credibility-o-meter gets set.
>>>From: Dhiren Patel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:08 PM
>>>To: Karl Anderson; email@example.com
>>>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.
>>>At 11:34 AM 4/13/2001 -0700, Karl Anderson wrote:
>>>>I found the latest Pulpit to be pretty annoying.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:48 PDT