From: Eric D. Sherman (EricSherman@Alum.MIT.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 11:55:35 PDT
I have over 25 years' perience in the IT field, both in the U.S. and abroad.
In my personal experience, every word Norman Matloff has ever written has
been deadly accurate.
Moreover, Norm's positions have the overwhelming support of over 80% of the
American population. Even legislators have admitted that the reasons they're
taking their anti-American positions on H1B/immigration are because industry
is PAYING them to do so.
From: Joachim Feise [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:46 PM
To: Norm Matloff
Cc: Adam L. Beberg; FoRK; email@example.com; RRivers297@aol.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
EricSherman@alum.mit.edu; KFran95011@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: National Sign-On Letter to House on H-1Bs, U.S. Immigration
Norm Matloff wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:13:07AM -0700, Joachim Feise wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> > > > http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
> > > I remember reading this a couple years ago just after it was
> > > Unfortunately ever word of what he says is true.
> > Well, it is not.
> > Of course, the anecdotal things he quotes from newspapers may be true,
> > but given the way newspaper editors work, these things are likely to be
> > blown out of proportions and sensationalized.
> > Age discrimination sure exists in some instances, but Norm Matloff makes
> > it sound as if this is the rule, without giving sound (and provable)
> > This is a bad approach, one that lobbying organizations take.
> > Because of this, everything he says in that paper is suspect.
> Hey, Joe, why don't you actually try READING my paper. There's
> a lot more than just anecdotes, with lots of cited data, graphs,
> tables etc.
You may remember that we had the same discussion before.
And repeating the assertion that I didn't read it doesn't make
the paper any better.
In fact, I have read parts of it, but couldn't stand reading the
whole thing because my blood started to boil reading unsubstantiated
It still is a biased lobbying paper, and therefore not really worth
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 12:01:54 PDT