From declanm@netcom.com Wed Sep 6 13:48:51 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id MAA11111; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:16:39 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15071; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 15:18:06 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 15:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 15:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00431 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 15:15:30 -0400 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id LAA28423; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:46:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:46:41 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: [Phil's response to the GLJ editor's claims, forwarded to the mailing list at fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu. -D] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:16:23 -0500 From: Philip Elmer-DeWitt To: D B McCullagh Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories VI: If the Boston Globe printed that, they were wrong. Of course I had the whole study. I never said I didn't. V: This is tricky. Rimm was the one who insisted I not show the study to anyone else, but he said he was doing it in GLJ's name, since they actually held the copyright. I don't know if this true or not. In any event, we had our own reasons to fear that someone would get hold of the study before we could go to press. Look what happened this week to Colin Powell's book! (See today's NYT business section.) >V. RUMOR: TIME was restricted from having the study independently >reviewed by an agreement with Law Journal. > FACT: The Law Journal had no such agreement with TIME. Isn't TIME >the one who referred to it as an exclusive? > >VI. RUMOR: In a Boston Globe article Elmer-DeWitt claimed that the Law >Journal denied him from seeing the entire study before the TIME cover >story went to press. > FACT: Elmer-Dewitt had two copies of the study (in its entirety) >before the cover ran (one prior to pagination and one after pagination). >Further, even if that were true, would any self-respecting journalist >admit to writing a cover story on a study that he had never even seen in >its entirety? --------------------------------------------------------- Philip Elmer-DeWitt ped@well.com TIME Magazine http://www.pathfinder.com/