[SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

[Sarah T. Roberts]

Further clarification (and thanks, Morten!): 

I agree that Dave is good to offer a timely reminder, especially for newer participants. But I also don't want this to silence the historically grounded discussion on SIGCIS, one of the only bastions of pushback against this false history - and a consistent one at that. I'm offended by the situation, not colleagues on the list. So much good work has been done - let's not forget Marie's critically important new book, for example! - that it angers me to have this continue to crop up. If anything, the work of this community is about adding to the rich and varied collective cast of characters  who have played parts in computing history. I've never seen one deserving of inclusion not be welcomed by SIGCIS. Charlatans, however, should beware. 

Sorry for all the email; I'll can it now. 

Warmly,
Sarah
---

S a r a h  T.  R o b e r t s,  P h. D.

Assistant Professor
University of California, Los Angeles
Department of Information Studies
Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/

Blogging periodically at
http://illusionofvolition.com

> On Feb 14, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Morten Bay <mortenbay at live.com> wrote:
> 
> I forgot to post this when it happened, but I wrote about this nonsense in the Danish newspaper Politiken a few weeks ago. Thought I'd post it now, also in support of Professor Roberts, who we are so proud of in our department!
> 
> It's in Danish, and though I tried to use neutral verbiage, I'm sure Danish regulations of the freedom of the press would be sufficient to keep any law suits at bay. But have fun with Google Translate if you please...
> 
> http://politiken.dk/forbrugogliv/digitalt/internet/art5804281/Trump-relateret-rigmand-og-historikere-slås-om-e-mailens-oprindelse
> 
> Morten
> 
> Morten Bay
> 
> Ph.D. Candidate, UCLA Information Studies
> Associate Researcher, KCIS
> Tech journalist, Politiken / Recordere.dk
> 
> 
> From: Members <members-bounces at lists.sigcis.org> on behalf of Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts at ucla.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:14:50 AM
> To: David C. Brock
> Cc: members at lists.sigcis.org
> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL
>  
> I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right?
> 
> --Sarah
> ---
> 
> S a r a h  T.  R o b e r t s,  P h. D.
> 
> Assistant Professor
> University of California, Los Angeles
> Department of Information Studies
> Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
> https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/
> 
> Blogging periodically at
> http://illusionofvolition.com
> 
> On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock <dcb at dcbrock.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All:
>> 
>> I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly.
>> 
>> Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts at ucla.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them. 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> S a r a h  T.  R o b e r t s,  P h. D.
>>> 
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> University of California, Los Angeles
>>> Department of Information Studies
>>> Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
>>> https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/
>>> 
>>> Blogging periodically at
>>> http://illusionofvolition.com
>>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper.  I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote:
>>>>> Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity...  
>>>>> The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong.
>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>> Pierre MK
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives  are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/attachments/20170214/263dd323/attachment.htm>