🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May10.111211.819@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>, granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes...
>In article <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Mr Johnston of the University
>of Delaware criticizes my irreverent comments to Mr Stevens of Apple Computer
>regarding Apple's pettition to the FCC requesting radio bandwidth allocation.

>In private mail to me, Mr Johnston called my comments asinine. 

Yes, I'll freely admit that.  The comments were asinine and I said so by mail.

Moreover, I'll agree that there are reasonable objections to the "DATA-PCS"
proposal on legitimate grounds.  As several previous posters have pointed
out, several companies and other special interest groups object to the 
re-allocation of radio bandwidth for the purpose of computer networking.

What I object to in Mr. Granroth's comments is the allegation that he
was singled out for bullying by Bill Stevens of Apple Computer.
Censorship is anathema on the USENET, and alleging that big monopolistic
Apple is beating up on poor defenseless Mr. Granroth is a pretty easy
way to appeal to the 'comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc' readership.

Bill Stevens gave a plausible accounting of the purpose and content
of his phone conversation with a University of Iowa official regarding
Mr. Granroth's parody.  It was posted to this newsgroup: Message-ID: 
<52691@apple.Apple.COM>

Given the legitimate objections that many companies have to DATA-PCS, 
how plausible is Mr. Granroth's contention that he was "bullied" 
by Apple for submitting a parody of their form letter to the FCC?

It seems more likely that Mr. Granroth is suffering from delusions
of grandeur when he sees an Apple Lawyer behind every bush.  Think
about it.  Apple posts a request for an endorsement of its proposal
to the FCC to comp.misc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc, and ONLY Mr. Granroth's
devasting attack, sure to single-handedly ruin Apple's schemes in 
its devasting cleverness, is singled out for the Apple Legal hit squad.
( I would imagine that by posting to those newsgroups, Apple received 
a diverse set of opinions, both pro and con, which is in keeping with 
their request for feedback. )   ONLY Granroth's was negative?

Granroth defends his position with a gratuitous appeal to net.god
Richard Stallman:

>Let me close by including an old note from Richard Stallman relating to
>Apple Computer:

I know what Lloyd Bentsen would have to say on this one, but frankly,
I don't know Richard Stallman.  I have no idea what his opinion would 
be on taking radio bandwith from the phone company and the giving it
to the computer industry.  Computer industry, NOT Apple, by the way.  
IBM ... (heard of them?) is a supporter of the proposal too.

I can only offer that invoking Stallman's name on the USENET is just as much 
a "guaranteed crowd-pleaser" as allegations of bullying by Apple legal.

>My comments were an irreverent knee-jerk response in opposition to Apple.
>My point was to let Apple know that their tactics are resulting in such
>conditioned responses.

So it's Apple's fault that Mr. Granroth makes knee-jerk allegations?
The content of Mr. Granroth's original posting borders on libel --
Granroth gives on version of a set of telephone calls TO WHICH HE WAS
NOT A PARTY, and Bill Stevens, who did participate in the calls, gives
a markedly different version.

Before anyone else posts into this thread assuming Granroth's version
to be true, how about giving thought to the possibility that Granroth's
version is, shall we say, a bit fanciful?  The University of Iowa
has telephones, and the Iowa officials who were allegedly bullied by
Stevens surely can corroborate Mr. Granroth's version of events?

I have found Bill Stevens to be a man of integrity in my brief 
communication with him.  Mr. Granroth comes off as a person who
talks first, and thinks later.

Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
Bill Johnston; 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949