🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <4056@lynx.UUCP>, by m5@lynx.UUCP (Mike McNally):
> 
> Am I (and everybody else here at Lynx) the only person to notice lots
> of amazing, glaring typos in the 8-386/8-387 literature?  I mean, in a
> preliminary book I could understand some slovenliness, but the inside
> cover of my 386 book (freshly delivered by an Intel person) says 1986!
unh, 86 or 88?? If 86, then I'd be inclined to say that it WAS a preliminary
book (I mean, the '386 hasn't really been out all that long...)
If, on the other hand, the typo was on YOUR part there (or you assumed that
Intel messed up there too), then your charges are a bit more serious.
> What's the deal?  Doesn't Intel think that literature is important for
> the engineer?  Don't they think that shoddy literature reflects poorly
> upon the company that produced it?  And finally, my personal pet peeve,
Then again what do you expect of a company that releases (near)production
volume volume of a chip that can't always multiply right?
 I mean, when *I* can't multiply right, I blame it on the booze, NOT the
chips... 

(Followups redirected to rec.humor. Serious notes should re-redirect or mail)
-- 
-------------
 Stephen Samuel 			Disclaimer: You betcha!
  {ihnp4,ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve
  BITNET: USERZXCV@UOFAMTS