MacAddict did not like the fact that RFI "did not call them" on the "Urge to Merge" item even though we received a "denial" from one of the parties involved in the merger. What? MacAddict wanted us to get another denial? When you get one denial that you believe, why bother getting another one? If a denial is good enough for Lanny Davis, then....
Sorry. The MacAddict item, and MacAddict's response sent the hornets and buzzsaws whining all anew. Touched a nerve, have we? Well, before people start having "hissy fits" they should be darn careful that if they want something to be secret, then they shouldn't do it where people can see or overhear them. That, was the icing on the cake as far as the rumors went. And, we could offer a relevant quote from Shakespeare, but we won't.
And, in a related issue, some people are wondering "why" so many have taken up the "RFI Pile On" of late and why it appears to be a coordinated effort. We're not into "conspiracy theories" but given the fact that a lot of the "attackers" are either part of the MacAddict Network, or have been spurred on by "bugs" and other nasties is observed. It's quite amusing really. What are they worried that we might say in public? Just as Macworld NY gets ready to kick off? The content about our reservations about the iMac? Disney? Boxes? What? You know we're not releasing that, and why.
And, so you will know, here is the response RFI sent to the people who were picking up the banner of the MacAddict tantrum. You're entitled to see it, and then determine whether RFI was "off-base" on that initial item. Here goes:
Dear XXXX, et al:
RFI stands by its reporting on MacAddict and the initial item.
FACT: MacAddict had a meeting with Jim Capparell of MacHome Journal during E3 where the topic came up.
FACT: Nothing came out of the discussion.
FACT: RFI confirmed this with sources "close to MHJ."
FACT: That meeting (at E3) was observed by others.
FACT: (Contemporaneous to the meeting) We heard MacAddict was not going to have a booth on the floor of MWNY. This was later reported by others; because RFI didn't mention it in the initial report. It wasn't germain to the story, so why bother? ( 05 Jul 98 NOTE: It's neither here nor there as far as we're concerned. MacAddict is going to report on MWNY and that's what's important to their readers).
FACT: [snip!] It revolves around the leaking of the PB G3 MacAddict Cover.
FACT: [snip!] It revolves around personnel changes.
FACT: When RFI got a *DENIAL* (from MHJ), we then reported it as "FACT." Why bother asking MacAddict whether the denial we already received was "True?"
It's totally amazing.
Best Regards.
Robert K. Morgan....
So, there's more to all of this than meets the eye, isn't there? And a lot more than the MacAddict response to RFI's item included. "Ethics" anyone?
Working....
RFI is not going to get into a pissing contest with MacAddict over this rumor that was denied and proven as "false." It's not worth the time, energy or effort. And, for the record, Mr. Yatter was not the one who "planted the rumor" on RFI and had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Just as RFI stated to Mac Home Journal that the person they thought was the source for the rumor report was not the one they thought. RFI had been hearing these rumors before E3 even started. And, we told the people at MHJ with whom we talked that having a discussion where people can see or hear you isn't the way to keep things "secret."
So, take MacAddict's denial that they are not looking to merge as their official response. That's that. Their official position is what they say it is and nothing else. And, we stand by our initial report.
Next Story
