Sam, In your article (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/23/1056220519703.html), you state that "The Sydney, Canberra and Adelaide user groups did not bother to respond."
We (the SLUG committee) are curious as to what attempt you made to elicit a response from our user group - none of the members of our committee are aware of you making any request for comment. The SLUG website has a contacts page indicating that the best method of getting our attention is the committee email address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). To avoid future issues, we've augmented this with a press contact which you can use in the future - [EMAIL PROTECTED] We feel that your statement "did not bother to respond" is misguided, given that you do not appear to have tried to contact any of us via the widely advertised committee email address, and you do not appear to have attempted to contact our public officer or secretary. This statement is, on the very best reading, too strongly worded. The Age normally displays a higher level of professionalism and impartiality than this. Yours sincerely, The SLUG committee. -- Jan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
