Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Brett Glass on 1/1/99 7:02 PM ---

>Most say that he was a lazy, manipulative opportunist who
>took credit for the work of others. His propensity for 
>napping on the job is now well-known. And his relentless 
>efforts to manipulate the press very much resembled the 
>campaigns Waggener-Edstrom used in its quest to deify Bill 
>Gates. Who else would have promoted the electric chair, and 
>given it to authorities gratis, in an attempt to slime a
>competitor? (Yes, it's true. Edison did this to discredit 
>Westinghouse, which was rightly advocating alternating current 
>over direct current for power transmission. Needless to say,
>the electric chair used alternating current.)

Most? Most of _what_?

I don't recall the electric chair story, but I can't see the relevance. 
Edison lost the AC vs. DC battle because he was proved wrong, and Nicola 
Tesla and Westinghouse were proved right. Unlike what's happening in 
computer technology today, this question was ultimately decided on the 
merits. Edison was pigheaded, no doubt, and this cost him dearly in this 
and other instances. In fact he was a lousy businessman, but he had more 
to his creative credit by the age of 30 then Bill Gates will have when 
he's sent to meet his maker.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net