[Coco] Another Radio Shack Article

[Boisy Pitre]

On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:32 AM, Arthur Flexser <flexser at fiu.edu> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Boisy Pitre <boisy at tee-boy.com> wrote:
> 
>> Obviously we could not interview (or speak for) the dead. Nor could we force the very small number of people who either refused to respond to our interview requests or insisted on terms we could not agree to, to provide their perspective.  We did, however, interview a large number of people and went farther than I think anyone has ever gone in compiling the history of the CoCo.  Naturally, recollections are often flawed, but wherever possible, multiple perspectives and hard evidence were used.
>> 
> 
> I did notice a conspicuous absence of anyone from Microsoft speaking
> of their role in the history of the CoCo.  Is there a Microsoft policy
> against cooperation with authors such as yourself?

Not that I know of. Truth be told, I couldn’t locate one Microsoft guy that new anything about the CoCo, despite my efforts.

>   Was it Microsoft that "insisted on terms we could not agree to”?

No, Just one individual insisted on interview terms that were outside of the norm for a book. Two refused to respond to our requests despite several verifiable attempts, and one or two just never got back to us and/or dropped off the radar.

> What about Microsoft retirees?  I know you were seeking to contact the
> author of the ROMs, Mark Chamberlin.  No luck there, I take it?  Or is
> there some nondisclosure thing that prevents retirees from talking to
> you?

Nothing like that at all. As noted above, it was just something I wasn’t successful at. Mark Chamberlin was especially difficult. Based on the info you gave me, I tried tracking down relevant parties, but to no avail. And as much as I wanted to include that information in the book, I was reluctant to do so namely because of the esoteric nature of the transcript.

> Art
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco