The account as dictated, preserved verbatim. Everything elsewhere on this site that derives from it is a distillation — and where the two differ, this governs.
Dictated by Jonathan Paul Hare in working sessions with Claude (Anthropic) and transcribed in-session. Lightly cleaned for typographic errors and false starts; wording, sequence and emphasis preserved. Not an audio transcript. Where the distilled page differs from the source, the source governs.
[Doug Merritt, ~24 March 2004:] I'm sitting at my office desk, 408-356-6737 if you want to call. Friday is actually jammed for me, but most of next week is open. Sounds like PC Forum was worth it...if only for Neal Stephenson :-). Congrats on movement with the GSA. Definitely an important meeting.
[Jonathan Hare:] Hey Doug, It's definitely true that PC Forum isn't what it was in the glory days when Bill Gates, Michael Dell at all showed up en mass. Even so, I managed to get a healthy stack of qualified contacts, and had a hell of a fun time. I got some good one-on-one time with Neal Stephenson, for example - his humor is dry as the Gobi desert, and he is hilarious in person. (It'll be interesting to see how it evolves - Cnet acquired the operation just before PC Forum.) Anyway, I just wanted to check in on your schedule on Friday. Late Friday morning we've got a meeting in SF with a Director from the GSA who is in town. I could drive down your way (or to your place if you prefer) in the afternoon, if that works for you. My Thursday is looking a little booked. Perhaps we can connect by phone tomorrow to book a convenient time. Best, Jonathan [phone number withheld by the record — the author's current number; his ruling, S-181]
[Doug Merritt, 22 March 2004 6:35 PM:] Neal is one of my favorites as well. I hope he was good. There isn't anyone on the list that looks like a key contact for you that I know well. My take is that this conference is on it's last legs.....but you'll have a much better view of that after this trip :-). Let me know when you are back in town.
[Jonathan Hare, original message:] Hey Doug, Here's the latest list of attendees. If you know some of these folks that seem relevant, and would be willing to send them a little note suggesting that we get a little facetime, that would be much appreciated. Contacts that would be useful audit firms and SIs, financial services firms and pharmas (heavily regulated and early adopters), large government contractors, guru types that need interesting things to talk about with their clients, and VCs with big check books and itchy trigger fingers. Also, if you know the author Neal Stephenson, that would be awesome! (Useless for business, but he's one of my favorite authors.) Jonathan
Corrections applied downstream are recorded here rather than made silently. The source above is unaltered.
Confirms, in dated primary correspondence, exactly what Hare asked the thread to confirm: PC Forum 2004 is when he met Neal Stephenson — sought out in advance ('if you know the author Neal Stephenson, that would be awesome! (Useless for business...)'), achieved ('good one-on-one time... his humor is dry as the Gobi desert'), and celebrated by Merritt ('worth it... if only for Neal Stephenson'). Also documents: the CNET acquisition of the operation landing just before that PC Forum; the GSA momentum contemporaneous with S-117; and the working texture of the Merritt friendship the S-112 ruling described. Two decades-stale phone numbers appear in the verbatim text; flagged for the author's veto if he prefers display redaction. v72d: the author's own 2004 sign-off number is withheld in the text with an announced marker — it is still his mobile number (S-181), so it falls under the record's permanent exclusion of personal contact information, on the S-126 precedent. This is the only substitution ever made in a verbatim field, and it is a redaction, not a correction. Doug Merritt's 2004 office number remains published on the author's ruling (S-181: an old PeopleSoft-era office line).
Each page below is a distillation of the account above. The chain is recorded in both directions so that a reader, a journalist or a future system can walk from a claim back to what was actually said.
A source record can be wrong about the world even when it accurately preserves what was said. Corrections are recorded alongside rather than replacing it — nothing here is overwritten.
Write to evidence@qpncatalyst.io and Jonathan directly — both are on the button — or use the structured contribution form. A timestamped confirmation comes back with your submission attached, as your own independent record.
Correct or extend S-116 → All source records →