If Michael Chammas and the SMH made this error then what else have they got wrong?
I know Chammas is looked up to by certain forum members, and these forummers 'urged' others to read his stuff. I don't wish to embarrass the forum member who sang the loudest.
But there was an article and I did read it, only to find a lot of supposition in the data - at times it looked to be overly complex, and this more-or-less required the reader the simply take the author's word for it. Even the aforementioned fan of Michael Chammas admitted that readers were required to accept some hypotheticals within the article and make their own presumptions.
Then there's this... unfortunately it appears that there is also some straight out misinformation.
Thanks to R2K for highlighting the errors. If anything, it provides a timely reminder that you can't believe everything you read in the paper.
One can only wonder how many people now consider the misinformation to be 'fact'.