To the Visor:

I am writing in response to Alex Bluebond's column in the Jan. 17 issue of the Visor about Starbucks' mysterious "short cappuccino."

While reading his column, I noticed that it sounded a lot like another story I recently read on the online news journal Slate.com. Upon further review of the article, which was written by Tim Harford and published Jan. 6 (www.slate.com/id/2133754), it seems that there exist too many similarities to be considered an accident.

Both pieces clarify what the short cappuccino is and why customers won't find it on the menu. Both explain why Starbucks keeps it around and how the embarrassment brave and thrifty customers feel when ordering the short is essential to the size's continued existence—and with very similar phrasing. Both refer to the company's larger sizes as enough for customers "to bathe" in, which is an oddly specific coincidence.

I understand one journalist's story inspiring another, but I would have expected Bluebond to cover a new angle or at least mention where the idea for his column came from. Like Harford's, Bluebond's column ends with the statement that all he had to do to get better cappuccino was ask. My advice to Bluebond is that all you have to do to write a better story is credit the writer who wrote it first.

—Erica Nunez '06

I apologize for not crediting the idea for my column to another source, but the idea did not come from the Slate article. I first learned of the short cappuccino at the blog everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=668986, posted on July 3, 2002. I read this, then later the Slate article. Both inspired me to go to Starbucks and investigate myself. I do not think the similarities between my column and the Slate article are as great as Nunez suggests. The words are my own.

—Alex Bluebond