From declanm@netcom.com Sat Sep 2 22:28:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id QAA24979; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 16:43:32 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07811; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:45:39 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rainforest.weh.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rainforest.weh.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Messages.8.5.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.rainforest.weh.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.rainforest.weh.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4kGClqi00bkOBnyl1o@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:44:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Fight Censorship Mailing List Subject: More on Alumni Article References: <01HUS6T9RYQQQPKE03@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU> <810068271.25770.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- X-Added: With Flames (bblib $Revision: 1.4 $) Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5920;andrew.cmu.edu;Chris Newman Received: from nifty.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for bb+graffiti.bboard-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu ID ; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 14:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: via niftymail; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 14:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Sender: Chris Newman Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 14:57:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: Martha Siegel in CMU mag To: Bulletin Board Administration In-Reply-To: <01HUS6T9RYQQQPKE03@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU> References: <01HUS6T9RYQQQPKE03@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <810068271.25770.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> I personally feel that what Canter & Siegal did was an egregous violation of basic etiquette. Because of this, I think angry flaming about it is absolutely the wrong response -- it makes the flamers no better than Canter and Siegal. Here's the letter I sent to the editor of CMU mag: The Canter and Siegel controversy is more about common courtesy than about commercializing the Internet. Usenet is made up of conversations on specific topics. What Canter and Siegel did was to rudely interrupt thousands of conversations with an off-topic advertisement. For that, and for their repeated and unrepentant promotion of discourtesy they deserve to be shunned by polite society. Hopefully Usenet participants will continue to guard netiquitte by responding to off-topic advertisements with a single politely worded complaint. Chris Newman Math/CS '91, CE '91 Hopefully, all the flames the editor has received won't prevent her from including legitimate letters from CMU alumni/ae that may have been lost in the noise. ----- Chris Newman , http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~nifty/ The worst thing about censorship is: [censored]