beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (06/14/85)
From: sunil@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sunil Trivedi), Message-ID: <1801@ut-ngp.UUCP>: > > This mail was posted as it also discusses the current topic. Any > replies to this article should be sent to: > ganpaty@ut-ngp.ARPA {...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ganpaty} > > Sunil Trivedi What is this SHIT, posting other people's mail?!! CUT IT OUT *NOW*! If these people wanted their thoughts to go to the net, they would have posted the articles themselves. You have absolutely no right to post these articles, and I refuse to read *anything else* you post. -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
sunil@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Sunil Trivedi) (06/15/85)
From beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Thu Jun 13 19:11:11 1985 > From: sunil@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sunil Trivedi), Message-ID: <1801@ut-ngp.UUCP>: >> This mail was posted as it also discusses the current topic. Any >> replies to this article should be sent to: >> ganpaty@ut-ngp.ARPA {...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ganpaty} >What is this SHIT, posting other people's mail?!! CUT IT OUT *NOW*! >If these people wanted their thoughts to go to the net, they would have >posted the articles themselves. You have absolutely no right to post >these articles, and I refuse to read *anything else* you post. I posted articles which were mail messages from two people to me. Because the contents of their messages were dealing with the current topic, and both were (and still are) not familiar with postnews, I felt that the 'net' could benefit from them. If <1801@ut-ngp> is re- read, one could see that the mailer gave me permission to post it and besides, both of the mailers (ganpaty@ut-ngp & suchi@utastro) are neighbors (neighbours) of mine. After enduring the stuff beth@sphinx has posted, I feel no remorse if she decides to skip over my messages. The next time you feel like flaming (for the sake of flaming), Beth please use net.flame or better yet, use the e-mail (I believe I provided adequate addresses). First get your facts straight before you strike! Sunil Trivedi sunil@ut-ngp.ARPA ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!sunil "Beam me up fast Scotty - there's no toilet paper down here!" {No reference to 'discussion' on net.women/net.flame}
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (06/21/85)
In article <661@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >From: sunil@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sunil Trivedi), Message-ID: <1801@ut-ngp.UUCP>: >> >> This mail was posted as it also discusses the current topic. Any >> replies to this article should be sent to: >> ganpaty@ut-ngp.ARPA {...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ganpaty} >> >> Sunil Trivedi > >What is this SHIT, posting other people's mail?!! CUT IT OUT *NOW*! >If these people wanted their thoughts to go to the net, they would have >posted the articles themselves. You have absolutely no right to post >these articles, and I refuse to read *anything else* you post. > >--JB Life is just a bowl. Beth, you're confused. Legally, when someone sends you a letter, that letter belongs to you. If they wish you to keep something confidential, they'd best say so -- but you are still under no legal compunction to obey their wishes. And there may be very good reasons for not doing so. Out of politeness, most of us do not post letters without approval from the author. But that is a matter of the relationship between sender and recipient, and the judgement is up to the recipient. It varies with the circumstances (content, et cetera). Reread your article (included above). Do you feel that perhaps an apology to Sunil is appropriate? [I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the bar.] -- Larry West Institute for Cognitive Science (USA+619-)452-6220 UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) [x6220] ARPA: <west@nprdc.ARPA> La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west OR ulysses!sdcsla!west
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (06/22/85)
In article <907@sdcsla.UUCP> west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) writes: > >Beth, you're confused. Legally, when someone sends you a letter, >that letter belongs to you. If they wish you to keep something >confidential, they'd best say so -- but you are still under no >legal compunction to obey their wishes. And there may be very >good reasons for not doing so. I'm no lawyer either, but I am pretty sure that you own the piece of paper, but that, unless explicitly released, the author still has common-law copyright on the contents. Every now and then, the estate of someone famous threatens to go to court to get back -- or at least block publication of -- letters written to another individual. They are always successful. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/24/85)
I believe that at least in terms of copyright, it is the *sender* of a letter who is deemed to own it. Although this is not a matter of copyright, I suspect that the same criteria apply. However, at least one of the letters posted contained permission to post it to the net, which certainly excused the person who posted it in that case. Otherwise, posting private correspondence would seem to be a breach of privacy, in a moral if not in a legal sense. Someone who does it deserves whatever flames they get. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall