schultzd@frith.uucp (David Schultz) (05/19/90)
In article <18313@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <1990May15.131803.17231@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >>Here's a comment I want to address publicly: >> >>John F. Haugh II <jfh@rpp386.cactus.org> writes (to me): > >I did not give you permission to post private mail, and in fact I would >like to catagorically deny having written any of what you posted. > ****FLAME ON**** If someone sends me U.S. mail, I can do whatever the He** I want with it, including xerox it and mail it to everyone in the World! THe same holds for e-mail! >>My strict tone of voice in the call for votes was: >> >> 1) to prevent people from entering votes via news >> 2) to prevent people from entering ambiguous votes >> like "yeah" or "uh-huh" > >Why can't I vote from news? I personally prefer to hit the old "r" >key and rip off a quick "NO" vote. I mean, why shouldn't I? > "r" SENDS e-mail!!!!!!!! What he said is don't vote by posting a net message. PAY ATTENTION!!! > >>(But it sure is nice to know he's not voting "NO[space][space]" just because >>I'm a total twit!) :-) > >Gee, nice to know you don't know how to reply to private mail by mail. > Since we are talking about a PUBLIC vote, this should be addressed PUBLICLY! (You know, so that EVERYONE knows what is going on!) >I would like to go on public record as protesting the entire nature of >this vote. Mr. Baggett is not qualified ethically to conduct this vote, >and the current scandal should more than disqualify this as being a >valid vote. I strongly encourage =everyone= who reads this note to >send in a "NO" vote immediately, or to send Eliot Lear a letter requesting >this vote be dishonored until a more honest vote taker can be found. >-- >John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh >Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.or A have a novel idea... How about voting YES if you want a split and NO iff you don't! (Voting NO because you want to make a statement only hurts the users of this net. If you don't like Mr. Baggett, don't read his messages, but for God's Sake DON'T go messing with voting just to make a point! ****FLAME OFF**** Vote for what you believe in, NOT what someone tells you to vote for. #define DISCLAIMER "It is NOT my fault...!" _____________________________________________________________________________ David W. Schultz | | |\_ _/| 312 N. Case Hall | schultzd@cpsin.cps.msu.edu | | \/ | Michigan State Univ. | schultzd@frith.egr.msu.edu | -|- -|- E. Lansing, MI 48825 | Last Chance: 517 355-7033 | |___ | __ --------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | _________________________ # # # | -|- -|- -- #define DISCLAIMER "It is NOT my fault...!" _____________________________________________________________________________ David W. Schultz | | |\_ _/|
ralph@laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) (06/06/90)
I propose the newgroup alt.atari.flame where fuckers of the likes of Mr. Haugh can send there diatribes. His last two messages show the need for comp.sys.atari.st.tech! Sorry to waste even more bandwidth. -- Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== Reliable software should kill people reliably! -Andy Mickel, Pascal News #13,78
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/08/90)
In article <RALPH.90Jun6130054@orion.laas.fr> ralph@laas.fr writes: >I propose the newgroup alt.atari.flame where fuckers of the likes of >Mr. Haugh can send there diatribes. His last two messages show the >need for comp.sys.atari.st.tech! Sorry to waste even more bandwidth. Mr. Haugh has one of the pitiably sick minds of USENet. His most suitable functions in life are occupying an otherwise unused slot in your kill file, and being included as a regular expression in your mail's mhook twit filter. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
ralph@laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) (06/12/90)
In article <1990May22.023212.9736@melba.bby.oz.au> zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) writes: | In article <1990May18.214123.14992@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> schultzd@frith.uucp (David Schultz) writes: | | If someone sends me U.S. mail, I can do whatever the He** I want with it, | including xerox it and mail it to everyone in the World! | | No, you can't. Not without the writer's permission. Ever heard of | copyright? I'm not so sure! Doesn't the copyright have to be explicit? And what's in *my* mailbox becomes *my* property, isn't that so? -- Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== Reliable software should kill people reliably! -Andy Mickel, Pascal News #13,78
exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) (06/13/90)
In article <RALPH.90Jun12122240@cresus.laas.fr> ralph@laas.fr writes: >In article <1990May22.023212.9736@melba.bby.oz.au> zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) writes: >| In article <1990May18.214123.14992@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> schultzd@frith.uucp (David Schultz) writes: >| >| If someone sends me U.S. mail, I can do whatever the He** I want with it, >| including xerox it and mail it to everyone in the World! >| >| No, you can't. Not without the writer's permission. Ever heard of >| copyright? > >I'm not so sure! Doesn't the copyright have to be explicit? And >what's in *my* mailbox becomes *my* property, isn't that so? In the US, what is mailed to you becomes your property from the moment it is mailed -- put into a mailbox or handed across a post office counter. However, what you own is ONLY that physical copy -- NOT any further rights such as reproduction. You CAN show it to anyone else in the world, but you CAN'T necessarily copy it. I'm not sure what the analogy for electronic mail would be, where there is no physical copy. Feels like it ought to be 'you can forward it to one person, if you don't keep a copy yourself' and 'you can let anyone read it from your terminal'. Explicit copyright (notices or registration) are NOT strictly required. Though your failure to do something explicit would probably influence the nature or severity of any court judgement if you sued someone for copying your work. (Especially if you DIDN't put a copyright notice in, and someone else grabbed it and stuck THEIR copyright notice on.) -- Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!ukc!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey) (06/15/90)
In article <RALPH.90Jun12122240@cresus.laas.fr> ralph@laas.fr writes: > ... Doesn't the copyright have to be explicit? > And what's in *my* mailbox becomes *my* property, isn't that so? Not with the Berne convention, to which (belatedly) the US now subscribes. Most western nations have subscribed to this for years. If some famous person were to write you a letter, you may OWN it, and even sell it, but that does not mean that you have the right to publish it. The author holds the copyright, implicitly. I think that even if some unsolicited product arrives by mail, and you don't want it, you may be under some obligation to take reasonable precautions for it until the rightful owner shows up. Of course you may charge a reasonable storage fee.
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (06/15/90)
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey) wrote: > I think that even if some unsolicited product arrives by mail, and you > don't want it, you may be under some obligation to take reasonable > precautions for it until the rightful owner shows up. I think this is true under English law; but under Scots law you have an unconditional right to do what you like with anything that drops through your mailbox. I once used that, when working in a radical bookshop; we were sent a sample copy of an English-produced booklet aimed at anti-nuclear demonstrators purporting to describe their rights under arrest. It totally ignored the existence of the Scottish legal system and could have got anyone using it here into DEEP shit. I scrawled some rude remarks on it and threw it into our freebies bin, telling the author/publishers that we weren't interested. They replied saying they still didn't believe the Scots legal system was different from the English one and could they have their sample back... -- -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home JANET: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcvax and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913 INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp