clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (11/11/90)
Brian Fristensky writes: /In a recent posting, Dan Jacobson writes / /]In recent post S. Sanford writes: /]>A message came over this bboard that I personally feel contained /]>inappropriate sociopolitical commentary. There are many other outlets /]>for this kind of discussion. Just a pet peeve, perhaps. Thanks, / /] [message agrees with S. Sanford and adds that posting a religious message /] to the network may be illegal - summarized by S.Clark to reduce bandwidth] / /Hey, lighten up guys! Yes, I agree that bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts is /not the place for political/religious discussions, but let's cut people a /_little_ slack. If you want to get technical about it, anybody who includes a /funny quip or profound quotation in their signature is wasting bandwidth at /government/institutional expense. Nonetheless, I don't think it really /hurts, and it does help break the tedium if a message is accompanied by an /interesting signature. I believe the problem is that the US Constitution forbids the government from promoting or supporting *any* religion, and this message was posted on Internet, parts of which are supported by the US government, and on a newsgroup maintained by GenBank/Intelligenetics, under contract to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is part of the US government. Americans take their constitution very seriously, and in my opinion, I think our (Canadian) constitution would do well to have a similar clause. George Chacko adds: /It certainly isn't illegal. The Usenet has many newgroups some of which are /devoted exclusively to religious and political discussion. Have you read / / [Other stuff deleted.] I saw this message via the Internet, not Usenet. Also, there's a difference between discussing and promoting religion. Perhaps Dave Kristofferson should take as strong a stand against religious messages as he does against commercial ones. Steve Clark clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (Internet) clark@utoroci (Netnorth/Bitnet)
chacko@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (George W. Chacko) (11/12/90)
In article <9011110615.AA04925@lash.utcs.utoronto.ca> clark@mshri.utoronto.ca writes: > I believe the problem is that the US Constitution forbids the >government from promoting or supporting *any* religion, and this message was >posted on Internet, parts of which are supported by the US government, and >on a newsgroup maintained by GenBank/Intelligenetics, under contract to the >Department of Health and Human Services, which is part of the US government. >Americans take their constitution very seriously, and in my opinion, I think >our (Canadian) constitution would do well to have a similar clause. I do believe that this is getting out of control. One line of trailer has sparked off four follow up postings to date all of which have actively discussed this propriety issue and ignored methds-reagnts completely. I find it difficult to agree with Steve Clark in that Dan Sinclair was promoting religion. Neither is the US government, just because of an individuals signature file.I believe that this attitude is repressive. By this yardstick all .sig files should be prohibited incase they offend someone else on the newgroup or because someone might consider it a promotional attempt of sorts. Similarly in my opinion, what the Canadian constitution would do well to do could also be construed as promoting a political school of thought and quite unnecessary as far as this newsgroup goes. > I saw this message via the Internet, not Usenet. Also, there's a >difference between discussing and promoting religion. Are you implying that it's OK to discuss religion but not to promote it? Lastly, as far as I know (Dave Kristofferson correct me if I'm wrong) I do believe that it is perfectly legal to have ANYTHING on your .sig file. If you post on a newsgroup and other readers find the tone or contents of your posting distressing for some reason you will get flamed either by e-mail or as follow up postings. This really hasn't happened on this newgroup or on any of the bionet newgroups as far as I can remmember but it seems to be developing. However, no one can really dictate what you may or may not post. The US constitution does guarantee freedom of expression. One way out of this is to scan the trailer first in every posting and edit your Kill file accordingly. Seems quite absurd to me but it works. Smiles (oops did I say something wrong?) George
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (11/13/90)
Dave Kristofferson sez: "This newsgroup is for discussing scientific methods. The conclusion is obvious. This kind of exchange drives people away from the newsgroups, so let's please terminate it now. Thank you!" -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net