mem@sii.UUCP (Mark Mallett) (12/27/83)
b Actually, tim (@unc), the "netiquette" article contains a number of things which are potentially debatable. Back when this document was first submitted for public comment, I made a couple of suggestions and closed with "I have many more, but I'll wait for the next round so as to avoid piling up duplicate suggestions." There was no next round; the article was simply posted. Now I don't know how much credence it is given, but I do know that I never saw any real discussion of it, nor any charter given to eagle!jerry to write it, nor any indication of global acceptance. Mark E. Mallett decvax!sii!mem
perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (12/28/83)
[]
Just a note saying I wholeheartedly support the netiquette article.
It exists and specifies a code to follow. The code is sensible and
complete. It covers most areas and is barely debatable even at its
worst. Anyone who takes offence can write to jerry and suggest the
changes they want. Just remember, it exists and that's better than
a better version we are still talking about.
--
Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelguttower@inmet.UUCP (01/03/84)
#R:sii:-36700:inmet:4000041:000:325 inmet!tower Jan 2 11:20:00 1984 YES for the netiquette article. It encourages sane civilized use of the net, and the real $$ each site spends to support it. It also encourages sane civilized use of the human users of the net... Not that it can't be improved, so send those ideas on to the author. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA