kristoff at net.bio.net
Wed Mar 2 20:27:49 EST 1994
(personal attribution normally inserted here by news software
intentionally removed - DK)
>I've extended the distribution of this article from bionet.women-in-bio
>to include bionet.general: this is a situation that the larger bionet.*
>readership should be made aware of.
>David Kristofferson <kristoff at net.bio.net> wrote:
>>S.A. Modena maildrop <maildrop at csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>This attribution is incorrect. As I previously explained, Steve
>Modena merely forwarded, with full and correct attribution, a
>letter which appeared on the sanet-mg mailing list.
I am replying to acknowledge that this was an editing error on my
part. I missed deleting the attribution to Steve that was inserted
automatically by our news software at the top of the message. It is
correct that Steve was forwarding the message from someone else at the
Agriculture Library. I cut their signature off at the end simply
because I didn't want to waste bandwidth with something that everyone
could already read on the net in the messages immediately preceding my
reply. I was commenting on the idea expressed in a particular
paragraph, not the person doing the expressing, so I did not include
the signature at the end of the message as part of the quoted text.
The signature was *not* omitted because of some diabolical plot of
mine to attribute the original message to Steve.
The "grotesque" reaction to this and the desire to create a tempest in
a teapot on other newsgroups seems a bit overblown. I readily
acknowledge that this might have accidentally created the wrong
impression to someone who had not read the earlier messages in
bionet.women-in-bio (hard to miss in a threaded newsreader), but
quoting the discussion separately on bionet.general when people in all
probability have not read the earlier messages on bionet.women-in-bio
is even more certain to give the wrong impression.
As for the rest of the predictable complaints leveled against myself
and how we run BIOSCI/bionet versus sci.bio, etc., I tired a few years
back of these battles; I resolved then to avoid further disputes and I
don't intend to break that resolution now. These exchanges are not
going to affect how we run the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups now or in the
future. I want to clarify any possible mis-attribution due to my
previous message and then get back to work. I someone wants to make
great sport of the attribution error, please be my guest.
biosci-help at net.bio.net
More information about the Bioforum