Rejected bionet. postings: double standards

Una Smith una at doliolum.biology.yale.edu
Sat Oct 14 14:56:49 EST 1995


mgk at darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU (Mahlon G. Kelly) wrote:

> I posted an announcement for ... microscopes ...

Mahlon Kelly refers to an episode in sci.bio.misc, where he posted
(several times!) a long ad for a product of only marginal relevance
to sci.bio.misc.  I asked him to stop, and I directed him to a more
appropriate newsgroup:  sci.techniques.microscopy.

> Una complained about it, but she was the only one ...

Not true.


>It is difficult in the science area to distinguish between a
>commercial post that is providing a service and one which is
>just trying to make money.

No matter what the content, repeated posts are NOT appropriate.


>... often it is very helpful to scientists to know of sources of
>materials. 

So build yourself a Web Page, and put the URL in your .sig, just
like everyone else.


>I feel very strongly that there should be some leeway given to
>the definition of a commercial post. 

Oh really?  You would include your own ads in the "legitimate"
category, while excluding others?


>I almost posted a message similar to the one above, but decided
>to let it be, in the interest of peace and harmony.

For the record, this is false.  Mahlon Kelly posted a complaint
*and* sent me e-mail in which he tried to justify his actions ad
nauseum.




More information about the Bioforum mailing list