(none)= sig files?

George W. Chacko chacko at hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Sat Nov 10 22:48:55 EST 1990


In article <9011100148.AA03696 at genbank.bio.net> DANJ at jhuhyg.bitnet (Dan) 
writes:
>In  recent post  S. Sanford writes: stuff deleted....

>I assume that this is in reaction to the signature that said something about 
>abortion and a religious reference.  If so I whole heartedly agree with 
>Sanford in that these types of messages are totally inappropriate.

To begin with it was only a signature file and not the main content of the
posting. Would you deem inappropriate someones right to wear a pro or anti
choice button for example? I've seen, to my mind at least, some pretty absurd
.sig files why pick on these two issues?

> The use of goverment funded networks for the spread of religious or poltical 
> statements is certainly to be discouraged and has no place on a science
> network at all  (I really don't know (any lawyers out there?) but this type
> of thing may even be illegal).

It certainly isn't illegal. The Usenet has many newgroups some of which are
devoted exclusively to religious and political discussion. Have you read
talk.politics for example? I didn't agree with the message in the trailer
and initiated a discussion (OFF THE NET to save bandwidth as I didn't think
that it suited the purpose of this newsgroup) but I wouldn't dream of being
presumptuous enough to tell someone what he or she should or should not
have on their .sig files. The original posting concerned a procedure for
the isolation of lymphocytes and that should have been the most important
aspect of it. Perhaps you find my .sig file objectionable on grounds of
having lewd implications?

George

*****************************************************************************
Oh No! His Leucine Zipper's Gone Undone Again.
*****************************************************************************



More information about the Methods mailing list