3.1333 Meta-Discussions: Matrix and Addresses (57)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 30 Apr 90 17:14:36 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 1333. Monday, 30 Apr 1990.
(1) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 19:10 GMT (17 lines)
From: Oxford Text Archive <ARCHIVE@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK>
Subject: Matrix Annoiuncement
(2) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 18:53 EDT (10 lines)
From: GORDON DOHLE <DOHLE@Vax2.Concordia.CA>
Subject: In Defence of Matrix
(3) Date: 28 Apr 90 12:33:00 EDT (31 lines)
From: Mary Dee Harris <mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu>
Subject: Addresses
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 19:10 GMT
From: Oxford Text Archive <ARCHIVE@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK>
Subject: Matrix Annoiuncement
That was no announcement. It was a piece of blatant commercialism.
Just because they say it isn't "an attempt to solicit funds" doesn't
make it any the less of an advertisement. And people who talk about
"penetrating potential marketplaces" deserve to be taken out and
hung by their --- well, they certainly are not Humanists as I
understand the term.
If, sir & madam, you cannot exorcise this sort of garbage you will
change the nature of this institution irretrievably.
Yrs,
Disgusted of Stoke Poges
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------17----
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 18:53 EDT
From: GORDON DOHLE <DOHLE@Vax2.Concordia.CA>
Subject: In Defence of Matrix
I was happy to see the Matrix announcement, even though I was probably
one of the few who got several versions of it. The network jungle has
been immensely simplified by Quarterman's book and whatever Matrix Inc.
needs to continue that work on the commercial side of the Internet, is
worth it.
Gordon
Dohle@Vax2.Concordia.ca
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------40----
Date: 28 Apr 90 12:33:00 EDT
From: Mary Dee Harris <mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu>
Subject: Addresses
With regard to the argument against long addresses attached at the end of
messages to Humanist, I must present another side of the argument. I am
able to access the various networks from my PC over a modem through the
VAX system at Georgetown University. I do not have the capability of
editing incoming messages. Thus if I read a long message that I want to
save, I must save the entire message, download it to my PC, and then
edit.
In some cases, when I have enjoyed a particular message, I would simply
like to know who sent it. Often, after ten screens worth of text, I
have forgotten who sent the message. The only way I can find out (if
there is no name and address at the end) is to re-read the beginning.
But since the editors combine several messages in each file, I may have
to go through many screens to get back to the beginning of the message
of interest.
The solution for my problem is quite simple: putting one's name and
BITNET address at the end. Can anyone really object to one more line at
the end of a ten-screen message?
I suspect that it is easy to forget that not all of us have the same
facilities and the same access as others. When I was first on BITNET
several years ago, I had a borrowed account on an IBM system from which
I could send and receive messages, but not files, on BITNET only, no
gateways. My current situation is much preferable, but still not
perfect. I'm sure there are lots of others who have less than perfect
access. Thanks for any consideration you might offer us.
Mary Dee Harris
mdharris@guvax.bitnet
mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu