From: 047575y@acadiau.ca   
      
   Just thought I'd throw in my two one-hundreths of a dollar.   
      
   Stephen C. Smith wrote:   
   > Those of you who frequent that group know that if you want to pose a question   
   > to Joe Straczynski, the rule is to preface the message title with "ATTN JMS".   
   > Joe established this practice years ago because his e-mail was getting   
   flooded   
   > with general questions asked over and over.  He asked that his e-mail address   
   > be used only for sensitive questions inappropriate for a public venue.   
      
   A good practice, and can understand it, however...   
      
   > Recently I had a dustup with a certain person on that board who chose to   
   answer   
   > an "ATTN JMS" message herself.  Now, to me "ATTN JMS" means "ATTN JMS," not   
   > "ATTN Anyone Who Wants to Jump In and Interrupt."  In my opinion, this would   
   be   
   > like my opening my neighbor's mailbox, rifling through the letters, and   
   > choosing to answer some of her correspondence myself.   
      
   Your analogy is somewhat flawed here, IMO. Newsgroups, and before them,   
   the Usenet, has always been a public place to ask questions, get   
   answers, and talk, or chat, or whatever you want to call it. Usenet   
   started off as a place for scholars to ask questions and get answers,   
   and since then has evolved into what you see today. While subjects   
   prefaced with ATTN JMS are meant for JMS' eyes, anyone can read them   
   (short of JMS getting a PGP key and having the questions encrypted). If   
   someone believes they can answer that question for JMS, without his   
   intervention, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Knowing   
   this, readers should keep in mind that it is *not* JMS answering, and   
   therefore any answers should not be taken as the "Final Word." If JMS   
   chooses to correct an answer to a question made on a newsgroup, I'm sure   
   he will, as he has demonstrated in the past.   
      
   So, don't sweat the small stuff.   
      
   > In any case, rather than starting a flamewar, I said I was moving on and   
   wasn't   
   > going to argue it further.   
      
   If I didn't want to start a flamewar on a public newsgroup, I wouldn't   
   post a reply. The moderators undoubtedly have an email address; I would   
   email them directly and ask for reinstatement.   
      
   > Which just goes to show how ignorant they are.   
      
   It's comments like this that tend to lead to flame wars...   
      
   Justin   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)