🚀 go-pugleaf

In the referenced article brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>Myself, I am 100% in favour of electronic junk mail replacing the
>vast gobs of dead trees that land in my physical mailbox every day.
>Once we lay down the patterns so that proper headers are placed on
>the junk mail, then it's far better.
[more about screening said deleted]

Aww, c'mon, brad, do you really think Madison Avenue is going to abide
by header standards?  Gimme a break!  This is USENET, for Seldon's sake,
and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep them from pulling every stunt
in the book to keep you from hitting a key and consigning them to the
bitbucket where they belong.  Oh, you meant e-mail?  See previous 
arguments.  

Besides, (a) there ARE ways to make paper without killing trees,
if our governments would bother to let us (but that's another rant),
and (b) it's much easier to scrawl a note in the margin of an ad 
than to punt the article to a file, go edit it, make sure you can
tell your own changes from the orignal text, make sure you didn't
delete anything vital, and then come up with some creative filename
so you don't lose it in that morass which comes out when we goof up
and type "ls" on our top-level directories... Naah, much rather
get it paper, it's a break from the CRT.  

-- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech
(not that they REALLY want to claim my opinions....:)
GOOD HONEST *HEMP*!  -- Wilson