🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun15.180650.19010@midway.uchicago.edu>
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>I've been reading these disclaimers for quite a while now, and after a
>while they do get tiresome.
>
>I suggest two possible alternatives
>
>	a) People cease putting their corporate affiliations in their
>	signatures.  Then readers will never get the impression that
>	authors are speaking for their companies.  This notion is
>	consistent with the general fact that Usenet is a adamantly
>	non-commercial entity, and people are *never* speaking for their
>	companies here (except for the degenerate case mentioned above)
>	(Contrast this with Compu$erve or GEnie, which are commercial
>	entities, with company sponsored groups, etc)

     Posting one's corporate affiliation is necessary so that we can
figure out who may have ulterior motives in pushing a product or
suggesting a commercial solution to someone's problems.  As for Usenet
being "adamantly non-commercial", nonsense.  Lots of companies post
official (or semi-official, or semi-unofficial, or ...) information to
Usenet.  That is generally accepted as a useful service to the
community, as long as this isn't abused by turning it into a pile of
advertising.  Since this is the case, it is necessary for employees of
companies to tell us whether they're speaking officially, guessing or
just plain sneaking out corporate secrets for us.  I agree though that
some people go way overboard.  I always think it's a little ridiculous
when I see a disclaimer by someone affiliated to a University.

                                Sincerely,

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca