🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2pleij$2b9@access2.digex.net>, - <frampton@access.digex.net> wrote:
>coverage of these type of issues-- the Washington Post didn't even 
>mention that Canter and Siegel was suing for a quarter million. The same 

What disturbs me about Burgess's article is that the reader is left 
with the impression that Canter's mail, both received and withheld,
consists mostly of requests for further information.  Although the
article starts by saying that many of the responses consisted of hate-
mail, with some requests for information, Burgess then makes Canter
appear to be a revolutionary entrepreneurial pioneer; he then
states in his final paragraph, "Canter says that about three-quarters
of the mail that arrived before the shut-off requested more information."

This supports a view that the "people who have had the computer
networks as their private world" are unwilling to share information, 
will victimize innocent foreigners, and are a cliquish bunch of
snobs set in their ways.  This article, combined with the Washington
Post Magazine's write-up on women and the "wolf packs" of the Internet,
has turned the sympathies of the public against the Internet community,
hastening its turnover into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.

What a bummer.

-- 
But I am merely changeable and wild and a woman  *  Process Zone
in every way, and not virtuous.  - Nietzsche     *  phoenix@universe.digex.net