4 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
> I understand though, that we can't control what the reporters >say and how they interpret what we say. It is very important to word >your posts carefully such that when you post a bug a reporter won't >think that they should write an article on it until it is verified. NO! Something like Perry's "Do not redistribute without permission" should be the only modification needed. /r$
Rich Salz writes: > > I understand though, that we can't control what the reporters > >say and how they interpret what we say. It is very important to word > >your posts carefully such that when you post a bug a reporter won't > >think that they should write an article on it until it is verified. > > NO! > > Something like Perry's "Do not redistribute without permission" should > be the only modification needed. I am frequently informed before people redistribute, but not always, I'm afraid. Perry
Perry said: > I am frequently informed before people redistribute, but not always, > I'm afraid. After somebody started advertising a car repair place through my remailer, I found that most people don't seem to read the headers, or their MUA hides that icky stuff from them. I'd guess that reporters will frequently fall into this group. You might have better luck if you moved the notice back to your sig. -- Eli Brandt eli+@cs.cmu.edu
> > NO! > > Something like Perry's "Do not redistribute without permission" should > be the only modification needed. "should" is very different from what is. Hell, -no- change "should" be necessary. Reporters "should" be aware of the issues and write good articles. But they don't. Some "Do not redistribute w/o permission" isn't going to stop a reporter from printing an article about your post, if they think it will get them the front page and a raise. -- sameer Voice: 510-601-9777 Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.org