From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:09:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Java & Netscape security [NOISE]
Message-ID: <199511221048.CAA26409@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote:

> Hmm... If it looks remotely like marketing, it'd better carry the usual
> disclaimers that past returns are no indication of future returns etc. :)
> 
> >In the first case, the poster is not commenting about anything to do with
> >their work, -- it really is just one man's opinion -- while in the second
> >they are actually commenting upon something their employer is selling.

What I'm trying to say is that if someome posts from watson.ibm.com,
and IF they are talking about OS/2, we will not accept that they are
not speaking independantly of the knowledge they have garnered from
watson.

It just doesn't work that way.

In the same way, someone who writes from Netscape.com or AT&T, or Sun
and tries to disclaim that they are speaking for the company, when
they step out as an employee of a company is deluding themselves.

When in the press have you seen a reporter claim as a source, an
"unnamed Senator"?



Alice de 'nonymous ...

                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.

P.P.S.  I just sent email to Steve Bellovin from AT&T.  I thought I'd 
        settle the question once and for all, as to whether he IS 
        reading this mailing list or not.