Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!natmlab.dap.csiro.au!ditsydh.syd.dit.CSIRO.AU!reynolds
From: reynolds@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Chris.Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: New Book in Computer Ethics
Keywords: Ethics, Professional Standards:
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.054400.29861@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>
Date: 20 Aug 90 05:44:00 GMT
References: <9008171738.AA01165@world.std.com> <1990Aug19.230355.22506@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU> <3264@gara.une.oz.au>
Sender: reynolds@syd.dit.csiro.au (Chris Reynolds)
Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia
Lines: 39

>  Chris, why are you so vindictive?

>  Perhaps I should explain to the net that Dr. Reynolds has already refused
>  to review our book for New Scientist, basically because he completely
>  misreads its aims and intentions.

Come off it, Perry.

The New Scientist reviews about one computer book a month - and 
there is a special Student issue once a year when about ten computing
text books are notified. As a result 99.99% of computer related books 
never even get to be considered for review. Your book was "lucky 
enough" to be considered because, among the 100 or so individual and 
student books I have reviewed for the New Scientist over the last 
eight years, there were two by your co-author which I liked. 

Unfortunately for you I didn't like this one, and my prime duty as
a reviewer is to be honest with the readers of the New Scientist, not 
to help the authors or publishers of books which I consider second 
rate. The New Scientist would not be such an internationally well 
loved magazine if its contributors did little more than reflect the 
vendor's publicity material. Even if I had liked the book,  a review 
of a similar collection of hacker's tales, etc, appeared in the New 
Scientist in May - and there is no way that two such similar books 
would be reviewed within the same year - however good the 
second one was.

The only reason that you even knew that the book was considered 
for review, and why I rejected it, was because I was genuinely trying 
to be helpful. While it is not what I am paid for, I believe that the 
majority of authors of rejected books benefit from an understanding 
of the reasons for rejection, and hopefully will learn in time for 
second editions, etc.

If you, or anyone else, wants to seriously discuss how  ethical issues 
should be taught on USENET I will be delighted to make a contribution.
Otherwise I suggest the matter ends forthwith.

Chris Reynolds