Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!parsely!percy!qiclab!al From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Al Peterman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Another 9600 protocol! Message-ID: <1991Mar4.152804.10967@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Date: 4 Mar 91 15:28:04 GMT References: <1991Mar2.005717.14483@qiclab.scn.rain.com> <92423@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Organization: SCN Research/QIC Laboratories of Tigard Oregon Lines: 33 I tried to email this - but since that failed, I'll post it.. In article <92423@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > > As far as I can tell you're not associated with the company whose >product you posted an ad for. Nevertheless, it's a bad idea to posts >product ads for any reason in any newsgroup other than comp.newprod. It >would have been a much better idea to have contacted the company and >suggested that they arrange to post their ad on comp.newprod and then >post a short note on comp.dcom.modems pointing readers at that article. I only posted the shortest section of the file that touted this new product, since I have extreme doubts about this product. I don't have any positive reactions to this ad, and didn't post it as an ad, but more as a semi informative file about another protocol. > I understand that you probably didn't intend to break any USENET >etiquette guidelines, but it's never a good idea to post commercial >material to news groups other than comp.newprod no matter how interesting >the product is. Please don't take this wrong. I posted it for the info (what there was of it) contained in it. I thought of not including the phone nuber line, but decided that since I was including my skepticism and disclaimer of any idea if the dammed thing is any good it would be taken that way -- Sorry if it bothered you - the ad bothers me also - as does the prospect of another 9600 protocol... -- Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm al@qiclab.scn.rain.com