Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:1933 comp.mail.uucp:3162
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!scs
From: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Electronic flirting
Summary: More public than you think...
Message-ID: <1309@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 26 May 89 20:32:59 GMT
References: <24mLL07rdp1010nXDeM@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1017@servax0.essex.ac.uk>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Reply-To: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Lines: 18

In article <1017@servax0.essex.ac.uk> hilda@ese.UUCP (Hilda Breakspear) writes:
>This article is hopelessly plagurised from New Scientist, 20 May 1989.
>Letter from Susan J Behrens, Cambridge
>
>I'd like to mention the vast potential that e-mail holds for two colleagues 
>"getting to know one another".  Flirting by e-mail . . .

Speaking as postmaster for a site full of bad typists, I find being
the receiver of undeliverable mail a fascinating way to study the
mating habits of academics.  This is requires special delicacy in
handling when paragraph one of the letter contains high-priority
work-oriented data, but paragraph two is a graphic description of
the senders intent for the upcoming weekend.  Should I correct and
forward?  Inform the sender?  Decisions, decisions.

Steve Simmons         Just another midwestern boy
scs@vax3.iti.org  -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs
"Think of c++ as an object-oriented assembler..."