From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 7:21:35 MDT
From: Colin James 0621 <cjames@dsc.blm.gov>
Subject: Re: How to Make Ada more widely used (Should be email ethics)
Message-ID: <9306220721.aa02571@dsc.blm.gov>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

  
Gregory Aharonian retaliates to a MITRE employee as follows:
  
"As a federal employee ... , it is illegal for you to insult and 
criticize any member of the public.  Check the federal regs."
  
I have asked around, and short of physically researching the United
States Code (USC), and couldn't find anything.  Please supply the
citation and authority.
  
The argument raises an interesting ethical question, which if true
would mean that Mr Aharonian could rant and rave with the immunity of
knowing that since federal employees have a higher level of accountability
in an email argument then Mr Aharonian could always "win" any argument.

What comes to mind are the words of Herbert Spencer:
  
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

It seems only fair that Mr Aharonian would want the same level of conduct
to be applied to himself that would apply to others in an email debate
on Internet.  To invoke the argument that "you can't argue like that, but
in my jumble hudgement is a double standard which is intolerable.
  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No disclaimers apply here because this is Internet,
the loco parentis of all opinions.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~