c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals

[John F. Haugh II]

In article <BARNETT.90Sep6125844 at grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett at crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in
>c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post
>anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case?

since the group name is "comp.unix.internals" some idiot might
get the notion that what i am posting is "unix internals".  i
didn't say it was a correct notion, merely that some idiot
might get that notion, and since i have signed non-disclosure
agreements which would prevent me from otherwise posting "unix
internals", i don't see i can post much of anything related to
"unix internals" unless i say "gee, this isn't really unix
internals" even though it smells just the same as it did before
the group was "unix internals" and was just as "unproprietary"
as before.

this is the same reason i have abstained from posting to
comp.sources.unix for the last 16 months.  i don't want some
idiot thinking that what i am posting is "unix sources" when
it is really "john's sources".  postings i make to alt.sources
are always very explicit about the lineage of the code for
exactly that reason.  i'd rather not have to give complete
bibliographical data for every thought that i post to this
group.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel!  Programs check in and never check out!"
		-- Ken Thompson