From:	"Mark A. Imbriaco" <mark@******.net>
Subject:	Re: posting form
Date:	Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:35:27 -0400 (EDT)

> Mark N., thank you very much for a serious reply to my questions.
>
> #2 was fine, but I think you mistook my central concern for #3.
>
> Someone previously posted that Shadowtk posts should only be recorded
> conversations (at least INTERNAL format stuff). Anyway, my concern is
> that in INTERNALs, two or more people within a company should be able
> to mail each other a few to several times to 'discuss' an item. It
> shouldn't HAVE to be in a format where the two parties are videotaped or
> seen by a third party.
>
> The poster who suggested this, I strenuously disagree with. An INTERNAL
> message is a communication b/w private industry and it will take place
> however the writer sees it occurring (within the framework of the Matrix).
> To require the the shadowtk version be something seen by a third party and
> recounted is arbitrary and unnecessarily limiting.
>

You're exactly right, and the definition of INTERNAL (even the old,
flawed one) never required the conversation to be "seen" or taped
by another party.

-mark