Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz
From: ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Hacker.  A definition.
Message-ID: <649@ihuxx.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 20:00:09 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxx.649
Posted: Wed Feb  1 20:00:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Feb-84 10:59:53 EST
References: <4544@rochester.UUCP> <858@ihuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 16

Gene,

Tch,tch.  You certainly responded *far* too forcefully, when you
really don't understand the debate.  The argument is that 
people who are engaged in criminal computer activities are certainly
criminals; the problem is that to many, the use of the word 'hacker'
is an unwarranted appropriation by the ignorant press of a word which
had no such negative connotation before.  No one is disagreeing that
criminals are criminals; they are disagreeing that the term 'hacker'
is appropriate, or should be applied.  Please know the issue before
you flame.

				Thank you.

				Dave Ihnat
				ihuxx!ignatz