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 thatpeople 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