Actually, I think that the essential difference between
the two threads is this:

The magazine thread started by someone making a comment
about trade rags and the qual forms; it may not have been
the start, but I do recall one poster saying how being
underboastful on one such application resulted in having
to use a false name to get on the list thereafter. But
at no point did anyone ever raise the *question* of
whether this was ethical.

This ethics subthread of the samples thread, however,
*began* by someone asking, point blank, whether there was
any ethical issue with a student requesting samples from
a manufacturer.

One thing about this list...  you ask a question,
you usually get an answer, or at the very least an
opinion. The list is not so reliable for getting answers
to questions that aren't asked, although that too does
happen on occasion.  Answers 'backward-R' Us.

--Bob

On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 06:16:47PM -0500, Dan Creagan wrote:
> If that's a flame, it is not deserving of the .au domain name. 8)
>
> You made my point when you DIDN'T comment on the magazine thread, but DID on
> the small orders thread. Hence, I had to quote your message to point that
> out. However, NO ONE, (including me) commented negatively about the magazine
> thread - yet the small orders thread has generated a number of comments.
> Doesn't that seem interesting to you? It certainly does to me.
>
> I thought it was interesting enough to point it out to our ethics professor.
> She's going to use it as a class example (anonymously, of course).
>
> Dan

--
============================================================
Bob Drzyzgula                             It's not a problem
bob@drzyzgula.org                until something bad happens
============================================================