gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (10/31/89)
In article <1303@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: )In article <36049@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: )[Attribution for the following lost. --hb] )##No, it's not. Perhaps if we (the set of all USENET administrators) )##knew how postings were forged, we'd know how to stop forgeries. ) )Or perhaps not, at least not in any meaningful sense. Depending )on the method, it might be that the only way to stop the forgery )be to stop the *genuine* article as well. Obviously, the only way to solve the problem _meaningfully_ is to insist that _all_ articles be forged. There would then never be a question of whether someone really said something or not, as if anyone cared. And since the forgeries are generally of a higher quality than the average article, the quality of the net would be immeasurably improved. Look, _you_ posted to talk.bizarre. Whoever "you" are. I'm just following up. Let's see, whose id should I choose.... -- * Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf *
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (11/01/89)
In article <245@panix.UUCP> gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: #In article <1303@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: #)In article <36049@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: #)[Attribution for the following lost. --hb] #)##No, it's not. Perhaps if we (the set of all USENET administrators) #)##knew how postings were forged, we'd know how to stop forgeries. #)Or perhaps not ... #Obviously, the only way ... # #Look, _you_ posted to talk.bizarre. Whoever "you" are. I'm just #following up. Let's see, whose id should I choose.... Y, any valid _U_ID would B fine, doncha C? hb -- Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET) ** Vote YES to sci.aquaria; send votes to richard@gryphon.COM. **