moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (11/20/84)
>On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance... >I also object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when >such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any >real attempt to conceal one's true identity. >Examples: (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore) > (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) > (? @ inside a linked list) >These alterations make me work much harder than I should have to in order >to find out just where and from whom an article originated. They are >particularly annoying when combined with unsigned articles. Again, even if >the intention is not to mislead or conceal identity, I belive it is, at best, >an impolite and annoying practice. The *very* small amount of humor provided >is simply not worth it; in any case, these things tend to become tedious >rather quickly. > >W. Christensen >Apollo Computer >...decvax!wivax!apollo!wendya > Well, I can only respond to this statement with two of my own: 1) While I certainly don't find all of them entertaining, I enjoy them for the most part. I don't believe that I've EVER found them annoying. 2) Since this does not alter the site, there is no problem in replying to the posting. Also, the majority of people usually include a complete name and address at the end of the posting. I might be tempted to suggest this as a requirement for altering the Name/Organization, but I tend to leave the pedantic restrictions to others. As to annonymous postings, it depends on the context they are in. I have mixed feelings, as I make a habit of signing my articles; but posters to mod/net.singles or mod/net.motss may feel differently. Again, net.police does not seem to be the answer -- in fact, it is being offered as a solution far too often in this newsgroup and others. If this keeps up, net administration people will need their own security team. What do others think? "Pfui. More people saying what they believe would be a great improvement. Because I do I am unfit for common intercourse" -- Nero Wolfe, "Blood Will Tell" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/28/84)
In article <about anonymous postings> <doesn't matter who> writes: >>On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance... >>I object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when >>such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any >>real attempt to conceal one's true identity. >>Examples: (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore) >> (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) >> (? @ inside a linked list) >>These alterations make me work much harder than I should have to in order >>to find out just where and from whom an article originated. >>The *very* small amount of humor provided is simply not worth it. I agree wholeheartedly with the above. It's hard enough to work this net thing as it is. I can also forgive, with the understanding that at the time it seemed like the thing to do, but it's still a bother for us boobs who barely speak "rn". Jeff Meyer replies to <doesn't matter who> >Well, I can only respond to this statement with two of my own: > >1) While I certainly don't find all of them entertaining, I enjoy them for > the most part. I don't believe that I've EVER found them annoying. > >2) Since this does not alter the site, there is no problem in replying to > the posting. Also, the majority of people usually include a complete > name and address at the end of the posting. I might be tempted to > suggest this as a requirement for altering the Name/Organization, but I > tend to leave the pedantic restrictions to others. > >As to annonymous postings, it depends on the context they are in. I have >mixed feelings, as I make a habit of signing my articles; but posters to >mod/net.singles or mod/net.motss may feel differently. Again, net.police >does not seem to be the answer -- in fact, it is being offered as a solution >far too often in this newsgroup and others. If this keeps up, net >administration people will need their own security team. > >What do others think? > I also agree that it is a poor decision to judge others, so net.police is out. I think we should look at this network as belonging to the people who use it, sort of like we pictured America while we were in elementary school. We have our own set of problems to deal with, some of which resemble real world problems, like the net.rubbish problem. I think how we solve it depends on what we expect the net to do for us. So we should agree on that first. It seems that we are expecting everything from a bulletin board to a professional arbritrator from the same software. Perhaps that is where the problem really exists. Scott Bryan.