On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Ballew Kinnaman wrote:
> My conception is somewhat different than what has
> been already said. I should defer to Pete and Douglas

In a lot of instances Pete (Pete Weiss) deserves deference.  If you mean
me by "Douglas," well, no way, I'm a wildcard, always have been, you
cannot know what I will say.  Sometimes, though, Pete deserves a rasberry
and I don't.

As to anonymous postings, well, Mary Siegel was not intially asking about
the concept of truly "anonymous" postings but about postings (they were
not truly anonymous as the address was displayed to the list in the
posting) which don't show the "name" in the posting when supposedly they
should.

For some lists "anonymous" postings are not appropriate (often asked for
by people who just want to spout off a lot), have little place (if you
haven't the courage of your convictions...).  Now, every once in a while
there may be an instance where someone wants to be totally anonymous for a
particular posting on a particular topic.  In such an instance the poster
can ask the listowner to set it up and if the listowner is convinced of
the need he can set it up so most can't trace it (except, maybe, back to
him), and I have done that.

 'Course, these days, with Carnivore and such there may be good reason
for everyone to try to stay as anonymous as possible (which means don't
go traipsing all over the place to this or the other web site as the com
people have had "Carnivore" equivalent for a long time and now the
FBI/CIA sorta fessing up 'cause they've been caught at it).

If one wants to be "anonymous" the first thing is to be quite circumspect
as to what one does where it may be observed/recorded.

The need for anonymity may be deadly serious in some instances, but, on
lists, not infrequently it may be someone who just wants to play name
games.

For the deadly serious cases there are sites where one can get a totally
anonymous (the proprietors say) email address/identity.

Douglas