|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:36:08 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" |
Reply-To: |
|
At 2:58 AM -0700 8/4/00, rex wrote:
>
>I don't understand the concern. Anyone can pose as anyone
>in cyberspace. If I wanted to, I could have posted as
>"Mary Siegel <[log in to unmask]>." Compared to this
>possibility, someone leaving off the name and simply using
>a correct email address seems rather innocuous. Even if
>the name is included there is no guarantee that there is
>such a person in meatspace.
That is true, but if we ever catch someone doing that, we throw them
off the list ASAP.
>What I care about is content, not the "name" associated
>with the address. I welcome posts from pseudonyms posted
>through anonymous remailers. Anyone with the ability to
>establish a pseudonym via a remailer chain is likely to
>have something interesting to say. In contrast, the fact
>that Dumb N. Dumber uses his meatspace name to post
>doesn't interest me at all.
I would disagree with that. The ability to establish a pseudonym has
little to do with the ability to have something interesting to say. I
would wound why they had something to hide.
>We don't (yet) have cops at every mailbox checking ID
>before a letter can be mailed. Why should cyberspace be
>any different?
True, we don't have cops, although in this case, the list owner is
acting somewhat in that capacity. The feeling is that people on a
list have a right to know with whom they are speaking. The dog
community is pretty close-knit and people who hide behind pseudonyms
are generally gossips. We don't want them around.
In any event, this is our desire. If you can help with the problem, I
would love to hear your solutions. If you cannot, then I really do
not see that telling me "it is immaterial" serves any purpose at all.
Mary Siegel
Setters-L
|
|
|