On Mon, 22 Mar 1993 00:12:52 EST "Robert D. Child"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
>Since--after seven days--that hasn't happened, we feel compelled to
>"unlurk" and drop our .02 cents' worth on the table.
The forgery business started on the 19th, and we're the 22nd. That's
hardly seven days; that's one working day and a weekend.
>We're bothered by the willingness of this list to allow the discussion
>to focus on technical rather than ethical issues.
The main focus of the list is indeed technical. Ethical discussions are
perfectly appropriate, as long as they don't degenerate into a pointless
religious discussion which never ends.
>Note that, at the beginning, Natalie was chastised (evidently off the
>list as well as on it) for publicly "flaming" a list member, and it was
>only after she defended herself and pointed out that the mail in
>question was not routed to a public forum (but was in fact a private
>mail) that even the most technologically competent among us realized
>that the mail in question was not "normal."
I'm not sure I understand this accusation. Are you suggesting that I
should check the logs each and every time there is a flame on the list
just on the off chance that it might be a forgery? If your point is that
it should have been obvious that this was not meant to be sent on the
list, I don't see what technical competence has to do with realizing that
and, given the history of this list, it was only a mild surprise for me
to see Natalie attack Melvin. I really didn't see any reason to suspect
there was a fraud, but maybe I missed the obvious and I'm sure you will
clarify.
>Once she pointed this out, those who would speak for Melvin noted the
>"obvious" traces and basically excused him from any ill-willed intent
>based upon the ineptitude of the forgery, saying that he was capable of
>doing better.
I did not *excuse* Melvin for the ineptitude of the forgery. I merely
stated that it made it less likely that it was a forgery in the first
place, since Melvin can do better (as later demonstrated by Jim Jones).
IF it was indeed a forgery, its low-level suggests that Melvin doesn't
care being traced and will soon speak up, monday his time.
>Everyone seems quite willing to dismiss the fraudulent posting, yet Eric
>Thomas didn't hesitate to say that he would "have no
>gratuitous/unfounded UK-tabloids-like mudslinging on this list."
What this meant is that we have no way to know for sure whether it's a
fraudulous act or a screwed up mailer or RSCS. I could tell you about
RSCS problems years ago which made me get the files of other people and
other people get my files, and you only need to search the archives of
this list to find countless cases of screwed up mailers. The bottom line
is that I don't want to have people call each other names based on a case
with no evidence. You don't know Melvin and you don't know Natalie, and
we don't know if it is a forgery, so what is the point of exchanging our
views on "whether he did it or not"?
>This calls Natalie's judgement into question, rather than pursuing the
>ethical problem of forgery.
This was just a piece of advice. Of course one shouldn't, in an ideal
world, have to worry about such things, nor should one have to have doors
and lock them. Pursuing the ethical problem of forgery is pointless. I
think everyone will agree that forgery is unethical, bad, and should not
be condoned. Where people will disagree is on how serious a "crime" it
is. I know a couple people who think that stealing a wallet calls for the
death penalty, and I know others who say it is ok if the thief is a poor
guy who can't get a job (as opposed to one who doesn't want to work) and
he returns the wallet and ID card. What's the point of talking about
that?
>And this is the real question: why was the message sent with forged
>headers, making it appear that Natalie had flamed someone in a public
>forum (i.e., committed an ethical breach)?
This is interesting. You seem to have already concluded that there *has*
been a forgery. Then you take it for granted that flames on public fora
are unethical. Maybe in the US it is unethical, but in many other
cultures it is a normal occurrence. Where I come from it is definitely
something you'll find in most newspapers, and people think it's funny.
Maybe that shocks you, but then if I got one dollar every time I am
shocked at something an American says on a mailing list, I wouldn't need
to work; I'd just have to sit by my terminal a couple hours a day reading
mail or, even better, news. Yours was a $10 message :-)
Eric
|
