As a fairly recent subscriber to this list, we've sat quietly on the sidelines during the recent discussions about forged mail, private posts appearing in public forums, etc. Given the size of this group, we expected someone more "tenured" to step forward and speak to the ethical side of the issue. Since--after seven days--that hasn't happened, we feel compelled to "unlurk" and drop our .02 cents' worth on the table. We're bothered by the willingness of this list to allow the discussion to focus on technical rather than ethical issues. 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." 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. Why is it that we would be willing to publicly chastise someone for (rather mild) flaming, but not be willing to chastise or censure someone who commits an act of fraud? 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." Rather than focusing the discussion on the egregious act of forgery, the issue got (quite paternally) turned back on Natalie, when Eric said, >When you insult someone in private, it is a good idea to weigh the use >your private communication may be put to by your antagonist vs the bad >impression they would be making if they forwarded your message to a >mailing list. This calls Natalie's judgement into question, rather than pursuing the ethical problem of forgery. we would imagine that even when Eric posted the email death threat to a public list that it was accompanied by some sort of introduction or contextualization. In other words, everyone would have recognized that the post was being distributed by the recipient. 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)? If the intent were to point out that she was being a "bad girl," why go to the trouble? In effect, it appears to us that the victim in this situation is being made out to be the guilty party, something that happens all too often. *** *** Robert D. Child, Instructional Labs Coordinator Purdue Univ. Computing Cntr. & Dept. of English [log in to unmask] /or/ vsf@purccvm --Gary Beason ---Purue University [log in to unmask]