[OT] On the advice of Paul Lutus and others...
Unknown
this newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and using the
default data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the program and
connected to ACF.
I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
No longer Anonymous...
:)
Kurt
news:MMednX3a85JTEhzY...@comcast.com:
Well done and well met, Phil.
--
Cheers,
Kurt
Paul Lutus
And I to meet you. For other readers, this is an important step in the
evolution of a Usenet poster. It sends the message, "You can trust me to
accept personal responsibility for what I post."
People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to avoid
responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they say. When
exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the strange,
borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some Usenet
posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
Over time, as valiant efforts in the field of artificial intelligence begin
to bear fruit, it should be possible to imitate the most common class of
nicknamed post perfectly. This prospect is helped along by a gradual but
distinct decline in the total information content of nicknamed posts.
Eventually it won't be possible to distinguish a post-bot from a person who
belongs in this category. Even the human poster behind the nickname won't
be able to subjectively distinguish himself from a cold silicon chip.
Just my opinion, but I have never thought there was any great merit in
imitating an algorithm, and in this case, success is the greatest failure
of all.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: [OT] On the advice of Paul Lutus and others...:
>And I to meet you. For other readers, this is an important step in the
>evolution of a Usenet poster. It sends the message, "You can trust me to
>accept personal responsibility for what I post."
Well said.
POKO
<@> says...
--
Best,
POKO
Read my blog - somebody has to!
http://www.manitoulinislandindex.com/blog.html
Unknown
> Glad you are out of the closet Phil,
That exactly what I wrote to Paul Lutus in another thread:
"I should have a coming out party!"
Richard Steinfeld
Yeah, Phil -- Anon is too common a name. Me, I stick out. I could have
used "Bob Smith," but who would recognize me? Besides, the last
"anonymous" who was here was a jerk. You remember him, right? And so was
the guy before that.
Richard
hummingbird
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>Phil Buchman wrote:
>
>> On the advice of my friend Paul Lutus and a few other good folks in
>> this newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and using the
>> default data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the program and
>> connected to ACF.
>>
>> I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
>
>And I to meet you. For other readers, this is an important step in the
>evolution of a Usenet poster. It sends the message, "You can trust me to
>accept personal responsibility for what I post."
Except of course that the *real name* a person uses to post may not
be their real name. How do I know you are really Paul Lutus?
Q, who is Paul Lutus?
A, he's just a person, just a name on a.c.f.
It tells me nothing more about you than if you called yourself
Potters Bar.
More relevant perhaps is whether a person continually morphs... that
really does mess other people up because of name/style association
that people develop.
>People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to avoid
>responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they say. When
>exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the strange,
>borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some Usenet
>posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
There may be some truth in this but there are certainly numerous other
perfectly acceptable reasons to explain why some people use nicknames.
A desire for personal privacy is one.
There simply is no general explanation.
>Over time, as valiant efforts in the field of artificial intelligence begin
>to bear fruit, it should be possible to imitate the most common class of
>nicknamed post perfectly. This prospect is helped along by a gradual but
>distinct decline in the total information content of nicknamed posts.
>
>Eventually it won't be possible to distinguish a post-bot from a person who
>belongs in this category. Even the human poster behind the nickname won't
>be able to subjectively distinguish himself from a cold silicon chip.
>
>Just my opinion, but I have never thought there was any great merit in
>imitating an algorithm, and in this case, success is the greatest failure
>of all.
I expect it won't be too long before the State enforces real name
usage on the Internet. Then dissenters can be easily tracked down
and dealt with. Some folks will be happy then.
Just my 2 cents worth.....
Nicolaas Hawkins
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote in
<news:2po3o2h4etetd6036...@4ax.com>:
... and worth all of it.
--
Nicolaas
Paul Lutus
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:27:57 -0800 'Paul Lutus'
> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>Phil Buchman wrote:
>>
>>> On the advice of my friend Paul Lutus and a few other good folks in
>>> this newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and using the
>>> default data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the program and
>>> connected to ACF.
>>>
>>> I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
>>
>>And I to meet you. For other readers, this is an important step in the
>>evolution of a Usenet poster. It sends the message, "You can trust me to
>>accept personal responsibility for what I post."
>
> Except of course that the *real name* a person uses to post may not
> be their real name. How do I know you are really Paul Lutus?
If I weren't, the "real" Paul Lutus would by now have objected to 22 years
of Usenet posts either by or about me. So on that basis, yes, I am really
him.
>
> Q, who is Paul Lutus?
> A, he's just a person, just a name on a.c.f.
That's easy for you to say, hummingbird.
> It tells me nothing more about you than if you called yourself
> Potters Bar.
That is because you have little grasp of history.
/ ...
>>People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>>avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they say.
>>When exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the strange,
>>borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some Usenet
>>posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
>
> There may be some truth in this but there are certainly numerous other
> perfectly acceptable reasons to explain why some people use nicknames.
> A desire for personal privacy is one.
That need can be easily met -- stop posting. You can't have it both ways.
You can't argue in favor of personal privacy while at the same time posting
opinions in newsgroups. People who posts opinions, in particular those who
presume to state facts, lose the right to do so anonymously.
To see my point, try voting without providing your identity.
> There simply is no general explanation.
Yes, there is. I posted it. People want to avoid personal responsibility.
Unknown
> Yeah, Phil -- Anon is too common a name. Me, I stick out. I could have used
> "Bob Smith," but who would recognize me? Besides, the last "anonymous" who
> was here was a jerk. You remember him, right? And so was the guy before that.
>
> Richard
Was I a jerk? (wink) I was the Anonymous with the capital A. I was the
"friendly" Anonymous! ;)
Several people in ACF wrote that I should change my nickname, and I
said no each time. Then I was writing with Paul Lutus about his cool
website, and I realized that I was writing to Paul but Paul was writing
to...who the hell was Paul writing to?...a person with no name and no
identity. I may not be the author of software or sailed around the
world (like Paul has)---but the truth is that it won't kill me to
identify myself in this newsgroup.
I was the good Anonymous of the Nroth. You're thinking of the Wicked
Anonymous of the West. ...and the little dog too...
Take good care Richard!
Unknown
Nroth...?
I was the friendly Anonymous---who can't spell "NORTH!" HA!
jon
hummingbird wrote:
>Except of course that the *real name* a person uses to post may not
>be their real name. How do I know you are really Paul Lutus?
>
>Q, who is Paul Lutus?
>A, he's just a person, just a name on a.c.f.
>
>It tells me nothing more about you than if you called yourself
>Potters Bar.
Quite. (but you, hummingthing pig dog have now identified yourself as
a cockney and we can search you out and eat your babies)
>>People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to avoid
>>responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they say. When
>>exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the strange,
>>borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some Usenet
>>posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
>
>There may be some truth in this but there are certainly numerous other
>perfectly acceptable reasons to explain why some people use nicknames.
>A desire for personal privacy is one.
And we have to assume that 'Paul Lutus' values his (her) privacy
because he uses a silly e mail addy without even the courtesy of a
'.invalid' tld.
As for furnishing us with her home address, phone number, name of
rabbit *ghastly larf*
FFS - usenet is a text medium; read the text and respond to it if you
wish. Or not.
Susan Bugher's real name is Martin.
The Seabat
Watch out, you'll get a spelling ding from P.L. :)
--
The Seabat
iNcReDuLoUs
news:26d2d432854e525a4e3591a5541887aanp@mcdaddums.3:
> FFS - usenet is a text medium; read the text and respond to it if you
> wish. Or not.
Oh jon, haven't you been paying attention? "Paul Lutus" made it perfectly
clear that you have no right to express your opinion! If he says white is
black we have to believe him, because he uses his one true name. ;)
jon
Paul Lutus wrote:
>If I weren't, the "real" Paul Lutus would by now have objected to 22 years
>of Usenet posts either by or about me
The real PL works in a chip shop in Croydon, does not own a puter and
cares not a damn that you are appropriating his name for your own
nefarious purposes.
elaich
news:12o39dv...@corp.supernews.com:
> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
> say.
I don't agree at all. What does "Paul Lutus" mean to me? How do I even know
that's your real name?
I can call myself "Davy Jones." How do you know whether that's my real name
or not?
Do you know where I live, or even what continent I live on? No, not unless
I tell you.
If a person consistently uses the same nickname in a group, he establishes
just as much an identity as someone using a proper name. His reputation
will stand or fall depending on his behavior. This does not apply to those
using nicks as trolls or sock puppets. They will always display the same
behaviors.
And no, most people use nicknames because they want to preserve their
privacy on the Internet.
Bear Bottoms
It is just more ego ranting. There is no general point. It is diverse
and you are correct...though there are many non-nefarious reasons to
choose "handles."
--
I Research Freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
hummingbird
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:27:57 -0800 'Paul Lutus'
>> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>>Phil Buchman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the advice of my friend Paul Lutus and a few other good folks in
>>>> this newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and using the
>>>> default data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the program and
>>>> connected to ACF.
>>>>
>>>> I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
>>>
>>>And I to meet you. For other readers, this is an important step in the
>>>evolution of a Usenet poster. It sends the message, "You can trust me to
>>>accept personal responsibility for what I post."
>>
>> Except of course that the *real name* a person uses to post may not
>> be their real name. How do I know you are really Paul Lutus?
>
>If I weren't, the "real" Paul Lutus would by now have objected to 22 years
>of Usenet posts either by or about me. So on that basis, yes, I am really
>him.
It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't lead
me to conclude that what you have to say is any more important or
valid than what another person who uses a handle has to say.
I will judge the content not the name.
One gets used to posters by whatever name they use.
There is no certainty whatsoever that if you are not Paul Lutus that
the real one would even know you are using his name on Usenet. If
discovered, he may simply think that there's another Paul Lutus in
existence and carry on with his life...possibly posting under the
handle of FannyAdams elsewhere on Usenet. Who knows.
Does it matter? Not to me.
>> Q, who is Paul Lutus?
>> A, he's just a person, just a name on a.c.f.
>
>That's easy for you to say, hummingbird.
Of course it is but it's nevertheless perfectly true.
I'm quite sure that most posters on any newsgroup judge others
by their style and content, not the name/handle they use.
>> It tells me nothing more about you than if you called yourself
>> Potters Bar.
>
>That is because you have little grasp of history.
Where does history come into this?
Perhaps you don't know where Potters Bar is?
>/ ...
>
>>>People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>>>avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they say.
>>>When exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the strange,
>>>borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some Usenet
>>>posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
>>
>> There may be some truth in this but there are certainly numerous other
>> perfectly acceptable reasons to explain why some people use nicknames.
>> A desire for personal privacy is one.
>That need can be easily met -- stop posting. You can't have it both ways.
That's complete nonsense and you know it. We don't live in police
states just yet.
FYI many many posters on Usenet can "have it both ways".
They can use a handle *and* post - and guess what: that is the norm
on many other newsgroups.
Why should a.c.f. be different?
>You can't argue in favor of personal privacy while at the same time posting
>opinions in newsgroups.
Oooooh yes I can.
Others will judge whatever I have to say by its content.
> People who posts opinions, in particular those who
>presume to state facts, lose the right to do so anonymously.
Oooooh no they don't.
>To see my point, try voting without providing your identity.
Voting in what? Elections?
Hey - Usenet is a public debating forum, not an election.
>> There simply is no general explanation.
>
>Yes, there is. I posted it. People want to avoid personal responsibility.
That's utter nonsense. You should know that.
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher's real name is Martin.
Oh drat! Outed after all these years. . . ah well, it was fun while it
lasted. ;)
Susan
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in
> news:12o39dv...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
>> say.
>
> I don't agree at all. What does "Paul Lutus" mean to me? How do I even
> know that's your real name?
That ground has been covered. It behooves you to read a thread before
posting to it.
> I can call myself "Davy Jones." How do you know whether that's my real
> name or not?
I can prove who I am with a few well-selected links. If I pretended to
be someone I am not, the real Paul Lutus would quickly call me on it.
If I link to one of the articles about me, claiming that identity as my own,
how long do you think it would take for the real Paul Lutus to begin legal
actions? Articles like this:
http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programming.php
Or this:
http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/how_word_program_works.php
Or this (read the list of past recipients of the Vollum Award at lower
left):
http://web.reed.edu/news_center/press_releases/2005-2006/082205LinuxCreator.html
Consider how short a time would be required for my imposture to be exposed,
were I not who I claim to be.
> Do you know where I live, or even what continent I live on? No, not unless
> I tell you.
Do I trust that you are risking your personal reputation by misrepresenting
facts and opinions? By the same token, no, because "nickname" and "trust"
are orthogonal concepts.
>
> If a person consistently uses the same nickname in a group, he establishes
> just as much an identity as someone using a proper name.
False. First, a nickname is not responsible for anything he
says. Second, a nickname cannot be libeled. These are big differences.
> His reputation
> will stand or fall depending on his behavior.
This is nonsense. If it were true, there would be point to nicknames. The
point of nicknames is anonymity, and the point of anonymity is cowardice.
> This does not apply to those
> using nicks as trolls or sock puppets. They will always display the same
> behaviors.
Oh, so now we start listing the exceptions to an unassailable rule that you
just went to pains to establish.
> And no, most people use nicknames because they want to preserve their
> privacy on the Internet.
People who wanted to preserve their privacy wouldn't post to Usenet, so this
rationalization falls flat.
We don't laugh at handicapped people in the street, because that is cruel
and unkind. We also don't laugh at people who use nicknames in Usenet
postings. It's just too sad for that to be a civilized response.
So, go ahead. Use a nickname. It's all right.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> It is just more ego ranting. There is no general point. It is diverse
> and you are correct...though there are many non-nefarious reasons to
> choose "handles."
There are no reasons that stand up to scrutiny. There are only
rationalizations. Why do you think criminals use aliases? Why do you think
this is the first thing an investigator wants to know about a suspect?
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't lead
> me to conclude that what you have to say is any more important or
> valid than what another person who uses a handle has to say.
You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when things
get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
Franklin
Must confess that I'm too blinkered to worry about who is who and who
isn't here in ACF. So all this has passed me by.
Have to say this reads a bit like a post from someone wanting to reveal
someone else.
Makes less sense to lil' ol' me me than a posting from Bear Bottoms.
*confused*
Franklin
> hummingbird wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>> It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't
>> lead me to conclude that what you have to say is any more
>> important or valid than what another person who uses a handle has
>> to say.
>
> You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when
> things get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>
Cor! Seems like meaning within meanings. And I don't get any of it.
This branch between Paul Lutus and Hummingbird is like when I try to
follow one of those complicated spy films after missing the first
hour. It confuses me. Heh! :-)
-----
I take an altogether simpler view: 80 percent of the people on the
Usenet are using false names and the other 20 percent are lying.
Oh, almost forgot. Of course there is the less-than-1-percent group
of saints (I'm a member and so is everyone else on the Usenet) where
all of us use our real names.
Franklin
>
> hummingbird wrote:
>
>>Except of course that the *real name* a person uses to post may not
>>be their real name. How do I know you are really Paul Lutus?
>>
>>Q, who is Paul Lutus?
>>A, he's just a person, just a name on a.c.f.
>>
>>It tells me nothing more about you than if you called yourself
>>Potters Bar.
>
> Quite. (but you, hummingthing pig dog have now identified yourself
> as a cockney and we can search you out and eat your babies)
Steady on, old bean! No one gets called a pig dog around here but
me.
In fact I get called it so often I thought it was part of my name.
Heh! :-)
>>>People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it
>>>is to avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from
>>>what they say. When exploited to their fullest, nicknames
>>>contribute to the strange, borderline-psychotic variety of prose
>>>one sees regularly in some Usenet posts, as though the virtual
>>>world were the only one.
>>
>>There may be some truth in this but there are certainly numerous
>>other perfectly acceptable reasons to explain why some people use
>>nicknames. A desire for personal privacy is one.
>
> And we have to assume that 'Paul Lutus' values his (her) privacy
> because he uses a silly e mail addy without even the courtesy of a
> '.invalid' tld.
> As for furnishing us with her home address, phone number, name of
> rabbit *ghastly larf*
>
> FFS - usenet is a text medium; read the text and respond to it if
> you wish. Or not.
>
> Susan Bugher's real name is Martin.
I think you may find that Martin's real name is Susan Bugher.
Heh!
Franklin
> Phil Buchman wrote:
>
>> On the advice of my friend Paul Lutus and a few other good folks
>> in this newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and
>> using the default data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the
>> program and connected to ACF.
>>
>> I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
>
> And I to meet you. For other readers, this is an important step in
> the evolution of a Usenet poster. It sends the message, "You can
> trust me to accept personal responsibility for what I post."
>
> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is
> to avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what
> they say. When exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to
> the strange, borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees
> regularly in some Usenet posts, as though the virtual world were
> the only one.
Hey! You mean to say there's another world out there apart from this
virtual one?
Hmmm, I vaguely seem to remember something about a strange phenomenon
which is called sunlight. Must look into it some time. Heh!
Franklin
Don't you feel that the best impostors find a character and then claim
to be him or her?
For example, I could claim to be the phreaker Cap'n Crunch. Better
still if he is my hero and I know all about him. Then I can live my
fantasy life of actually being him. (Er, well, until, that is, I meet
up with him in Cyberspace.)
This lets fantasists have their day and enjoy it thoroughly. You like
David Bowie? Well, why not become David Bowie on the Internet. Yay!
"See that web site http://www.davidbowie.com, well that's mine", says
David, um, Bowie. Oh you don't think that's me, well, not many people
know this but I had a heart attack 3 years ago and had to go in for a
major op. Does that prove it to you? Right. And here's my photo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_Bowie_2005.jpg
You want to be an ex-member of the Delta Force. Go ahead. It's free.
Just work it through something like this:
I used to be an astronaut, you know. STS-73 Colombia in 1993. Bumpy
take off at Kennedy that time. We never told the press but two of the
new suits we so badly ripped we couldn't risk using them in space.
Never found out haw that had happened. Kind of weird though. They lost
the same ship years later in STS-107. Fred Leslie is the name. Pleased
to meet you. Yeah, right.
Bear Bottoms used to be an airline pilot. Right. Ok.
I think I met Diana's bodyguard on the Net at some time. Such a
pleasant guy. He seemed to know so much about her. What a nice person.
Somebody might want to be Paul Lutus.
What does all this tell us? It tells us that it's time for a coffee
break as we think up our next flash of brilliance on the Internet which
we never seem to be quite able to be able to emulate in real-life.
Kettle's boiling. Gotta go into 3D for a while.
Is it safe in 3D at the moment?
Zoidberg
Susan?!? :oD
I started with my real name (yes I am in one of the famous Smith clans)
changed to Bender, then Nibbler now Zoidberg and I'll change again soon
probably and if I've finished watching Futurama there may even be a new
theme.
Hopefully my posts haven't been distracted from by my
quick-nick-changing habbits.
I know it may make it more awkward to follow posts that are mine but
given the e-mail address is real if *really* wanted to follow my posts
you could.
As for reputation, I have a reputation for being different IRL so why
change here?
-Sustin
hummingbird
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>> It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't lead
>> me to conclude that what you have to say is any more important or
>> valid than what another person who uses a handle has to say.
>You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when things
>get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
I didn't miss the point. A person can spout nonsense whether they
use their real name or not. It is exactly because a person can change
their nickname so easily that others are better advised to judge the
content of their posts, not the name they use to post under.
Over time on a newsgroup people develop name/content associations
but it doesn't really matter what the name is. The problem arises only
when a person frequently morphs because it breaks the association link
that others have developed.
So in my mind, if I associate JX as always posting utter tripe, when
he changes his name to XJ I will have to update my association ... it
takes a few days to see what's happened and adjust accordingly. Then
I will associate the new name with utter tripe.
Welcome to Usenet.
IIUC you are advocating the enforced use of a person's real name
to post on Usenet. That would be unacceptable to many people who still
understand what privacy and freedom are. I don't discount such a thing
happening as we drift ever closer towards democratic police states in
the West and state surveillance takes over. Here in the UK it wouldn't
surprise me if Blair or his successor wanted our real name and ID Card
serial no. to be posted. It makes tracking down dissenters and dealing
with them so much easier for them.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
Mary Sunshine
What if all my *enemies* find me? }:-o
And then ... and then ...
What if they show everybody in the world all the stupid usenet posts
that I've made?
Then my real identity in the 3D world would get laughed off the planet.
I'd have to move to another town, use a phony name, and start all over
again.
I don't dare! :-O
M.S.
John Corliss
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>> hummingbird wrote:
>>
>> / ...
>>
>>> It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't
>>> lead me to conclude that what you have to say is any more
>>> important or valid than what another person who uses a handle has
>>> to say.
>> You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when
>> things get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>
> Cor! Seems like meaning within meanings. And I don't get any of it.
>
> This branch between Paul Lutus and Hummingbird is like when I try to
> follow one of those complicated spy films after missing the first
> hour. It confuses me. Heh! :-)
>
> Usenet are using false names and the other 20 percent are lying.
> Oh, almost forgot. Of course there is the less-than-1-percent group
> of saints (I'm a member and so is everyone else on the Usenet) where
> all of us use our real names.
John Corliss is really my name, and I'm not lying. Even Andy Mabbett had
the class to use his real name. IMO, there's need to use a nym.
--
Regards from John Corliss. I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett. No
ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited or
trial wares or warez for me, please.
FirstName LastName
> On the advice of my friend Paul Lutus and a few other good folks in this
> newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and using the default
> data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the program and connected to
> ACF.
> I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
> No longer Anonymous...
> :)
The only trouble is how we know that you are Phil Buchman, and does it
matter. As long as you're civil and helpful who cares what your name is.
With the constant inflow of ads, off topic, rude and insulting posts,
there are more important things to address in the newsgroup than the
person's real name.
elaich
> I can prove who I am with a few well-selected links. If I pretended to
> be someone I am not, the real Paul Lutus would quickly call me on it.
I'm sure there are several thousand people named "Paul Lutus" in the world.
Which one are you? The only "real" one? What a joke.
One thing you proved to me is that you are a pompous jerk who's deserving
of my killfile, no matter what your name is. You're starting to generate
more static in this group than Bear Bottoms.
FirstName LastName
> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to avoid
> responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they say. When
> exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the strange,
> borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some Usenet
> posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
Yes, and we all know how real people with real names assume their
responsibilities, how they are all sane and well behaved, how moral and
ethically responsible they are, and honest, and civil, and...
Yes, using real names contributes to world peace, end to famine and poverty.
But I, by not using my real name, I'm irresponsible, lunatic and a criminal.
My real name means nothing to you or anyone else. Worse. I could just as
easy use a name that would look as real as yours and you wouldn't know
the difference.
FirstName LastName
> hummingbird wrote:
> / ...
>> It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't lead
>> me to conclude that what you have to say is any more important or
>> valid than what another person who uses a handle has to say.
> You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when things
> get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
And a person that uses, allegedly, his really name can as easily change
his name. So your point his...
Using your real name didn't stop you from spout nonsense.
Craig
> Now I'm confused, I thought I was Martin but does this now mean I'm
> Susan?!? :oD
>
>> jon wrote:
>>
>>> Susan Bugher's real name is Martin.
>> Oh drat! Outed after all these years. . . ah well, it was fun while it
>> lasted. ;)
>>
>> Susan
>
Hrmmmm. Ever seen Martin & Susan in the same place at the same time?
thought so!
-Craig
Susan Bugher
> Zoidberg wrote:
>> Susan Bugher wrote:
>>> jon wrote:
>>>> Susan Bugher's real name is Martin.
>>>
>>> Oh drat! Outed after all these years. . . ah well, it was fun while it
>>> lasted. ;)
>>>
>>> Susan
>> Now I'm confused, I thought I was Martin but does this now mean I'm
>> Susan?!? :oD
> Hrmmmm. Ever seen Martin & Susan in the same place at the same time?
>
> thought so!
I've tried to get around that with clones but they're always
insufferable (IMO). There must be something wrong with the process
that's used to create them.
Susan
Roger the Bugler
news:12o48tq...@corp.supernews.com...
> Do I trust that you are risking your personal reputation by
> misrepresenting
> facts and opinions? By the same token, no, because "nickname" and "trust"
> are orthogonal concepts.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. They are only related through incidence. And each incident
stands or falls on its own merits. Suggesting that "nickname" and "trust"
are
orthogonal is no different than saying there are no law-abiding Nig-Nogs.
>> If a person consistently uses the same nickname in a group, he
>> establishes
>> just as much an identity as someone using a proper name.
>
> False. First, a nickname is not responsible for anything he
> says. Second, a nickname cannot be libeled. These are big differences.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. An individual posting under an assumed name does accept
responsibility for what they say. It's whether they care that matters.
Second,
an individual posting libel under an assumed identity can be be libeled if
that
identity can be proven. Which it can, with the help of the ISP that
services
them and proven statistical analysis.
>> His reputation will stand or fall depending on his behavior.
>
> This is nonsense. If it were true, there would be point to nicknames. The
> point of nicknames is anonymity, and the point of anonymity is cowardice.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. The benefit of a nickname in the context of a public
network,
like the internet, is one of individual privacy. Privacy is not synonymous
with
cowardice. Ignoring a pensioner being harassed by ASBO-weilding chavs,
though, is cowardly.
>> This does not apply to those using nicks as trolls or sock puppets. They
>> will always display the same behaviors.
>
> Oh, so now we start listing the exceptions to an unassailable rule that
> you
> just went to pains to establish.
Trolls are scum of the earth. I really, really, really don't particularly
like them.
But trolling isn't illegal, nor can we expect a troll to use their real
name. And
we can't label this behaviour under cowardice, either, because trolling
serves
a specific purpose - where anonymity is of utmost value. It is more akin to
an entertaining sport, like American Wrestling. And American Wrestlers tend
to have a nickname.
>> And no, most people use nicknames because they want to preserve their
>> privacy on the Internet.
>
> People who wanted to preserve their privacy wouldn't post to Usenet, so
> this
> rationalization falls flat.
Bzzzzt! Wrong again. I'm posting on usenet. My privacy is preserved. Who
am I, Paul? Do you know?
> We don't laugh at handicapped people in the street, because that is cruel
> and unkind. We also don't laugh at people who use nicknames in Usenet
> postings. It's just too sad for that to be a civilized response.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. We generally don't laugh at handicapped people in the
street
because the Politically Correct brigade deem it cruel. If we weren't made
to
feel ashamed of ourselves for even acknowledging that handicapped people
are "different", then we'd all have a good laugh at them.
> So, go ahead. Use a nickname. It's all right.
Ping! Correct! You got a response right!
My advice to ANYONE using the internet is to take on an assumed name.
You may be a trustworthy person, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.
And in much the same way that we tell our children NOT to disclose their
personal information on the internet, we should take note of that ourselves.
Being an truly incredible person, Paul, and one you should strive to
emulate,
I suggest you abandon your selfrighteous crusade and accept that the world
is made up of more people than just yourself.
Andrew Burke
"Roger the Bugler" <Ro...@Dudatduda.com> wrote in message
news:y0Bgh.81697$Pk.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
> news:12o48tq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Do I trust that you are risking your personal reputation by
>> misrepresenting
>> facts and opinions? By the same token, no, because "nickname" and "trust"
>> are orthogonal concepts.
>
> Bzzzzt! Wrong. They are only related through incidence. And each
> incident
> stands or falls on its own merits. Suggesting that "nickname" and "trust"
> are orthogonal is no different than saying there are no law-abiding
> Nig-Nogs.
Agree with everything you say mate I kno good and bad ones at school and
Nig-Nog-dom isnt so cut and dried!!!! Paul is just racist!!!!!
Franklin
> Franklin wrote:
>> Paul Lutus wrote:
>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>
>>> / ...
>>>
>>>> It's OK - I believe that your name is Paul Lutus but it doesn't
>>>> lead me to conclude that what you have to say is any more
>>>> important or valid than what another person who uses a handle
>>>> has to say.
>>> You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and
>>> when things get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>>
>> Cor! Seems like meaning within meanings. And I don't get any of
>> it.
>>
>> This branch between Paul Lutus and Hummingbird is like when I try
>> to follow one of those complicated spy films after missing the
>> first hour. It confuses me. Heh! :-)
>>
>> I take an altogether simpler view: 80 percent of the people on
>> the Usenet are using false names and the other 20 percent are
>> lying. Oh, almost forgot. Of course there is the
>> less-than-1-percent group of saints (I'm a member and so is
>> everyone else on the Usenet) where all of us use our real names.
>
> John Corliss is really my name, and I'm not lying. Even Andy
> Mabbett had the class to use his real name. IMO, there's need to
> use a nym.
>
Andy Mabbett may use his real name but Andy McNab does not!
Heh! Just joking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_McNab
Now then. To be serious for a moment. Ahem! No sniggering at the
back there. There's a man I know in real life who posts his real
name and in his sig he posts his real phone number.
No "dot" this or "dash" that. No "take MYPANTS down" in any of it.
No "ELVIS-PRESLEY" remove-the-singer type of stuff. In fact, he uses
no device at all to hide the phone number.
So I thought, "Oh my Gawd. It's like watching a newbie go to the
slaughter". He is going to get every wacko on the World Wide
Wackosphere phone him 24 hours by 7.
In actual fact he tells me he gets almost no nuisance calls at all.
Strange but true. Amazing.
Franklin ZORG
Yup, you're right. In my alter ego I am Zorg. The Destroyer. You
build but I destroy. Like one of the mongol hordes or the Vikings I
rape and pillage and destroy. Zorg The Destroyer. Pure alpha-male.
100% testosterone. I troll and swear and insult and badmouth my way
across the entire universe, er, Usenet. Kicking the ass of pansies
and wimps who have the temerity to step in my path. GRRRR!
Mothafucka wot you looking at, bitch boy? ROAR! Outta my way before
you are smashed. Top of the food chain. I eat anything and anybody.
GEDDIT or get eaten ... alive and kicking. I make dozens of enemies
with every posting. I set fire to newsgroups, I explode missiles on
web sites, I destroy whole domains at a whim. Thousands of sufferers
want to settle a score with me but fuck them. For I am Zorg. That's
me. The Dark Destroyer. Watch out or you're next. ROAR!!!!
Now then. If my neighbours, Mr and Mrs Tweedle and thier son Simon,
were to hear of that sort of thing I think I might lose my treasured
reserved seat by the window at Nerdsville chess club on Thursday
evenings. Oh dear me, that would be so awkward. I might have to sit
in the middle of the room under that flickering light I keep asking
and asking them to fix.
Franklin
>>
>>
>> misrepresenting facts and opinions? By the same token, no,
>> because "nickname" and "trust" are orthogonal concepts.
On 15 Dec 2006, Roger the Bugler <Ro...@Dudatduda.com> wrote:
>
> Bzzzzt! Wrong. They are only related through incidence. And each
> incident stands or falls on its own merits. Suggesting that
> "nickname" and "trust" are orthogonal is no different than saying
> there are no law-abiding Nig-Nogs.
>
Are we suffering a dose of logorhea here fellas?
One fella says
"nickname" and "trust" are orthogonal concepts
when what he seems to means is that
conceptually "nickname" and "trust" are orthogonal.
The other fella with the secret weapon in the form of a buzzer (or
maybe it's actually a Taser) seems to propagate the idea that
"nickname" and "trust" are orthogonal
is something which has any meaning at all.
Now my math says that if something is othogonal (yeach, logorhea)
then they are unrelated as they occupy axes which have no influence
on one another.
I think the right math concept might be
"nickname" and "trust" are inversely related.
But who cares any more because after a double dose of "orthogonal" we
have all gone to sleep. Unless of course we all wake up to notice
that modern Orthogonal Frequency Division Sub-carrier Multiplexed
battlefield communications (which we all know and study) would not be
possible without the, er, obvious talents of that star of "The
Heavenly Body" and other similarly educational films, Ms Hedy Lamarr.
http://www.samsloan.com/lamarr.jpg
No inverse relationship there.
hummingbird
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>John Corliss is really my name, and I'm not lying. Even Andy Mabbett had
>the class to use his real name. IMO, there's need to use a nym.
Unless one wishes to retain their personal privacy or for one of many
other reasons.
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>> (snip)
>> John Corliss is really my name, and I'm not lying. Even Andy
>> Mabbett had the class to use his real name. IMO, there's need to
>> use a nym.
>
> Andy Mabbett may use his real name but Andy McNab does not!
> Heh! Just joking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_McNab
>
> Now then. To be serious for a moment. Ahem! No sniggering at the
> back there. There's a man I know in real life who posts his real
> name and in his sig he posts his real phone number.
>
> No "dot" this or "dash" that. No "take MYPANTS down" in any of it.
> No "ELVIS-PRESLEY" remove-the-singer type of stuff. In fact, he uses
> no device at all to hide the phone number.
>
> So I thought, "Oh my Gawd.
Hmmm. I was thinking "GOOD LORD!" 80)>
> It's like watching a newbie go to the
> slaughter". He is going to get every wacko on the World Wide
> Wackosphere phone him 24 hours by 7.
>
> In actual fact he tells me he gets almost no nuisance calls at all.
>
> Strange but true. Amazing.
For years, I used my real email address to post to usenet. When the spam
reached over 300 a day though, I started munging the address. I also
called my ISP and changed my user ID so that everything sent to the old
email address would bounce.
I can still be reached via my Yahoo account though. It's out there if
somebody really looked hard (for instance, in the RFD for the new
newsgroup I just started.)
Heh.
jon
John Corliss wrote:
> the new
>newsgroup I just started
The turd-burglar one? :-)
John Corliss
I beg your pardon?
jon
John Corliss wrote:
>jon wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>>> the new
>>> newsgroup I just started
>>
>> The turd-burglar one? :-)
>
>I beg your pardon?
I see eight fan/stalker groups for you; I assume there are a couple
more laying about...
The one that gave me the grin was:
alt.turd-burglar.john-corliss
No one's ever named a group after me. *sulk*
jon
Roger the Bugler wrote:
>Bzzzzt! Wrong again. I'm posting on usenet. My privacy is preserved. Who
>am I, Paul? Do you know?
The fact that you have used eight different nyms that I can see in
this group over the last five weeks does not make you the best person
to engage Paul on this.
Especially when one considers your hit and run troll posts; the debian
thread was fun for a while though...
Jerry O'keefe
news:0e1bf31132a06d5e3a360b2545b0c0ecnp@mcdaddums.3...
Roger replied to Paul's post because he feels the lad is simply missing the
point that anonymity on the internet is invaluable. Paul's mentally is of
the
ilk that, "If you have nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear" - an
attempt
at rationale that doesn't live up to closer scrutiny. The simple truth of
the
matter is that privacy is a right, and if anyone wishes to employ a
pseudonym
to preserve that privacy then any argument to the contrary simply doesn't
hold
water. Now what does this have to do with trolls and debian?
Mate, if I'm sure if Roger wanted your opinion then he'd give it to you. So
just climb back under your bridge and pester some goats.
iNcReDuLoUs
news:XGEgh.111575$qd7.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> Mate, if I'm sure if Roger wanted your opinion then he'd give it to
> you. So just climb back under your bridge and pester some goats.
I don't know why, but your post reminds me of an amusing expression I heard
today on the radio, "You're never alone with a schizophrenic". I think
it's a rock album. Maybe you're familiar with it?
jon
Jerry O'keefe wrote:
>Mate, if I'm sure if Roger wanted your opinion then he'd give it to you. So
>just climb back under your bridge and pester some goats.
You think raising your nym count to nine helps in some way?
John Fitzsimons
wrote:
>jon wrote:
>> Susan Bugher's real name is Martin.
>Oh drat! Outed after all these years. . . ah well, it was fun while it
>lasted. ;)
But....
.......but
.........but
.........what to do about the T-Shirts ?
Will the manufacturer be able to change ......
"I am a member of the Susan Bugher cult"
to
"I am a member of the Susan Martin cult" ? :-)
John Fitzsimons
wrote:
>elaich wrote:
>> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in
>> news:12o39dv...@corp.supernews.com:
>>> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>>> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
>>> say.
I suspect that you are correct in most cases. Not all however. There
are legitimate reasons why someone may want to use a name that is not
their true name.
For example, I doubt that if you were Chinese and posting
anti-government statements in newsgroups, you would want to use your
real name.
>> I don't agree at all. What does "Paul Lutus" mean to me? How do I even
>> know that's your real name?
>That ground has been covered. It behooves you to read a thread before
>posting to it.
You haven't heard of "Identity theft" ? I think the point that he was
making is that anyone could know a lot about you without actually
being you.
>> I can call myself "Davy Jones." How do you know whether that's my real
>> name or not?
>I can prove who I am with a few well-selected links.
You didn't answer his question. His name really might be "Davy Jones".
Or maybe not. Do you know what his real name is ?
>If I pretended to
>be someone I am not, the real Paul Lutus would quickly call me on it.
Well, as other posters have pointed out, many people may be actually
called Paul Lucas. Also, many of them are probably not on the internet
so one/more people could impersonate one/more of them
>If I link to one of the articles about me, claiming that identity as my own,
>how long do you think it would take for the real Paul Lutus to begin legal
>actions? Articles like this:
>http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programming.php
It takes money/time to take legal action. Probably a lot if an
"imposter" is in another country. Many people are short on
either/both.
< snip >
jon
iNcReDuLoUs wrote:
>"You're never alone with a schizophrenic"
I think that: "You're never alone with a clone" scans better.
Bear Bottoms
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:27:27 -0600, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote:
>
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>> / ...
>>
>>> It is just more ego ranting. There is no general point. It is diverse
>>> and you are correct...though there are many non-nefarious reasons to
>>> choose "handles."
>>
>> There are no reasons that stand up to scrutiny. There are only
>> rationalizations. Why do you think criminals use aliases? Why do you
>> think
>> this is the first thing an investigator wants to know about a suspect?
>>
So go by your social security number. That is your name (in the U.S. and
I suppose there are unique numbers identifying people of the same sort in
other countries.) While what you say is true, they also want to know the
identifying names of witnesses, victims, and anyone else of interest.
Your generalization is simplistic and in error. There are many
non-nefarious reasons/rationalizations to use "handles."
--
I Research Freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
elaich
news:954e65a1e4f4c2bbc321658f87a8b060np@mcdaddums.3:
> I see eight fan/stalker groups for you; I assume there are a couple
> more laying about...
> The one that gave me the grin was:
> alt.turd-burglar.john-corliss
I can guarantee you I know who started all of them. Contrary to popular
belief, it's not difficult at all to start a Usenet group. The hard thing
is getting it propagated.
Steve H
<DELETEu...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:25:28 -0800, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz>
>wrote:
>
>>elaich wrote:
>
>>> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in
>>> news:12o39dv...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>>> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>>>> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
>>>> say.
>
>I suspect that you are correct in most cases. Not all however. There
>are legitimate reasons why someone may want to use a name that is not
>their true name.
>
I suspect the vast majority of 'nick' users do so on the principle
that whilst it may be possible to determine another poster's real
identity, there's no way of telling whether or not they might turn out
to be a loony - and from what I've seen, using an apparently 'real'
name, either with or without an identity trail, is no guarantee of
sanity.
Two pertinent examples:
A recent spat on a radio related newsgroup in which a variously 'nymed
poster threw some very unpleasant accusations at a named poster over a
period of time, and also apparently indulged in some offline
intimidation.
This ended in the named poster raising the matter with the police,
which resulted in an arrest - the details of which were published (
much to the amusement of the readers of that group ) in the offender's
local newspaper.
In a gardening newsgroup, several named posters have been indulging in
very unpleasant activities - including tracing places of work and/or
residence, making nuisance phone calls and taking photographs of said
places.
All of which points to the fact that people can be arseholes no matter
whether they're 'accountable' or not - and that many people choose a
degree of anonymity precisely as a first line of defence against such
people.
As was stated by another poster to this thread, what matters is the
content and the conduct rather than some regrettably old-fashioned
notion of honour.
Regards,
--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: anyoldname(*AT*)gmx(*dot*)co(*dot*)uk
John Corliss
Gee, I feel so honored. 80)>
John Corliss
> jon wrote:
>
>> I see eight fan/stalker groups for you; I assume there are a couple
>> more laying about...
>>
>> The one that gave me the grin was:
>> alt.turd-burglar.john-corliss
>
> I can guarantee you I know who started all of them. Contrary to popular
> belief, it's not difficult at all to start a Usenet group. The hard thing
> is getting it propagated.
Heh. That's true regarding "alt" groups, but getting one going in the
Big-8 takes some effort:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Andy Mabbett
<jcor...@fake.invalid> writes
>I can still be reached via my Yahoo account though. It's out there if
>somebody really looked hard (for instance, in the RFD for the new
>newsgroup I just started.)
This one:
<http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/9266984f0249dcf4?dmode=source>
>Message-ID: <12k3vo2...@corp.supernews.com>
>PROPONENT INFORMATION: John Corliss, rtd3ws at yahoo dot com
--
Andy Mabbett
* Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
* Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
* Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/> ?
Paul Lutus
> Phil Buchman wrote:
>> On the advice of my friend Paul Lutus and a few other good folks in this
>> newsgroup, I am dropping the nickname "Anonyomous" and using the default
>> data supplied by my Newsreader when I setup the program and connected to
>> ACF.
>
>> I'm Phil Buchman. I'm pleased to meet all of you.
>> No longer Anonymous...
>
>> :)
>
>
> The only trouble is how we know that you are Phil Buchman, and does it
> matter. As long as you're civil and helpful who cares what your name is.
It matters a great deal, as any objective sampling of Usenet posts reveals
-- people who use their names tend to be more responsible than those who do
not. This thread demonstrates the point very clearly.
>
> With the constant inflow of ads, off topic, rude and insulting posts,
> there are more important things to address in the newsgroup than the
> person's real name.
Except that the noise level, an issue you acknowledge to be an issue, is
higher when people use nicknames. This is because people who use nicknames
are less responsible than their named counterparts, as this thread
demonstrates.
Therefore you are mistaken. A person's name is very important. Its presence
or absence tells us all sort of things about his ethics and level of
seriousness.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
>> say. When exploited to their fullest, nicknames contribute to the
>> strange, borderline-psychotic variety of prose one sees regularly in some
>> Usenet posts, as though the virtual world were the only one.
>
> Yes, and we all know how real people with real names assume their
> responsibilities, how they are all sane and well behaved, how moral and
> ethically responsible they are, and honest, and civil, and...
>
> Yes, using real names contributes to world peace, end to famine and
> poverty.
>
> But I, by not using my real name, I'm irresponsible, lunatic and a
> criminal.
>
> My real name means nothing to you or anyone else. Worse. I could just as
> easy use a name that would look as real as yours and you wouldn't know
> the difference.
I have already disproven that. You really cannot use someone else's name for
long without consequences.
In any case, I have had this exact conversation about a half-dozen times
over the years on Usenet, and it always turns out the same:
1. I say that nickname posters are less responsible than their named
counterparts.
2. The nickname posters forge ahead, utterly oblivious to how they look, and
prove my point.
This thread repeats the pattern.
Paul Lutus
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:25:28 -0800, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz>
> wrote:
>
>>elaich wrote:
>
>>> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in
>>> news:12o39dv...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>>> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>>>> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
>>>> say.
>
> I suspect that you are correct in most cases. Not all however. There
> are legitimate reasons why someone may want to use a name that is not
> their true name.
I agree, but we can determine the motive is rather easily. It's child's play
to sort out nickname users by content. Some rare ones will obviously be
shielding themselves from governmental retaliation, the majority will be
shielding themselves from any personal responsibility whatever.
>>> I don't agree at all. What does "Paul Lutus" mean to me? How do I even
>>> know that's your real name?
>
>>That ground has been covered. It behooves you to read a thread before
>>posting to it.
>
> You haven't heard of "Identity theft" ? I think the point that he was
> making is that anyone could know a lot about you without actually
> being you.
Not while I am alive. I have successfully prosecuted several people who
tried variations on what you are suggesting.
It's an empty argument in a case like this, where the cure is worse than the
disease.
>>> I can call myself "Davy Jones." How do you know whether that's my real
>>> name or not?
>
>>I can prove who I am with a few well-selected links.
>
> You didn't answer his question.
I did answer his question. He didn't say "prove that I am Davy Jones." He
did say "I can call myself 'Davy Jones.' How do you know whether that's my
real name or not?" That is called a "hypothetical." I replied to it exactly
as offered.
> His name really might be "Davy Jones".
> Or maybe not. Do you know what his real name is ?
Enough trolling.
>>If I pretended to
>>be someone I am not, the real Paul Lutus would quickly call me on it.
>
> Well, as other posters have pointed out, many people may be actually
> called Paul Lucas.
If you spell my name correctly, you will quickly realize there is one of us,
not dozens.
Paul Lutus
/ ... snip interesting real-world account of misbehaviors
> All of which points to the fact that people can be arseholes no matter
> whether they're 'accountable' or not - and that many people choose a
> degree of anonymity precisely as a first line of defence against such
> people.
>
> As was stated by another poster to this thread, what matters is the
> content and the conduct rather than some regrettably old-fashioned
> notion of honour.
Not only does this interesting account not rationalize the use of nicknames,
it shows it as an additional factor in misbehavior. It says that people
will misbehave under any circumstances, but it cannot and does not argue
that nicknames are not a factor that grants additional license.
Paul Lutus
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
> news:12o48tq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Do I trust that you are risking your personal reputation by
>> misrepresenting
>> facts and opinions? By the same token, no, because "nickname" and "trust"
>> are orthogonal concepts.
>
> Bzzzzt! Wrong. They are only related through incidence. And each
> incident
> stands or falls on its own merits. Suggesting that "nickname" and "trust"
> are
> orthogonal is no different than saying there are no law-abiding Nig-Nogs.
You need to look up the word "orthogonal." Your post vehemently tries to
disagree with mine, but then uses different words to make the same point.
"Orthogonal" in this context means unrelated, independent, e.g. the exact
point you are trying to make, only apparently in disagreement with me.
Paul Lutus
> The simple truth of
> the matter is that privacy is a right,
It certainly is, and when we vote, we temporarily give up that right. When
we make a statement that could be construed to libel someone, we cannot do
it anonymously without risking additional sanctions beyond those attached
to the libel itself (and IANAL).
> and if anyone wishes to employ a pseudonym
> to preserve that privacy then any argument to the contrary simply doesn't
> hold water.
Not true. There is one very powerful argument against anonymity, and that is
the circumstance in which one expects to be taken seriously in a public
forum.
In the pre-Internet era, if a person wished to be heard in a public forum,
he was obliged to identify himself. A polling station, public meeting, a
debate, a letter to the editorial column of a newspaper, all require
identification of the speaker. No identification, no voice.
The list of reasons is long and distinguished. In a democracy, if a person
is afraid to speak out, the problem lies with the system, not the speaker,
and there are remedies. To use an alias under these circumstances is to
avoid addressing the real problem.
The standard voting rules say clearly that those who insist on anonymity
cannot also insist on being heard. This is a bedrock principle with wide
applicability.
Much of the breakdown in the current Internet is trivially traceable to
misuses of anonymity -- people pretending to be someone they are not,
spammers, phishing letters that pretend to be from a person or institution
they are not actually from, and so forth.
One way or another, the Internet of the future will be more like the town
hall meeting of the past than it will be like two spies conversing in an
alley. In the old-style public expression of opinion, a person would rise
to his feet, give his name, and express his opinion. No rocks through
windows at midnight, no burning crosses on the lawns of unpopular people.
What I am saying is those who defend the sort of anonymity practiced by a
typical anonymous Usenet troll, simply have not considered this issue in
any depth.
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in
> news:12o48tq...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> I can prove who I am with a few well-selected links. If I pretended to
>> be someone I am not, the real Paul Lutus would quickly call me on it.
>
> I'm sure there are several thousand people named "Paul Lutus" in the
> world.
You are mistaken. There is precisely one.
> Which one are you? The only "real" one? What a joke.
Thank you for proving my point. There is scarcely any need for me to assert
that anonymous posters have no incentive to act responsibly when there are
so many examples in this thread and elsewhere.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>> So, go ahead. Use a nickname. It's all right.
>>
>
> Don't you feel that the best impostors find a character and then claim
> to be him or her?
Yes, people get away with this sort of thing, for a spell, before they are
caught. This doesn't justify it.
It's also a sad commentary on people's lives that they feel the need to
pretend to be someone other than who they actually are.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>>> There are no reasons that stand up to scrutiny. There are only
>>> rationalizations. Why do you think criminals use aliases? Why do you
>>> think
>>> this is the first thing an investigator wants to know about a suspect?
>>>
> So go by your social security number.
You may recall than the SSN was originally accepted by American voters only
because the government promised that it would never be used for
identification purposes (and the older SSN cards say just that, in big
letters).
> While what you say is true, they also want to know the
> identifying names of witnesses, victims, and anyone else of interest.
What are you suggesting? That witnesses shouldn't have to identify
themselves? That people should be allowed to claim victim status without
identifying themselves?
> Your generalization is simplistic and in error. There are many
> non-nefarious reasons/rationalizations to use "handles."
Of course there are, and most of them are rationalizations, just as you say.
But in a public forum in a democracy, if you want to be heard, if you want
a voice, you have to identify yourself.
In other words, it is your position that is simplistic. It overlooks a
bedrock principle of democracy -- people who expect to have a voice must
expect to provide an identity.
Usenet is a public forum. It is to modern times what a meeting hall was in
the 19th and early 20th century. People who wanted to be taken seriously
made sure the listeners knew who they were. If they didn't, they had no
voice.
Anyone can secure perfect privacy -- by not posting. People who argue for
privacy in a public opinion forum are suffering from a profound
misunderstanding.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>> You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when things
>> get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>
> And a person that uses, allegedly, his really name can as easily change
> his name. So your point his...
> Using your real name didn't stop you from spout nonsense.
Thank you for once again proving my point about anonymous posters.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>>You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when things
>>get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>
> I didn't miss the point. A person can spout nonsense whether they
> use their real name or not.
A person who spouts nonsense under a real name suffers real consequences. A
person who spouts nonsense under a virtual name suffers virtual
consequences. Mr. Hummingbird.
/ ...
> IIUC you are advocating the enforced use of a person's real name
> to post on Usenet.
Prove it, Mr. Hummingbird. I have never said or implied this.
> That would be unacceptable to many people who still
> understand what privacy and freedom are.
You do not understand the history or practices of democracy.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> I take an altogether simpler view: 80 percent of the people on the
> Usenet are using false names and the other 20 percent are lying.
That's pretty good. :) It reminds me of something I used to say to students:
"95% of people don't understand mathematics, and the remaining 10% don't
understand it very well."
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> Unless one wishes to retain their personal privacy or for one of many
> other reasons.
Again, for one to expect to have a voice in a public debate, in the
traditional fora that preceded the internet, one was obliged to identify
oneself. But that was then and this is now. It remains to be seen whether
democratic traditions will take hold here.
Susan Bugher
Martin M. Martin. . .
Anyway, not to worry John. . .
I've done a little testing and a squirt or two of grape juice
obliterates the name completely leaving "I am a member of the cult"
which makes the T-shirts multipurpose. . .
HTH
Susan (it's hard to break the habit). . .
hummingbird
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
Democracy rightly plays no part in whether a person chooses to use
a nickname on Usenet. Democracy often produces dictatorships of
the majority, or in Britain's case of the minority, and in most cases,
unaccountable, dishonest, sometimes corrupt governments.
Art
wrote:
>Roger the Bugler wrote:
My small "desktop" dictionary doesn't include the word at all. My
large unabridged old Oxford just gives the elemenatry mathematical
examples of "right angle" and "perpendicular". Internet dictionaries
give varying amounts of many mathematical meanings and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal
adds some other highly technical uses as well.
Now, I suspected that you probably meant "independent" but I
wasn't sure just what you meant. What a unfortunate choice of terms!
If the word has been sliding the slope into common useage as a
synonym for "independent", it's news to me. Your use of it in
common language strikes me as "affected" ... an attempt to
impress the ignorant ... a motive I doubt you actually have.
I suggest that you drop the use of the term.
hummingbird
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>>>You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when things
>>>get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>>
>> I didn't miss the point. A person can spout nonsense whether they
>> use their real name or not.
>
>A person who spouts nonsense under a real name suffers real consequences. A
>person who spouts nonsense under a virtual name suffers virtual
>consequences. Mr. Hummingbird.
<polite mode>
That simply doesn't stand up.
</polite mode>
>/ ...
>
>> IIUC you are advocating the enforced use of a person's real name
>> to post on Usenet.
>
>Prove it, Mr. Hummingbird. I have never said or implied this.
Comments like this from you appear to lead in that direction:
<quote>
"That need can be easily met -- stop posting. You can't have it both
ways. You can't argue in favor of personal privacy while at the same
time posting opinions in newsgroups. People who posts opinions, in
particular those who presume to state facts, lose the right to do so
anonymously."
</quote>
>> That would be unacceptable to many people who still
>> understand what privacy and freedom are.
>
>You do not understand the history or practices of democracy.
Rotfl. I probably know and understand much more than you about the
subject ... but let's not show you up for the totalitarian tendencies
you have on this non-political newsgroup.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>>"Orthogonal" in this context means unrelated, independent, e.g. the exact
>>point you are trying to make, only apparently in disagreement with me.
>
> My small "desktop" dictionary doesn't include the word at all. My
> large unabridged old Oxford just gives the elemenatry mathematical
> examples of "right angle" and "perpendicular".
Okay, you are almost there. The word is used in a technical context to refer
to two quantities with a relationship that strictly prevents one from
affecting the other.
Imagine an X-Y grid, a Cartesian coordinate system. If you change the value
of X, the Y coordinate doesn't change. If you change the value of Y, the X
coordinate doesn't change. The basic premise is that the two dimensions are
separated by 90 degrees of angular rotation, and no matter what value you
apply to the X coordinate, it cannot influence the Y coordinate, and vice
versa.
X and Y are ... orthogonal. That is the right word, and the only one.
> Internet dictionaries
> give varying amounts of many mathematical meanings and this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal
> adds some other highly technical uses as well.
>
> Now, I suspected that you probably meant "independent"
No, I mean orthogonal. Independent isn't the right word. If I multiply a 2D
vector (an X,Y pair) by i (the square root of -1), X and Y change places
(each rotated by 90 degrees), because they are orthogonal. If variables X
and Y are independent (therefore scalars), this transformation doesn't take
place.
In everyday conversation, the word "independent" doesn't have the strict
mechanical isolation, the special relationship conveyed by "orthogonal." An
independent voter might swing either way come election day. An independent
woman might dearly wish to be married. An independent cannon out on a
wind-swept deck might be everyone's worst nightmare, because it can move in
any direction. Not orthogonal.
Math joke break. Now that I have said that multiplying a number (normally a
vector, but not always) by i rotates it by 90 degrees, I can claim that
infinity is equal to 8i.
> but I
> wasn't sure just what you meant. What a unfortunate choice of terms!
My choice of terms is unfortunate because you didn't understand it? In that
case, I ask that you look up another word: "Narcissism". And, if you have
the time and inclination, read this:
http://arachnoid.com/psychology/narcissism.php
> If the word has been sliding the slope into common useage as a
> synonym for "independent", it's news to me.
It (orthogonal) is sometimes used in this way, but the two terms are
distinct and the more concerned one is in conveying a particular meaning,
the more important that distinction is. "Orthogonal" has its own meaning,
one for which "independent" is not an acceptable substitute. And yes, it
sees common usage among those who have learned mathematics at some point in
their lives.
> Your use of it in
> common language strikes me as "affected" ...
Of course it does, for the reason that you don't see a purpose to such a
word, because until today you didn't know the word and have never used it.
I have some bad news for you. The rest of the world is not going to undergo
a wholesale vocabulary downgrade to satisfy you, notwithstanding that this
precise "dumbing-down" process is taking place in American schools as we
speak.
> an attempt to
> impress the ignorant ... a motive I doubt you actually have.
My motive is to convey a particular meaning using a particular term, without
pandering or condescension.
> I suggest that you drop the use of the term.
I suggest that you learn more words -- and the concepts behind the words.
Only in America would someone demand that the common technical vocabulary of
educated people be modified to conform to his personal limitations. And
again, this is a clear symptom of narcissism.
Some readers might find this difficult to believe, but there are people who
not only don't demand that all discourse be adjusted downward to conform to
their conceptual limitations, but who actually encourage an increased
richness of prose expression, who take delight in learning new, useful
terms and concepts.
Really. I am not making this up.
Paul Lutus
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:57:14 -0800 'Paul Lutus'
> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>>>You missed the point that a nickname can spout nonesense, and when
>>>>things get too deep underfoot, he can change nicknames.
>>>
>>> I didn't miss the point. A person can spout nonsense whether they
>>> use their real name or not.
>>
>>A person who spouts nonsense under a real name suffers real consequences.
>>A person who spouts nonsense under a virtual name suffers virtual
>>consequences. Mr. Hummingbird.
>
> <polite mode>
> That simply doesn't stand up.
> </polite mode>
I actually thought that phrase was one of the least controversial and
easiest to demonstrate in my post. If a nickname posts something
nonsensical and is called on it, he can change nicknames, something that
happens here constantly. If a named person posts something nonsensical,
others can say, "but that makes no sense ..." with a reasonable expectation
that the named person will accept responsibility for his views.
In fact, by objecting to my position on this topic, by being able to address
your objections to me by name (think real hard now), you are undercutting
the very point you are trying to make. This is so because you know very
well that I will allow myself to be held to account for my past expressed
views. If, by contrast, I were a mere nickname, I could change nicknames,
as so many do, and evade consequences for a silly position.
/ ...
>>> IIUC you are advocating the enforced use of a person's real name
>>> to post on Usenet.
>>
>>Prove it, Mr. Hummingbird. I have never said or implied this.
>
> Comments like this from you appear to lead in that direction:
"Appear to lead in that direction"? This dodge undercuts the original claim
to the degree that it deprives it of all meaning.
> <quote>
> "That need can be easily met -- stop posting. You can't have it both
> ways. You can't argue in favor of personal privacy while at the same
> time posting opinions in newsgroups. People who posts opinions, in
> particular those who presume to state facts, lose the right to do so
> anonymously."
> </quote>
You have yet to offer evidence for your posted thesis:
>>> IIUC you are advocating the enforced use of a person's real name
>>> to post on Usenet.
What you posted doesn't remotely support it, because it describes the
relationship between a particular cause and effect in a system of Platonic
ideals that are only approximated in reality, and then only by people
volunteering to adopt the ideal. It nowhere suggests any kind of
enforcement, just as well because any recourse to enforcement would be an
admission of defeat. Surely you see that.
>>> That would be unacceptable to many people who still
>>> understand what privacy and freedom are.
>>
>>You do not understand the history or practices of democracy.
>
> Rotfl. I probably know and understand much more than you about the
> subject ...
No evidence, no argument.
> but let's not show you up for the totalitarian tendencies
> you have
No evidence, no argument.
You do understand the role played by evidence, don't you? For example, how
much more persuasive it is than hand-waving?
Art
wrote:
>Art wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>>>"Orthogonal" in this context means unrelated, independent, e.g. the exact
>>>point you are trying to make, only apparently in disagreement with me.
>>
>> My small "desktop" dictionary doesn't include the word at all. My
>> large unabridged old Oxford just gives the elemenatry mathematical
>> examples of "right angle" and "perpendicular".
>
>Okay, you are almost there. The word is used in a technical context to refer
>to two quantities with a relationship that strictly prevents one from
>affecting the other.
But the term isn't in ordinary useage.
<skip needless math lecture>
>Math joke break. Now that I have said that multiplying a number (normally a
>vector, but not always) by i rotates it by 90 degrees, I can claim that
>infinity is equal to 8i.
I suppose you also believe some infinities are larger than others :)
>> but I
>> wasn't sure just what you meant. What a unfortunate choice of terms!
>
>My choice of terms is unfortunate because you didn't understand it?
I'm a EE, remember? I most certainly do understand the technical
meanings. You're not listening to what I'm trying to tell you. You
are being unintelligible (probably) to most readers in this public
forum.
Paul Lutus
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:01:45 -0800 'Paul Lutus'
> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>> Unless one wishes to retain their personal privacy or for one of many
>>> other reasons.
>
>>Again, for one to expect to have a voice in a public debate, in the
>>traditional fora that preceded the internet, one was obliged to identify
>>oneself. But that was then and this is now. It remains to be seen whether
>>democratic traditions will take hold here.
>
> Democracy rightly plays no part in whether a person chooses to use
> a nickname on Usenet.
Nonsense. We are able to post here as we do, say what we do, because of the
existence of democracy. Ask Chinese Internet users what they can and cannot
say and do online. Democracy is the conceptual framework for the Internet's
present form in the west. Therefore it is central to any discussion of
posting styles.
It is a very small series of steps from any particular Usenet post to the
underlying laws governing freedom of expression and any limitations on
expression that may exist.
And guess what? People who pretend to be someone other than who they are,
are regularly prosecuted in (non-virtual) courts of law, on occasions when
that imnposture injures someone else. So the issue of anonymity is (1)
bound up with issues of democracy, and (2) not a trivial castaway, as
unimportant as it may be in this particular context.
> Democracy often produces dictatorships of
> the majority, or in Britain's case of the minority, and in most cases,
> unaccountable, dishonest, sometimes corrupt governments.
Apart from "in most cases", I agree. And your point being? All these things
happen in democracies, but they are made more difficult by the fact of
democracy. Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except
all the others."
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
I rather think that the arrest by six burly coppers of the 'nymed
offender shows quite clearly that if one can be bothered to pursue the
offender through appropriate channels, a nickname is no defence.
This makes them as accountable as anyone else.
And if, as you say, people will misbehave under any circumstances, it
seems only reasonable that others will take such steps as they feel
necessary to place themselves at one remove from such aggravation -
viz a degree of anonymity.
If and when it comes to determining a poster's credentials and
attributes, I find the Usenet archives a far more valuable tool than
name-gazing.
Bear Bottoms
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>>>> There are no reasons that stand up to scrutiny. There are only
>>>> rationalizations. Why do you think criminals use aliases? Why do you
>>>> think
>>>> this is the first thing an investigator wants to know about a suspect?
>>>>
>> So go by your social security number.
>
> You may recall than the SSN was originally accepted by American voters
> only
> because the government promised that it would never be used for
> identification purposes (and the older SSN cards say just that, in big
> letters).
>
Well, we know the truth about that, don't we.
>> While what you say is true, they also want to know the
>> identifying names of witnesses, victims, and anyone else of interest.
>
> What are you suggesting? That witnesses shouldn't have to identify
> themselves? That people should be allowed to claim victim status without
> identifying themselves?
>
Not at all. I'm simply expanding your point that detectives want to know
the identities of all. Of course they do, but the point is simplistic and
confined to one particular situation. It does not apply in all.
>> Your generalization is simplistic and in error. There are many
>> non-nefarious reasons/rationalizations to use "handles."
>
> Of course there are, and most of them are rationalizations, just as you
> say.
> But in a public forum in a democracy, if you want to be heard, if you
> want
> a voice, you have to identify yourself.
A "handle" is an identity. Useful and interesting posters are identified
as to the quality of posts and term of stay/longevity in Usenet by their
"identity/handle" used. A troll, poor contributor or abusive poster is
quickly identified and gains no credibility or "status." Those types do
not last long, and even if they do, they get little from it. Most are
ignored quickly. Those that offer quality participation, try to enhance
the group, are helpful, display respect, and gain respect from thoughtful
and long term participation are recognized by their "handle" for such be
it a real name or a chosen one. Both "Michael Johnson" and
"TheUsenetTraveller" have equal opportunity to gain status. Most wouldn't
know anymore about Michael Johnson than they would about
TheUsenetTraveller beyond the quaility of their participation. Qualtity
of participation is the key and whatever name is used is irrelevant beyond
that. Your attempt to apply meaning as to whether a poster uses a "real"
name versus a chosen "handle" has no bearing whatsoever on a posters
quality of participation.
>
> In other words, it is your position that is simplistic. It overlooks a
> bedrock principle of democracy -- people who expect to have a voice must
> expect to provide an identity.
>
OMG...this is usenet, not candidacy. Democracy...freedom gives one the
choice. I could care less who you really are. All I see or know from you
is what you post here. I could care less as to who you are in real life.
I'm not going to pick up the phone and call you! I would prefer posters to
use more demonstrative handles of their personality. That would be more
informative and interesting than a name. Like you could use
"ArrogantAsshole."
Sorry, I just couldn't help it. LOL. I don't hate you Paul. I think you
have a wealth of knowledge to share. It demeans you when you stoop to
belittling posters.
> Usenet is a public forum. It is to modern times what a meeting hall was
> in
> the 19th and early 20th century. People who wanted to be taken seriously
> made sure the listeners knew who they were. If they didn't, they had no
> voice.
>
I think you are being overly melodramatic.
> Anyone can secure perfect privacy -- by not posting. People who argue for
> privacy in a public opinion forum are suffering from a profound
> misunderstanding.
>
Privacy is guaranteed by law whether you post on usenet with a real name
or handle. You go too far invading ones privacy, this could be easily
proven.
--
I Research Freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
Bear Bottoms
As an egotist, you are hung up on the meaningfullness of choosing a handle
to post on Usenet. Handles are an artistic display of creativity. Most
who participate in choosing "handles" for Usenet, chatrooms, forums etc.
usually are in the mindset or creating a 'nik' that would be delightful.
You suppose anyone who would want to use a 'nik' must be doing so for
nefarious purposes. Some do...but most don't. Those that do, don't get
very far with it.
Paul Lutus
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:27:14 -0800, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz>
> wrote:
>
>>Art wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>>>"Orthogonal" in this context means unrelated, independent, e.g. the
>>>>exact point you are trying to make, only apparently in disagreement with
>>>>me.
>>>
>>> My small "desktop" dictionary doesn't include the word at all. My
>>> large unabridged old Oxford just gives the elemenatry mathematical
>>> examples of "right angle" and "perpendicular".
>>
>>Okay, you are almost there. The word is used in a technical context to
>>refer to two quantities with a relationship that strictly prevents one
>>from affecting the other.
>
> But the term isn't in ordinary useage.
Yes, it is, among educated people. People who know how to spell "usage".
> <skip needless math lecture>
"Needless math lecture"? You very clearly do not understand that I don't
know you, and your first post reads in a particular way to someone who
doesn't know you. Try it and see.
>>Math joke break. Now that I have said that multiplying a number (normally
>>a vector, but not always) by i rotates it by 90 degrees, I can claim that
>>infinity is equal to 8i.
>
> I suppose you also believe some infinities are larger than others :)
Actually, that is true. Some infinities are larger than others. And I think
you know this.
>>> but I
>>> wasn't sure just what you meant. What a unfortunate choice of terms!
>>
>>My choice of terms is unfortunate because you didn't understand it?
>
> I'm a EE, remember?
How would I remember that? You haven't provided this information until now,
in this thread, my only source of information about you. And, barring any
direct knowledge, how would I intuit it? From your argument that
"orthogonal" is an esoteric term?
> I most certainly do understand the technical meanings.
Then I suggest that you stop objecting to everyday terms. You have an EE
degree and you apparently have never heard the term "orthogonal" until
today? That speaks volumes.
> You're not listening to what I'm trying to tell you.
Your problem is that I read and understood every word you posted (and, it
seems, relied on what you said rather then what you meant to say). If you
re-read your prior post, remembering that we don't have a posting history,
you will see how I got the idea that you were unfamiliar with the term.
> You
> are being unintelligible (probably) to most readers in this public
> forum.
Same reply. Some people would be glad to pick up a new, useful term. Others
already know it and would object to being told it has no purpose.
When all is said and done, the anonymous poster "Roger the Bugler" ought to
have looked up the word before objecting that it meant what he could have
discovered it already meant.
Also, Usenet being what it is, had I dumbed down my delivery, someone would
surely have accused me of condescension (yes, it has happened). Given the
choice between the two, I would prefer to speak in an ordinary way and let
the chips fall where they may.
Bear Bottoms
Paul...you disprove your own point. The ones that behave the worst in
this ng mostly use their real name. You being one of them.
John Fitzsimons
wrote:
>FirstName LastName wrote:
< snip >
>> My real name means nothing to you or anyone else. Worse. I could just as
>> easy use a name that would look as real as yours and you wouldn't know
>> the difference.
>I have already disproven that. You really cannot use someone else's name for
>long without consequences.
< snip >
If he changed his usenet name to John Smith (presuming that that isn't
his real name) what would be the "consequences" ?
John Fitzsimons
wrote:
>John Fitzsimons wrote:
< snip >
>>>>> People who post under nicknames do so for a reason. Primarily it is to
>>>>> avoid responsibility for consequences that might arise from what they
>>>>> say.
>> I suspect that you are correct in most cases. Not all however. There
>> are legitimate reasons why someone may want to use a name that is not
>> their true name.
>I agree, but we can determine the motive is rather easily. It's child's play
>to sort out nickname users by content. Some rare ones will obviously be
>shielding themselves from governmental retaliation, the majority will be
>shielding themselves from any personal responsibility whatever.
The point that you continue to ignore is that if someone says that
they are eg. Phil Buchman that doesn't mean that they are Phil
Buchman.
< snip >
>>>> I can call myself "Davy Jones." How do you know whether that's my real
>>>> name or not?
>>>I can prove who I am with a few well-selected links.
>> You didn't answer his question.
>I did answer his question.
No, you didn't. You avoided it by saying that you could prove who you
were. Not what he asked you.
> He didn't say "prove that I am Davy Jones." He
>did say "I can call myself 'Davy Jones.' How do you know whether that's my
>real name or not?" That is called a "hypothetical." I replied to it exactly
>as offered.
It makes no difference whether the questiion is hypothetical or not.
The point is that anyone could sign their posts "Davy Jones". That
might be their real name. It might not be.
>> His name really might be "Davy Jones".
>> Or maybe not. Do you know what his real name is ?
>Enough trolling.
One way to avoid answering his question I suppose.
>>>If I pretended to
>>>be someone I am not, the real Paul Lutus would quickly call me on it.
>> Well, as other posters have pointed out, many people may be actually
>> called Paul Lucas.
>If you spell my name correctly, you will quickly realize there is one of us,
>not dozens.
Well, there may only be one Paul Lutus in the world but I suspect that
there are many people called Phil Buchman, Davy Jones etc. If someone
here signs their post "Phil Buchman", "Davy Jones" etc. there is no
way we would know if it was/wasn't their real name.
Regards, John.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> I rather think that the arrest by six burly coppers of the 'nymed
> offender shows quite clearly that if one can be bothered to pursue the
> offender through appropriate channels, a nickname is no defence.
> This makes them as accountable as anyone else.
If that were true, no one would bother using nicknames, Therefore is is
false ipso facto.
In fact, the use of a nickname increases suspicion that one is up to no
good, and this suspicion is regularly vindicated by events.
> And if, as you say, people will misbehave under any circumstances, it
> seems only reasonable that others will take such steps as they feel
> necessary to place themselves at one remove from such aggravation -
> viz a degree of anonymity.
Not a very good argument when the persons seeking anonymity are the
perpetrators, not the victims.
> If and when it comes to determining a poster's credentials and
> attributes, I find the Usenet archives a far more valuable tool than
> name-gazing.
By definition, nicknames don't archive well, and never in any reliable way.
Do you really want to look up what "Anonymous" has said in the past?
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>> Thank you for proving my point. There is scarcely any need for me to
>> assert
>> that anonymous posters have no incentive to act responsibly when there
>> are
>> so many examples in this thread and elsewhere.
>>
> Paul...you disprove your own point. The ones that behave the worst in
> this ng mostly use their real name. You being one of them.
You could solve the world's energy crisis just by waving your arms. I never
met anyone so indifferent to evidence or how he sounds.
An objective reading of posts by name and by nickname proves that nickname
posters act with less responsibility.
Paul Lutus
> Handles are an artistic display of creativity.
I want to see a spammer try to use this defense before being led to jail. Or
a phishing e-mail author.
> Most
> who participate in choosing "handles" for Usenet, chatrooms, forums etc.
> usually are in the mindset or creating a 'nik' that would be delightful.
Non sequitur.
> You suppose anyone who would want to use a 'nik' must be doing so for
> nefarious purposes. Some do...but most don't. Those that do, don't get
> very far with it.
True even here. Hence my position.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>> You may recall than the SSN was originally accepted by American voters
>> only
>> because the government promised that it would never be used for
>> identification purposes (and the older SSN cards say just that, in big
>> letters).
>>
> Well, we know the truth about that, don't we.
I laugh every time I read my card, issued in 1962.
>> What are you suggesting? That witnesses shouldn't have to identify
>> themselves? That people should be allowed to claim victim status without
>> identifying themselves?
>>
> Not at all. I'm simply expanding your point that detectives want to know
> the identities of all. Of course they do, but the point is simplistic and
> confined to one particular situation. It does not apply in all.
No disagreement with what turns out to be a non sequitur.
> A "handle" is an identity.
And a horse chestnut is a chestnut horse. Your well-written tract on the
creativity of handles is quite true, interesting to read, and unrelated to
the topic at hand.
/ ... snipped only for brevity
> I would prefer posters to
> use more demonstrative handles of their personality.
I would prefer it if posters were more accountable for their statements.
Posting by name helps that goal along.
> That would be more
> informative and interesting than a name. Like you could use
> "ArrogantAsshole."
I could. :) But I can think of a bunch of reason why I won't. Starting with
the fact that I think handles decrease the credibility of one's posts.
> It demeans you when you stoop to belittling posters.
Pot, kettle? I think your score is higher for this sport.
> I think you are being overly melodramatic.
That ... is a distinct possibility. But I think it was a reasonable point. A
lot of younger posters have never attended a town hall meeting.
> Privacy is guaranteed by law whether you post on usenet with a real name
> or handle.
Not really. Nothing can be guaranteed by law except recourse to legal
remedies. Neither privacy nor anything else can be guaranteed by law. Think
about it.
> You go too far invading ones privacy, this could be easily
> proven.
I am arguing for a principle, a Platonic ideal, and I don't invade anything.
Bear Bottoms
Their are none.
»Q«
> Okay, you are almost there. The word is used in a technical
> context to refer to two quantities with a relationship that
> strictly prevents one from affecting the other.
>
> Imagine an X-Y grid, a Cartesian coordinate system. If you change
> the value of X, the Y coordinate doesn't change. If you change the
> value of Y, the X coordinate doesn't change. The basic premise is
> that the two dimensions are separated by 90 degrees of angular
> rotation, and no matter what value you apply to the X coordinate,
> it cannot influence the Y coordinate, and vice versa.
>
> X and Y are ... orthogonal. That is the right word, and the only
> one.
"Mutually exclusive" is a meaning sometimes given to "orthogonal" in
non-technical usage, but that kind of simplistic usage seems to be
what you are arguing against downthread. Now I don't know what you
meant to say when you initially used the word, since the only
sensible meaning, and the one you give above (reduced to Cartesian
2-space) puts you in contradiction of your own position on trust and
nicknames. You have said that whether or not one uses a nickname
has a great effect on trust, which is very different from "a
relationship that strictly prevents one from affecting the other."
And leaving Cartesian space for inner product spaces in general
doesn't seem to help any.
--
»Q«
Paul Lutus
>> You really cannot use someone else's name
>>for long without consequences.
>
> < snip >
>
> If he changed his usenet name to John Smith (presuming that that isn't
> his real name) what would be the "consequences" ?
Is today International Non Sequitur day or something? Your question, with or
without an answer, doesn't address the validity of the original broad,
general point.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>> If he changed his usenet name to John Smith (presuming that that isn't
>> his real name) what would be the "consequences" ?
>>
> Their are none.
s/their/there/
Overall post score: 66%
I post spelling corrections. Everyone knows I do this. They know it because
I post under my own name. So people can complain about it if they care to,
and they know how to address me. And if they do, I reply instead of hiding
behind, or changing, my nickname.
Bear Bottoms
Not in this ng, and from what I've seen and heard...this is a mild one.
(arm waves :) )
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>> I rather think that the arrest by six burly coppers of the 'nymed
>> offender shows quite clearly that if one can be bothered to pursue the
>> offender through appropriate channels, a nickname is no defence.
>> This makes them as accountable as anyone else.
>
>If that were true, no one would bother using nicknames, Therefore is is
>false ipso facto.
What isn't true about it? You think perhaps it didn't happen...?
>
>In fact, the use of a nickname increases suspicion that one is up to no
>good, and this suspicion is regularly vindicated by events.
It might do in your mind, and that's fair enough - but to try to
persuade everyone else to ratify your paranoia smacks, dare I say it,
of narcissism...
>
>> And if, as you say, people will misbehave under any circumstances, it
>> seems only reasonable that others will take such steps as they feel
>> necessary to place themselves at one remove from such aggravation -
>> viz a degree of anonymity.
>
>Not a very good argument when the persons seeking anonymity are the
>perpetrators, not the victims.
Your position is that there is no good reason for use of a nick - I've
given you one, and a common one at that. In fact, aside from
creativity, probably the most widely used reason.
>
>> If and when it comes to determining a poster's credentials and
>> attributes, I find the Usenet archives a far more valuable tool than
>> name-gazing.
>
>By definition, nicknames don't archive well, and never in any reliable way.
>Do you really want to look up what "Anonymous" has said in the past?
That would be true if all nicknames were 'Anonymous'. They're not.