If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Michael" wrote in message ... On Jun 9, 3:11 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false name. There are no unalloyed benefits. Everything has a downside. I'm going to take off on a tangent. There was a very good movie made years ago - it was called Gideon's Trumpet. It was about the landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright, that established the precedent that the accused was entitled to a lawyer, whether he could afford one or not. It was made into a movie because it made a good morality story. Gideon was innocent, but was wrongly convicted because he had no legal counsel. No movie will ever be made about Miranda v. Arizona, even though the miranda rights against self-incrimination are perhaps more fundamental. You see, Miranda was guilty as sin (and admitted it later). He brutalized a little girl. And he went free. I'm glad that the justices of the supreme court made the decision they did - to limit the power and authority of the police to extract confessions - even if that meant that in this one case, justice was not done and a guilty man went free. Often it doesn't go that way. The long term benefit of a freer society with more limited police power is often hard to see in the short term - when an innocent person is brutalized, and the offender remains unpunished. Hard cases make bad law. But this time that didn't happen. Of course my tangent was only marginally relevant. One can't really compare the right not to incriminate oneself to the privilege of speakig anonymously - and yet there is value to the analogy. In each case we make a tradeoff between a more orderly community and a freer one. Whenever there is a freedom - any freedom, including the freedom to post anonymously - it is a certainty that someone will abuse it. There are those who believe that the solution is to create authority, to create rules, to limit the freedom (in this case moderation) - and thus limit the abuse. And then there are those who believe that rules in general are a bad thing, and authority is not to be trusted. And never the twain shall meet. Those are the extremes, and as always there is a continuum between the extremes. There is also a continuum of options online. There is a level of authority - or anarchy - to suit any taste. Just don't pretend that by increasing authority, you lose nothing. If you consider the tradeoff acceptable - well, that's your choice. Michael |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Michael" wrote in message news:6f90c4e7-f3ed-45f7-b815- Nice post Mike. Seems like some reasonable observations. But don't count out those that simply come here to teach and preach strictly for the sake of their ego. Perhaps they have always dreamed of writing and answer column, and the Usenet seems to be just the place. I think this groups suffers more than most, because pilots are more apt to take themselves too seriously. Certainly not to say they all do, but we seem to have far too many in our ranks. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... Sounds just like you and Bertie, self appointed moderators. Sorry, but some of us disagree. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust just isn't there between us for me to take the chance. -- Dudley Henriques How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion. I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know? Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you? How many days and weeks can you possibly remain angry with someone who is trying to be civil? Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that requires this sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack? Just to be clear - while I think the person who posts as "Bertie" too often acts in a juvenile manner and is either amoral or disengenuous (_at best_) when it comes to posting to Usenet, I know that since he has been doing that sort of thing for years, there is no way anything anyone could write that would change his behavior, so I haven't even tried. I think lots of people have come to the same conclusion. I would humbly suggest you not continue replicating the same mistake "Bertie" does by posting followups to every single post of Mxsmanic. But I don't know your history, so I assume you are a reasonable person. I do recall you did thank me when I tried providing help on who to contact about alleged forged posts (not that it helped, alas), so I suspect that you are simply frustrated but otherwise inherently decent. So what would satisfy you in order for you to "back off" attacking people who have not initiated attacks on you? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Dudley Henriques wrote in : He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons. He was even more entertaining than Maxie! Even got his own honorary group. alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole Bertie Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship between you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to advertise that you BOTH like to make sport of deliberately pushing someone's buttons. Well, I do, Dudley can speak for himself. Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder, very timely. Yes. BTW, you got more buttons than an old adding machine. Bertie |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust just isn't there between us for me to take the chance. -- Dudley Henriques How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion. I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know? Wow, you've added a whole new dimension to your creepiness. Bertie |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
Jim Logajan wrote in
: "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust just isn't there between us for me to take the chance. -- Dudley Henriques How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion. I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know? Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you? How many days and weeks can you possibly remain angry with someone who is trying to be civil? Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that requires this sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack? Just to be clear - while I think the person who posts as "Bertie" too often acts in a juvenile manner and is either amoral or disengenuous (_at best_) when it comes to posting to Usenet, Oh, amoral. I'm completely genuine. I know that since he has been doing that sort of thing for years, there is no way anything anyone could write that would change his behavior, so I haven't even tried. I think lots of people have come to the same conclusion. I would humbly suggest you not continue replicating the same mistake "Bertie" does by posting followups to every single post of Mxsmanic. Mistake? But I don't know your history, so I assume you are a reasonable person. I do recall you did thank me when I tried providing help on who to contact about alleged forged posts (not that it helped, alas), so I suspect that you are simply frustrated but otherwise inherently decent. So what would satisfy you in order for you to "back off" attacking people who have not initiated attacks on you? I think maybe a couple of hundred lithium tablets might slow him down a bit Bertie |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
: "Michael" wrote in message news:6f90c4e7-f3ed-45f7-b815- Nice post Mike. Seems like some reasonable observations. But don't count out those that simply come here to teach and preach strictly for the sake of their ego. Perhaps they have always dreamed of writing and answer column, and the Usenet seems to be just the place. I think this groups suffers more than most, because pilots are more apt to take themselves too seriously. Certainly not to say they all do, but we seem to have far too many in our ranks. You are a k00k.... Bertie |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
On 2008-06-10, Michael wrote:
garden variety inflammatory, I also recall Craig Wall and Juan Jimenez Craig Wall did at least make up - in person. After all the flame wars, he actually did show up at Pinckneyville, and the flames and misunderstanding went away. (Well, aside from the flames coming out of the back of the pulse jet he brought along). It's amazing how meeting in 'meat-space' will change things. -- From the sunny Isle of Man. Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
On 2008-06-10, Martin Hotze wrote:
clueless ones who would email me there. Thus I decided that if someone wanted to get hold of me, well, it was certainly easy enough without maintaining that address. Works fine. on your end, maybe. but this is not good 'netcitizenship'. On a point of pedantry... Actually, the domain does exist, it just doesn't have an MX record. So no, it won't get any cybersquatters in it any time soon. -- From the sunny Isle of Man. Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Joy Of Usenet: A message from 'Anonymous' | Dan[_10_] | Piloting | 131 | April 11th 08 01:11 PM |
Post air pictures on usenet. | TThierry | Piloting | 2 | January 20th 07 07:13 AM |
Post Test Web to Usenet | Guest | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 22nd 05 03:43 AM |