On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

HARRY POTTER wrote:
I really don't
understand why ANYONE here would want to post with their real name?

All the good handles were taken.


Snort!

I got some spares if you like.

Otto Preminger's goldfish was always one of my favorites.


Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

Thank you Max for the continuing opportunity of accomplishing two
things at one time, first demonstrating why these alternatives might
be seriously considered by some, and secondly, affording me the
opportunity of reposting the links just in case some have missed
seeing them. --

Well you certainly don't need my reminder. You have only been gone
three days, but have already spammed us more than a dozen times.

Perhaps you should be asking donations for the Red Cross as well.



The *******!


Bertie

On Jun 9, 4:00 pm, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
ASRS is a good example of anonymous reporting. But it is not fully
anonymous because someone at NASA reviews your information and then
strips your name from your message. They are effectively the
moderators. I would be fine with a usenet group which is anonymous but
moderated.

Unfortunately, ASRS is also a good example of how that system fails.
It fails because the 'get out of jail free' provision is null and void
if the violation is 'intentional' - and you don't get to decide if
it's intentional, the FAA inspector does. Thus much of what you read
has also been tainted by large doses of CYA. I have, more than once,
participated as an advisor when an ASRS form was written by
committee. By the time we were done, we were as sure as we could be
that nobody could reasonably consider the violation intentional. Of
course in the process, the educational value was lost. There was no
real chance you could figure out what actually happened by reading it.

However, it is an undeniable fact that people who use their full real
names on usenet have rarely posted inflammatory messages.

Really? What do you define as rare? If you mean less common than
those who use their full real names (as far as you know - I've seen
more than one person use a real, full name - just not his) then I
actually agree with you. But if you mean too rare to matter (as in -
it would be a nice place if we could just keep out the anonymous ones)
then I don't. Robert L. Bass is just one counterexample, and he was
probably the most inflammatory individual ever to participate here -
right down to complaining to the employer of one of the regulars here,
trying to get the man fired or silenced. But if you want to go for
garden variety inflammatory, I also recall Craig Wall and Juan Jimenez
- and I'm absolutely terrible with names.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 4:00 pm, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

However, it is an undeniable fact that people who use their full real
names on usenet have rarely posted inflammatory messages.

Really? What do you define as rare? If you mean less common than
those who use their full real names (as far as you know - I've seen
more than one person use a real, full name - just not his) then I
actually agree with you. But if you mean too rare to matter (as in -
it would be a nice place if we could just keep out the anonymous ones)
then I don't. Robert L. Bass is just one counterexample, and he was
probably the most inflammatory individual ever to participate here -
right down to complaining to the employer of one of the regulars here,
trying to get the man fired or silenced. But if you want to go for
garden variety inflammatory, I also recall Craig Wall and Juan Jimenez
- and I'm absolutely terrible with names.

Michael

Not to mention Dudley Henriques and Rich Ahrens.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've
ever had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the
time all of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even
in the time his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to
death, he spent his days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with
my wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here
to you.

Please accept our sincere condolences, Dudley.

Thank you.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Jun 9, 11:37*pm, HARRY POTTER wrote:
I come here to learn about aviation. Period. I'm not here to make friends,
I'm not here to make a name for myself, I'm just here to get a glimpse of
aviation that you just can't get reading published books.

And there is much to learn that you can't publish in a book. I
remember a conversation with a friend of mine - an active GA pilot and
captain of a major airline - and we were talking about writing a book
about GA IFR. Something that would teach you to really do it, and
where the pitfalls are - not something to pass the test or make the
scan, approaches, or holds easier. He pointed out to me that there
was no way that he could sign his name to that, and I shouldn't
either. It would have to be by Captain X and Dr. Y.

But I can (and do) post that stuff here. So do some others. Not too
many left, though.

The point you hit
upon about the FAA enforcing what you might say here is also very
interesting.

The average FAA inspector isn't really bright enough to pierce even
the shallowest veil of anonymity. I've known a couple who were - but
they were also bright enough to know you can't operate by all the
rules all the time, and would certainly not consider combing usenet to
find people to bust. They had more important things to do. Neither
one is with the FAA anymore anyway.

Not a single person here has never broke, or even who never breaks on
regular basis, some kind of aviation regulation. But you're never going to
see any of the real name posters admitting any of this, because that would
be stupid.

Exactly.

People who post with their real name post as if
they are being watched. They have to tiptoe their way through certain
topics, and really watch what they say here, because of the consequences.
Me, on the other hand, I say whatever the **** I want. In that way, I think
I am more of an asset to the group. I'll admit when I did something wrong
without worrying about someone ratting me out to the feds. There are very
few people on here who have that liberty.

There are lots who have it - and damn few who make use of it. That's
the problem. You would like to think that those who post anonymously
would primarily use that to present educational things. Stories of
accidents that occurred where we knew the entire chain of events, but
the NTSB never found out because nobody was going to rat out himself
or his friends. Which regs can be broken with reasonable safety - and
how to do it without unduly endangering skin, tin, or ticket. Things
like that. In reality, anonymity is rarely used that way. Mostly,
people use an anonymous presence like they would any other.
Relatively often, they use it for pointless flamewars. I understand
the people who don't like the anonymous component of usenet - I just
think that making the discussion more civil (which eliminating
anonymity would certainly help) isn't worth losing the unique
advantage of being able to share information without risking ticket.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen topics we should be
discussing:

In r.a.piloting:
Overgross Operations - how to figure out what your safety margin is,
and how to do it without killing yourself
Aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes - what you can reasonably do
without killing yourself, and how - also how not to - do it
How not to get busted for 'holding out' or 'operating for hire' when
someone is paying for your gas
How to handle being stuck on top of a cloud layer without declaring an
emergency
NTSB reports I know - what the NTSB found, and what they got wrong
Low VFR (or scud running) - how to do it and not die

In r.a.owning:
What maintenance you can really do yourself, and how
Substituting parts - when it's a good idea (meaning the non-certified
part is actually better), when it's just OK, and when it's a truly
dumb idea
Field repairs to get you home

In r.a.ifr
Busting Minimums - when you can, when you can't, how to do it, how to
handle the missed approach
Using the VFR GPS and/or LORAN for IFR approaches
Designing your own IFR approach for a strip that doesn't have one, and
how to use it without getting busted
How to deal with known ice in a non-deiced airplane - how much is too
much, and how to keep your options open

These are all things that happen all the time, and they're things that
people usually wind up figuring out on their own, through trial and
error. Just follow all the rules all the time works about as well as
just say no. It's the error part that's problematic. We should be
using the anonymity we have available to share the experiences of the
trials - and the errors. But like I said - sometimes we are, but
mostly we're not.

Another reason why anonymous posting is hard to come upon is because
aviation is so small. It's hard to talk about the plane you fly, the
airports you fly out of, etc. without it giving you away.

Impossible, actually, if the person who is trying to figure out who
you are has a clue. But that's OK. You're not looking to protect
yourself from those people - just the clueless ones.

Also, since
aviation is so small, its a lot more easy to get yourself noticed, which
I'm guessing is the reason many here post with their real name. They hope
some reputation they earn here will carry over to real life.

You don't need a real name for that either. There was this one time a
pilot in Europe decided (solely on the basis of stuff I've posted over
the years) that he wanted to train with me. He didn't have any
trouble finding me on the alien flight student website and applying.
It's not like any of us have made any real effort to cover our tracks.

The email address I post with goes nowhere - literally. There is no
such domain anymore. There was always too much spam in it, and
sometimes I would get sucked into pointless discussions with the
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.

Michael

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Michael wrote:


Demonstrably false. The most famous counter-example in the
rec.aviation hierarchy would be Robert L. Bass.

Michael

I don't agree. Bass was an unusual case, and I emphasize the word case
:-) Nobody said it's a perfect world out here. I'm simply making the
case that moderated forums are a viable alternative to the Usenet open
forum and for many people might be a better alternative.
I agree with you that it's a choice decision and must be made by
everyone based on their own personal views, and I respect your right
to disagree with me or anyone else.
For you and I, Usenet seems to work, but I can tell you from personal
experience, that the majority body count on bad posting and harassment
comes from those using a pseudonym on Usenet, Bass or no Bass! (is
that a question? :-)

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

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

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:21:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Michael wrote:


Demonstrably false. The most famous counter-example in the
rec.aviation hierarchy would be Robert L. Bass.

Michael

I don't agree. Bass was an unusual case, and I emphasize the word case :-)
Nobody said it's a perfect world out here. I'm simply making the case
that moderated forums are a viable alternative to the Usenet open forum
and for many people might be a better alternative.
I agree with you that it's a choice decision and must be made by
everyone based on their own personal views, and I respect your right to
disagree with me or anyone else.
For you and I, Usenet seems to work, but I can tell you from personal
experience, that the majority body count on bad posting and harassment
comes from those using a pseudonym on Usenet, Bass or no Bass! (is that
a question? :-)

sci.aeronautics is a stand out success as a moderated news group.
it is a vibrant and very busy news group ....if you live in geological
time.

Stealth Pilot

On Jun 9, 3:14 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

...



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.

"Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "

Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
losing him to cancer.

Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.

Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet for
the same wannabe troll.

From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
sleezeball joining our group.

Truly sad.

You not only have a total lack of class but one would hope that you
have not had any offspring either.

You sir, in another time and place, would receive a sound thrashing at
the very least, and deservedly so!

Do us all a favor and get lost.

Thanks!