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

"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.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

Sounds just like you and Bertie, self appointed moderators.

Sorry, but some of us disagree.

"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?

"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

"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

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

"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

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.

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.