Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/internet/aipart4

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 60KB | 1,388 lines

Archive-name: net-anonymity/part4
Last-modified: 1994/5/9
Version: 1.0

ANONYMITY on the INTERNET
=========================

Compiled by L. Detweiler <[e-mail]>.


<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?

<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?


_____
<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?


  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Julf's anonymous server seems to me to be contributing to the
  > erosion of civility and responsibility that have been the
  > hallmarks of the more traditional parts of USENET.  More than
  > that, Julf has refused to even discuss a compromise to his
  > position that all hierarchies should be open, by default, to his
  > server.
  >
  > I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive
  > Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion
  > that the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that
  > don't want it is through moderation.  It cancels articles posted
  > from anon.penet.fi. I've tested it on recycled postings with a
  > "local" distribution and it works nicely.  I propose to arm
  > "ARMM" with an unrestricted distribution for the "sci" hierarchy
  > this weekend if Julf doesn't accept the proposed compromise or a
  > reasonable alternative by then.

  Francisco X DeJesus <[e-mail]>:

  > this ARMM script is another bad idea. If there is a way to  simply
  > "ignore" control messages (cancels, at least) from the specific
  > site where this bass-ackwards non-service to the net is
  > originating from, please let me (and every other news admin who's
  > not an expert but wants to do something about this) know...

  Karl Krueger <[e-mail]>:

  > Fascinating idea, both in programming and in application of
  > ethical values.  So this shellscript will, in essence, not only
  > affect your own users but also users netwide?  And you make a
  > threat to Julf as well?  This sounds a lot like terrorism:  "I'm
  > going to blow up your citizens (read: users) if you do not agree
  > to my demands!"  "Minimal Moderation" in the sense of ARMM is
  > like calling a missile "Peacekeeper".
  >
  > Censorship is not the way to go about things, neither is the
  > "ARMMing" of cybernetic missiles.  It is a difficult problem, the
  > only solution to which is to rely on the precedent: freedom.

  Perry E. Metzger <[e-mail]>:

  > My site pays for news, and would prefer to get it uncensored by
  > Mr. Depew. We pay to get a full newsfeed for our money, not just
  > one with those messages Mr. Depew thinks are o.k. for us to read.

  Rick Harrison <[e-mail]>:

  > Anyone who would volunteer to render a "service" such as
  > cancelling other people's messages must be a control freak.

  Mike Schenk <[e-mail]>:

  > And for canceling all postings from the anon server. This is, in
  > my opinion a very severe case of censorship. While, I am aware
  > that the net is not a real democracy I've always thought that it
  > wasn't a police state either.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>

  > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, [e-mail], does
  > not soon block anonymous postings ... then I will activate an
  > "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script that will
  > cancel postings ...
  >
  > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this.  I have not
  > read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they
  > were out of line in any way ...

  David Sternlight <[e-mail]>:

  > I support the automatic cancelling of anonymous posts to those
  > newsgroups whose members vote in the majority so to do.

  Michael L. Kaufman <[e-mail]>:

  > Ah, but that is not what Mr. Depew was advocating.  Mr Depew wants
  > to cancel all anonymous post to newsgroups that don't vote not to
  > cacel them. The difference is important. He has a view and he is
  > not saying, "if your group agrees with me, this is what I will
  > do." He is saying, "I am just going to assume that everyone
  > agrees with me unless I hear otherwise." Furthermore, he chose
  > not to wait and see how the various votes would go.

  Brad Templeton <[e-mail]>:

  > There are laws ... which prohibit users from deleting files on
  > computers when they do not have authorization to do this.
  >
  > It's ... clear that many site admins consider only the poster and
  > a few other people at most authorized to cancel a posting.
  >
  > So if you cancel like this, you may well ... be committing a
  > computer intrusion offence.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be
  > anyhow.  :-)

  David Clunie <[e-mail]>:

  > I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I
  > haven't experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might
  > have to. In fact I think I will probably just turn off response
  > to cancel messages totally if you go ahead with this scheme, and
  > I encourage other news administrators to do the same ... they
  > were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. It seems to
  > me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes
  > like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I
  > won't let anyone else read them).
  >
  > I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going
  > to happen to your institution's news and mail servers if you go
  > ahead with this plan.
  >
  > ... you are way out of line here Richard, regardless of how many
  > smileys you tack on the end of your message.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate.  They have
  > many legitimate uses.  Cancelling inappropriate postings is one
  > of these legitimate uses.
  >
  > ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, has
  > been activated ...


_____
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?


  <[e-mail]>:

  > RICHARD DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
  >
  > For the past few weeks, there has  been  an  on-going  debate  in
  > news.admin.policy  concerning  anonymous  postings  to newsgroups
  > which have not invited such postings. It is an understatement  to
  > say there has been disagreement.
  >
  > This debate has recently resulted in the automated CENSORSHIP  of
  > postings  by  one of the principles of the debate. This system of
  > automated CENSORSHIP, called  ARMM,  the  "Automated  Retroactive
  > Minimal  Moderation" script, has been activated (Sat, 13 Mar 1993
  > 14:28:00 GMT) by Richard E. Depew ([e-mail]). ARMM
  > automatically cancels or deletes postings which it "judges" to be
  > in-appropriate or un-acceptable.

  Catherine Anne Foulston <[e-mail]>:

  > It is NOT censorship, any more than a private individual sneaking
  > into the library and cutting objectionable (to him) articles out
  > of all the magazines is censorship.  It's a form of vandalism,
  > perhaps sabotage, and it's obnoxious, but it is not censorship.
  >
  > Could whoever did that news-server-wide cancel script, that would
  > let me filter out these anon-cancels, please repost it?  Certain
  > anonymous posters are obnoxious and annoying, but not as much so
  > as someone cancelling articles not their own for no other reason
  > than that the articles are anonymous.  I'd like to filter out
  > those cancels from my site.

  David Condon <[e-mail]>:

  > The person who proposed forging cancels, and who actually did
  > forge a few, is a news admin of some sort. By virtue of having a
  > higher level of both access and expertise than the average user,
  > that makes his act more akin to a _librarian_ vandalising books
  > than Joe Random Patron doing so.  Virtually all librarians would
  > consider such an act an egregious breach of professional ethics,
  > and most would not hesitate to call it "censorship," even if
  > purists assert that that term is only appropriate when carried
  > out by the state.

  Karl Krueger <[e-mail]>:

  > M. Richard Depew has, by his own admission, created a weapon
  > capable of eradicating all messages from a certain site.  I use
  > the term "weapon" in the cybernetic sense - it "kills"
  > information, not people.
  >
  > M. Depew seems to believe this to be his responsibility,
  > somehow... his contribution to the safety and continued security
  > of the USENET, maybe?  He proposes that he be allowed to keep and
  > bear (and fire) a weapon capable of rendering many people
  > "unpersons", in the sense that they are not free to post their
  > opinions.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Roy,
  >
  > Please cancel your recent article entitled: Subject: Re: RICHARD
  > DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
  >
  > That title is libelous. My "civil disobedience" had nothing to do
  > with censorship.  You have simply fallen for the lie of an
  > anonymous slanderer. A public apology would be greatly
  > appreciated.

  John Stanley <[e-mail]>:

  > Your "civil disobedience" was conducted under the guise of
  > "moderator of the sci hierarchy" (an official position), and
  > caused the removal of material you considered objectionable. That
  > is, sir, a definition of censorship.
  >
  > It was automated, and it happened on "the Net".
  >
  > The ONLY remaining point in question is whether you really are
  > Richard Depew. If you admit to that, then the Subject: above is
  > true.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Well, I see the articles are still there ...
  >
  > To prove that I *did* learn something from the brouhahah that
  > surrounded the introduction of ARMM, I am giving "a two week
  > notice" that if those articles are not canceled within the next
  > 24 hours, I am going to escalate.  I'll take comments on my
  > proposed escalation and promise to reconsider if anyone can make
  > any *good* arguments against my plan.
  >
  > I hate to do this, because I understand that my name already is
  > "mudd" and any further disturbance is likely to lead to my total
  > discrediting.
  >
  > I've got this *great* new idea.  I call it the UDP, for USENET
  > Depew Penalty. If these people don't cancel their articles soon,
  > I'll invoke the UDP:
  >
  > I'll ban them from my Christmas Card List!

  <[e-mail]>

  > I presume you are going to post to ALL sci groups telling them
  > that this "service" now exists and that  their only way of
  > "declining" is to prove to YOU that they have had a vote whereby
  > the majority have said that they accept anonymous posting.
  > Cancelling posts of others seems to me to be a breach of
  > netiquette (especially if  people in the groups concerned are not
  > informed of this cancelling).

  Jim Cowling <[e-mail]>:

  > Even if you disgree with the label "censor" or "censorship", you
  > must agree to this statement:
  >
  >   Richard Depew's ARMM system prevents the UseNet community from
  >   reading publicly-posted messages without their consultation.
  >
  > This alone is ethically and morally bankrupt, and illegal on so
  > many levels that I wouldn't be surpirsed if I could press felony
  > charges immediately, even as a foreginer.

  John Stanley <[e-mail]>:

  > Dick, when will you get the point?
  >
  > Nobody elected you moderator of any group, much less an entire
  > hierarchy. Stop pretending that it was OK for you to try to be
  > one.
  >
  > If you start your ARMM demon again, I am positive there will be
  > more than one person starting their own. You WILL NOT like who
  > they target.
  >
  > If you think the anonymous "problem" is bad, just wait until the
  > ARMM wars start.

  David Weingart <[e-mail]>

  > (Had I been on the Net when ARMM was active, I certainly would
  > have been less polite...how DARE anyone decide what I should and
  > should not read in an unmoderated group)
  >
  > No, I'm not an admin, just a net.head, and I consider the concept
  > of ARMM to be disgusting.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>

  > I owe an apology to "an4312":
  >
  > You, sir or madam, are the second civilian to be caught in the
  > cross-fire between Julf and myself.  I tried to warn
  > non-combatants off the battle field, but failed in your case.
  >
  > I apologize.
  >
  > Do you require immediate medical attention?
  >
  > Let's assess the damage.  One real posting to the "sci" hierarchy
  > was cancelled.  I've apologized to the author.  His priceless
  > prose has been delayed from public view for a few hours.  Is this
  > *really* something that you want to get me fired for doing?


_____
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?

  <[e-mail]>:

  > If you do not think Richard E. Depew's ([e-mail])
  > threat to censor the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning
  > a "canceling war," a good idea, please write directly to:
  > ...
  > Express your concern for this threatened instance of network
  > vandalism and damage to academic freedom throughout the world by
  > a reputed representative of his organization.

  Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>:

  > Dick Depew is  accepting full responsibility for his actions. You
  > are not. He is the true man  of courage here. You are the worst
  > sort of coward, starting a battle and  hiding under a rock while
  > the bullets fly.

  Rob Sartin <[e-mail]>:

  > The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail
  > and phone  calls.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > You (and most USENET readers)  have seen the cowardly postings by
  > "an8785" calling on readers to contact the chairman of my
  > department and the director of computer services at my
  > institution by mail or phone to complain about me.

  Felix Gallo <[e-mail]>:

  > There's nothing 'cowardly' about it.  The postings are simple
  > and factual.  If you like, I'll claim I'm an8785, and take
  > full responsibility for all his or her actions.  It wouldn't
  > bother me a bit.

  Steve Simmons <[e-mail]>:

  > Though I disagree with Depews actions, he stood up and took the
  > heat.  an8785 engaged in an act of moral cowardice, and is now
  > hiding behind the shield of anonymity.    Previously my opinion
  > was that the an8785 should simply be disabled.  Given that an8785
  > has actively urged people to take actions to harm Depew and
  > refused to adequately reverse those actions, I now think an8785
  > should be unmasked.  Should Depew come to actual harm, the
  > anonymous service might find itself in interesting waters.

  Karl Krueger <[e-mail]>:

  > I disagree.  an8785 did what s/he felt was necessary, and voicing
  > one's opinions (even anonymously) is the better path than not
  > doing so.

  Perry E. Metzger <[e-mail]>:

  > In any case, I really can't see anything wrong with someone
  > posting the list of the board of trustees of your institution if
  > they like, anonymously or non-anonymously. If you feel what you
  > are doing is right, then you must be prepared to justify it to
  > people who can stop you.
  >
  > As for "blackmail", I'd say that ironically refering to your own
  > actions in the way described can hardly be construed as extortion
  > under any statute I am familiar with.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > In other words, anonymous servers with inadequate safegards
  > protect law-breakers from the consequences of their actions.
  > *That* is what I oppose.

  Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>:

  > I agree that servers that shield lawbreakers are a potential
  > problem.  I *don't* agree with your implied assertion that Julf
  > has shielded anyone who's broken the law (an8785 included) nor do
  > I agree that the existance of that possible problem gives you the
  > right to take unilateral netwide action against all postings
  > issued through anonymous servers.


_____
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > The time has come to share a few of the insights I have gained
  > from this whole messy affair.
  >
  > In *this* note I want to offer an olive-branch to Julf.
  >
  > Someone else said I was on a "quixotic crusade".  *That* struck a
  > responsive chord.  I'll accept that characterization with pride:
  > call me an electronic Don Quixote trying to fight evil and rescue
  > the oppressed in a chivalrous but unrealistic way.  :-)
  >
  > I'd like to call it the confrontation of "Don Quixote and the Guru
  > of anonymity".  The "evil" that I was fighting was not the Guru,
  > but those few sociopaths who were abusing his service.  While I
  > was tilting at windmills, the Guru was meditating on his mountain
  > top.
  >
  > Unfortunately, one of the windmills was an8785.  The scene
  > metamorphosed into "Bambi meets Godzilla" -- **THUMP**.
  >
  > Someone called it the confrontation of the "net-cop" vs. the
  > "net-outlaw".  I think that's a little harsh.  :-)

  Mark Brader <[e-mail]>:

  > Well, "net-outlaw" is a little harsh on Julf.  But "net-cop" is an
  > extreme euphemism.  What Dick was playing was "net-vigilante
  > armed with assault weapons", and this sort of thing is simply out
  > of bounds.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Out of bounds, sure, but undeniably within long established USENET
  > tradition.  :-)

  Mark Brader <[e-mail]>

  > ... one reason I'm posting this is to make it clear that, if
  > "automated moderation" is to be implemented through cancel
  > messages, it is simply not acceptable.  Indeed, I would consider
  > it ample cause for the removal of the cancelling site from
  > Usenet.
  >
  > The fact that Dick was willing to stand behinds his actions is
  > creditable, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the actions were
  > wrong for Usenet, *even if* the anonymous service was everything
  > that Dick thought it was.  The cancels are just too damaging to
  > Usenet's distribution algorithm -- and I would like to see Dick
  > say he agrees with this paragraph.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > OK, I agree.
  >
  > I made several mistakes, and I have apologized for them.  I have
  > "sentenced" myself to "community service" for a few weeks to try
  > to repair some of the harm I caused.
  >
  > I *would* appreciate a few apologies from the "lynch mob",
  > however.  Few if any of the participants have yet to understand
  > that I was only trying to get Julf to talk about a possible
  > compromise. The mob overreacted very badly two weeks ago.  I was
  > being rude and provocative, but what I got in return exceeded all
  > bounds of decency.

  John Stanley <[e-mail]>:

  > What you got in return for your self-appointed moderation of an
  > entire hierarchy was much less than the last auto-cancellor got,
  > and less than you deserve.

  Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>:

  > In my opinion, you gave up the right to expect decency when you
  > took advantage of the open nature of this electronic community
  > and attempted to unilaterally impose your views of what's right
  > and what's wrong upon it. Your actions deserved the reaction they
  > received, and you're not likely to get any apologies for that
  > reaction.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > How would you and Julf like to join me and a few other friends in
  > a T-shirt pyramid scheme: ARMMway distributors?  You can have Oz.
  > :-)
  >
  > Our corporate mascot will be a turkey wearing one of these
  > T-shirts.  Our ad will be a poster showing this turkey and our
  > corporate slogan: "How can you soar with eagles when you have to
  > work with turkeys?".  I'd think every system administrator will
  > want one.

  Vincent Fox <[e-mail]>:

  > The whole thing I dislike about the Depew vs Anon thing is that
  > both sides were forcing it on me wholesale. If this anon-thing
  > had kept up being spread across all newsgroups, you can bet your
  > ass I would have put a filter on to drop all anon-postings on the
  > floor for *my* server. On the other hand I am apalled at Depew's
  > plan to forge cancels since he also is trying to force his ideas
  > on me. *I'll* make those decisions thank you both very much
  > gentlemen.

  Chuq Von Rospach <[e-mail]>:

  > I mean, what Depew is doing is obnoxious, but I can tell him so to
  > his face (and he can tell me to stuff it to my face, if he
  > wishs). On the othe side, though, we have a character
  > assasination attempt going by someone who has no name. That's
  > being an upright citizen?
  >
  > I think both sides are being real twitheads, and both side are
  > showing the worst aspects of USENET culture. May everyone's disks
  > crash, and may the replacements be misrouted to Angola.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > The clinical trial was successful, at least in temporarily
  > eradicating the pathogen from the patient's brain, but the
  > patient unexpectedly suffered a severe allergic reaction, so I
  > halted the test out of compassion.

  Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>:

  > Is this what you teach your students?  That it's somehow "okay"
  > for them to spend a few weeks in the lab breeding up "harmless"
  > organisms and then releasing them into the general population?
  > Handing out free samples of a vaccine that kills the thing off
  > doesn't make it right to let it out of the lab in the first
  > place.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Julf and I have been engaged in bilateral negotiations to forge a
  > "peace treaty" between us.
  >
  > USENET is a cooperative anarchy.  If enough of you do your part,
  > we are confident that we can apply the important lessons we have
  > learned from recent events and set a better example for future
  > anonymous servers and automated moderation demons.
  >
  > I am a humble servant of the net.  I have learned my lesson.
  >
  > Time to cobble up Edition 4 of ARMM in case any group ever votes
  > to use it.

_____
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > ARMM has evolved.  Expect a post on the subject shortly.  I am
  > trying to rustle up a volunteer to serve as the "target" of
  > another demonstration.  I expect you will find the latest
  > incarnation of ARMM to be acceptable.

  Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>:

  > You just absolutely refuse to get the point, don't you Richard?
  > Unless you have an explicit consensus that ARMM is welcomed by
  > the people it is going to affect, you have absolutely no business
  > activating it on this network. Period.  *You don't have any right
  > to make these decisions for the rest of us!*

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Spoken like a true fanatic, Lazlo.
  >
  > I should have expected that my attempt to calm things down would
  > frighten the extremists.

  John Stanley <[e-mail]>:

  > I haven't the slightest doubt that I will find the latest
  > incarnation of ARMM to be as totally repugnant as your first
  > attempt at self-appointed moderation.
  >
  > It seems that you have now proven that you still think that ARMM
  > is a good thing and are continuing to try to get it accepted.
  >
  > You just still don't get it, do you Dick. You didn't have, and
  > still don't, the right to decide to cancel postings that you
  > don't like.

  Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <[e-mail]>:

  > If I can have a wish, I'd wish you'd delete your ARMM and never
  > write one again, and certainly never activate one. It is not and
  > will never be the right way to deal with general anonymous
  > servers.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > I've decided to follow in the honorable tradition of the
  > pioneering microbiologists who tested their hypotheses, and their
  > possibly pathogenic isolates, and their experimental vaccines, on
  > themselves!  (As you probably know, several of them died from
  > their own experiments.)
  >
  > I have just now armed ARMM5 to "minimally moderate" my own posts,
  > and nobody else's.   This moderation will be restricted to the
  > single newsgroup, news.admin.policy.
  >
  > I don't, at the moment, see how anyone can object to *this*
  > demonstration, but I expect *someone* will find a way.  :-)

  Juha Laiho <[e-mail]>:

  > What do you think about this approach? At least it looks ok to me,
  > if it's used properly. No more final cancellation of messages,
  > but some way to put a warning in the beginning of a message. Now
  > forget any possible personal hatred for the creator of that
  > software, and think about the idea.

  John Stanley <[e-mail]>:

  > Hmmm. It sounds like Mr. Depew is not only planning on cancelling
  > other people's articles, but taking the article and editing it
  > and then forging it back onto the net.
  >
  > This is supposed to be better?

  Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>:

  > *Please*, I humbly request that you not activate this ARMM thing.
  >
  > I have not posted on this subject. I, like many other sys admins,
  > do not have a lot of time to twiddle with things.  In fact, I
  > don't have ANY time. My users are always at my thoughts, I am
  > understaffed, and I can't keep up.
  >
  > Asking me to learn what ARMM is, how to alter my feed files to
  > accept,  not accept, ignore, or whatever it does, is asking a
  > lot. A REAL LOT.
  >
  > I, as many other news admins, will not do anything.  This means
  > that by default, your ARMM whatever it is will operate and do its
  > nasty deeds. I feel that the "cure" is far worse than the
  > disease.
  >
  > Somehow, in the grand scheme of things, this is wrong.

  G. Lee Owen <[e-mail]>:

  > Mr. Depew, I've just read your "evolution of ARMM" and I think I
  > have a fairly good grasp of what you are trying to say.  It seems
  > to me that ARMM has evolved to the point of overkill.
  >
  > I think ARMM has evolved into a rube goldberg machine, an
  > overcomplicated solution, where all we need to do is sit down,
  > discuss what we all want anon sites to do, and formalize a
  > consensus.
  >
  > I admired the cooperation that [e-mail] and red@redpoll
  > reached a few days ago.  Lets work further on that model, and
  > reach a constructive compromise.


_____
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?


  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Friends (if I have any left at this point),
  >
  > <Blush>
  >
  > You have undoubtedly noticed the flood of ARMM posts that I caused
  > last night.
  >
  > I made mistakes in both implementation and testing. That was truly
  > bone-headed implementation error! I seem to have a real talent
  > for spectacular screw-ups!
  >
  > I agree, though, that my fate is richly deserved.  The net loony
  > bin seems to be the safest place for me right now.
  >
  > Thanks for your understanding.  It was an honest mistake.

  Francisco X DeJesus <[e-mail]>:

  > The problem isn't you screwing up, it's you screwing EVERYONE ELSE
  > up.

  Joel Furr <[e-mail]>:

  > In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments
  > on the March 30 ARMM Massacre.  Last _night_, on the other hand,
  > I had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a
  > low droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's
  > Monsters on the surrounding environs.  Frankenstein's Monsters
  > here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about
  > stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same
  > word over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM.

  Duke Robillard <[e-mail]>:

  > So, do you suppose Dick has now sent out more bogus messages than
  > every bad anon post every made, combined?

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > Nope.  Nowhere close.  However, I expect to make it into the "top
  > 25 posters by number of articles" list for the first time.  There
  > is just no way I can compete in volume, however. Hmmmm... maybe
  > ARMM6 should carry a GIF file...

  Karl Krueger <[e-mail]>:

  > What is the reason for this nonsense?
  >
  > ...  a destructive cyberspatial act on a massive scale has
  > occurred.
  >
  > I assume that it is not deliberate viciousness, because I believe
  > M. Depew to be well-intentioned, if a little misguided.  It seems
  > to me to be a simple bug - ARMM is re-ARMMing its own output.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > Who the hell is responsible for this major-league mishap?
  >
  > Please, if I see the letters ARMM again I'm gonna kill someone.


_____
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?

  Joel Furr <[e-mail]>:

  > Alt.fan.dick-depew is hereby newgrouped.  This group is intended
  > to serve as a forum for the MANY, MANY fans of Mr. Richard Depew
  > of Munroe Falls, Ohio, who has made himself famous for:
  >
  > * unilaterally asserting the authority to cancel ANY anonymous
  >   posts made to groups he likes to read
  > * his God complex
  > * spamming news.admin.policy with a robot poster that attempted to
  >   cancel its own articles but failed and instead generated
  >   articles containing subject lines and headers dozens of screens
  >   long.

  Ed Hall <[e-mail]>:

  > I'd like to comment, though, that even though Mr. Depew's blunder
  > might seem a bit comic on the morning after, I doubt many people
  > have forgotten the serious side: he was using the mechanisms of
  > the net as his own private toy.  That, in my honest opinion, is a
  > distinctly anti-social act, even in a place known for its
  > anti-social acts--the Net.
  >
  > The whole episode is a bit like a burglar getting stuck in the
  > chimney; we might laugh, but we still want him treated as a
  > burglar.  In Mr. Depew's case, I'd be happy if he just stopped
  > mucking with control messages, both now and forevermore.  If he
  > doesn't--well, I'm sure there are others here who will figure out
  > something.

  Timothy C. May <[e-mail]>:

  > My God! You mean you were actually logged-in and reading
  > news.admin.policy as all this was happening? In real time?
  >
  > That's like happening to be outside and looking up as a giant
  > meteor goes overhead...others can *read* about it or see it
  > replayed on t.v., but you actually *experienced* it! You were
  > *there*. (Of course, watch for tens of thousands of false claims
  > as the years go by..."Yep, there I was, logged in, when all of a
  > sudden smoke started comin' out of my computer. Yes sirree, it
  > was a sight to behold.")
  >
  > To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a
  > "microMorris," but still an interesting one.

  George William Herbert <[e-mail]>:

  > ------------------------------------------------------------------
  > |          Official March 30th ARMM Massacre Scorecard           |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  Dear Mr. Depew:                                               |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  We have determined that you have earned the following score   |
  > |  in the Usenet Activities Contest:                             |
  > |                                                                |
  > |     6488 Supercedes @ 1 point each:              6488 pts.     |
  > |     2 Clueless Newbies (1) @ 30 pts:               60 pts.     |
  > |     28 Flaming Non-newbies (2) @ 25:              700 pts.     |
  > |     Recursive Runaway Award (3) :                 500 pts.     |
  > |     Bonus: New World Record for Largest Cascade: 1000 pts.     |
  > |          Total:                                 8,748 pts.     |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  This has earned you the rank of: Aspiring Usenet Legend       |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  Thank you for your continuing to grace Usenet with your       |
  > |  presence.  Your daemon's antics have made our day here.       |
  > ------------------------------------------------------------------



_____
<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?

  <[e-mail]>:

  > Being a former sysadmin of two years, I can understand the
  > bullshit the anon.penet.fi server was put through.  The 'gawds
  > above' reacted more out of ego and fear of the FCC than out of
  > fairness.
  >
  > Your service has been appreciated.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > Excuse me, but I fail to see why the legal climate in the United
  > States justifies meddling with the administrative policy of a
  > site in Finland.  Could someone explain?

  Derrick J. Brashear <[e-mail]>:

  > To all of you who had a hand in the demise of anon.penet.fi in any
  > way shape or form, allow me to congratulate you. You've succeeded
  > in screwing over 10000 legitimate users of the anon server
  > because: a) a few, and I mean a few, posted abusive or
  > inappropriate messages b) people didn't find anonymous messages
  > appropriate outside alt.* and a handful of other groups.
  >
  > Who loses? All the people who used anon.penet.fi for what it was
  > intended for. Yet those responsible will likely escape unscathed,
  > and as of 2 AM US Eastern Standard Time, no "notable usenet
  > personality" has stepped forward to take responsibility for the
  > shutdown of the server.
  >
  > Once again, thank you.

  Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>:

  > I am disappointed that the anon server was completely shut down in
  > the manner that actually occurred. While I think Julf's service
  > needed to be cut back, I  would much rather that this have
  > happened of Julf's own free will, becuase he  saw it as the Right
  > Thing, instead of being imposed from outside.

  Jon Noring <[e-mail]>:

  > And it seems to me that things were getting settled.  Julf was
  > finally beginning to respond to several criticisms (some
  > justified) as to how he was conducting his service.  Again, this
  > is a blow to Usenet since outside power was used to enforce a
  > certain Usenet structure, rather than letting the users of Usenet
  > decide what is best.  This unfortunately sets a dangerous
  > precedent. It also takes more control of Usenet out of the hands
  > of the users and puts it in the hands of the control-phreaks.

  Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>:

  > This is truly the proof by example of the elitist nature of
  > USENET. It is also an example of "my way is the only way and the
  > right way"-itis.  Most news administrators of this type exist as
  > such only to feed their egos, and not as they are in a position
  > of service.

  Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>:

  > I know everyone's calling for the head of the "personality"
  > involved, but I'd like to hear a little more about what *exactly*
  > is making it "politically impossible" for anon.penet.fi to
  > continue operation.  The above paragraph paints things in tones a
  > little too scandalous to take seriously without more evidence --
  > it strikes me as quite possible that a routine complaint
  > (*conincedentally* from Net Personality <X>) reached someone in a
  > position of power over penet who decided that the service was
  > causing too much controversy for the site.  No conspiracies
  > there.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > I too would be very interested in knowing what really happened. I
  > don't care who the "extremely highly regarded net personality"
  > would be, but it would be nice to know what kind of "situation"
  > was "created".
  >
  > Just for the record: It was sad that the anon server went down in
  > flames, but it was not without reason. I think there is a case
  > for a pseudonym service on Usenet, but it will take some more
  > thinking and discussion to figure out how it should work. I think
  > we are a bit wiser after Julf's experiment and that we should use
  > the knowledge we gained in a positive way.

  Tom Bryce <[e-mail]>:

  > I don't believe it for a damn minute when people say abuse of the
  > anonymous posting service was what caused anon.penet.fi to be
  > shut down.
  >
  > It's just a lesson in power, the net administrators don't like
  > having certain things taken out of their control and power and
  > the user be damned, they're going to keep things in line. Tough
  > shit, I say. You don't have to know who I am, and if I'm abusing
  > the network anonymously, take the proof to the admin- instrator
  > of the anonymous service, and have them lock me out.
  >
  > Julf's posting was way too apologetic. You've nothing to apologize
  > for, I hope you or someone else gets another one going.

  Karl Kleinpaste <[e-mail]>:

  > Generally, these server deaths have been due to abuses by an
  > extremely small number of maladjusted individuals who have done
  > something sufficiently heinous to attract the attention of Those
  > Who Matter.  TWM is a context-sensitive group, and has consisted
  > of, at various times and in relation to various anonymous
  > servers: the facilities management group of the site in question;
  > politically powerful individuals with influence regarding the
  > network connection of the server host; large numbers of irate
  > users inundating the server or its adminstrator in mail.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > I have SEEN Mr. Big's letter to Julf, and I have SEEN the articles
  > pulled out of talk.politics.mideast.  If you read that group, you
  > know it's about 451 degrees in there.  The articles consist
  > mostly of a nym fighting with some guy at a big University. ...
  > there was nothing you wouldn't expect to find there, and the fact
  > that one of the participants was a nym was totally irrelevant,
  > and certainly violated no laws, or even Usenet decorum, such as
  > it is, Mr. Big's self-important,, inflated opinion to the
  > contrary notwithstanding.
  >
  > Mr. Big's gripe has nothing to do with the content of the
  > articles, that's all bullshit, just a sham.  The only thing he
  > cares about is that one of the flamers is a nym.  I agree with
  > whoever called him a bigot and a hypocrite.



_____
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?

  Ze Julf <[e-mail]>:

  > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down.
  > Postings to netnews and mail to arbitrary addresses has been
  > blocked. To enable users who know each other only by their anon
  > ID's to arrange alternate communication paths, mail to anonymous
  > users will still be supported for two weeks. After this period
  > all database entries will be deleted.

  Solomon Yusim <[e-mail]>:

  > I think it is also outrageous and deeply embarrassing to the whole
  > net community as to the secretive, back-handed, and authocratic
  > measures of how this shutdown had happened.

  Leonard Norrgard <[e-mail]>:

  > This stinks.  I'm sure something could've been worked out without
  > going to this extreme.  I'm sorry to see it happen, and in this
  > way.

  Howard S Shubs <[e-mail]>:

  > I think that the loss of this anonymous server is a shame.

  David A. Clunie <[e-mail]>:

  > This is very sad.
  >
  > Having been the victim of a similar attack on my anonymous server
  > I sympathize.
  >
  > Even your most vocal detractors in this group would seem to regard
  > this as an unfortunate outcome.

  Hannu Sepp{nen <[e-mail]>:

  > Demanding him to reveal the net person(s) behing the shutting down
  > of anon.penet.fi is not the point; there are always people around
  > that use their power for forcing... I'm concerned about the fact
  > that such forcing can be done, anonymously... It can be done,
  > because that person has a clear target, Julf. If the idea of
  > anonymous servers is supposed to be kept alive, it requires
  > several sites running such, in different organizations, in
  > different countries... That would be the only way to avoid what
  > happened to Julf?

  Dr. Cat <[e-mail]>:

  > I do have to say I'm most sorry for a good friend of mine who had
  > a very pressing need to use an anon service in the near future,
  > for personal reasons I can't go into.  If anyone knows of any
  > alternatative anon servers she could use instead, please email me
  > information on them.  Julf's was the only one I knew about.

  Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>:

  > I'm constantly amazed at all the people who are outraged that the
  > anon server has gone down, but are unwilling to do anything about
  > it.  For crying out loud, Karl Kleinpaste's sources are available
  > -- you don't even have to be sophisticated endough to write it or
  > even understand it -- get them and put one up yourself.  If
  > you're not a sysadmin, then start campaigning the admins on your
  > machine.  But _please_ stop whining that this one is gone.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > I, too, thank Julf, and am sorry to see the anon server go.  There
  > are subjects of discussion for which anonymity is appropriate
  > (e.g. sexual abuse, suicide, etc.).  Abuse of the service is
  > regretable, but i think an alternative way of handling that
  > beside shutting it down could have been found.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > It was never my aim to completely shut down anon.penet.fi.  I was,
  > and remain, a proponent of compromise - of setting some
  > reasonable limits on the uses of anonymity.  It was fanatics like
  > yourself who insisted on "all or nothing" that brought down
  > anon.penet.fi.

  Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>:

  > I do not insist, and never have insisted, on an "all or nothing"
  > approach to anonymous posting.  My fanaticism is limited to the
  > idea that *you*, as an individual, have no business determining
  > what people at other sites can read unless the people in charge
  > of those sites expressly empower you to make that decision.

  Paul Hughes <[e-mail]>:

  > I wanted to register my formal complaint with anyone who felt it
  > was a valid, justified action in closing the anonymous server.  I
  > object to the treatments Julf and the remaining non-abusive
  > members of the anonymous community have had to endure...ranging
  > from simple categorization to near slander.  I also believe many
  > people are hurt by this recent event.  All of the abuse and
  > recovery groups, alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards, and even the a.b.p.e
  > group (whose usage of  the anon server was of questionable merit
  > anyway), I predict, will find at  least temporary slow downs in
  > net.traffic due to people afraid to ask for help because of
  > private concerns that need only be their own.  Educational,
  > healthy purposes for posting anonymously are now going to
  > frighten many back into a hiding period, wishing for a new server
  > to free them to speak with people who can identify with their
  > problems.

  Bert Medley <[e-mail]>:

  > In any case, if I were a person who did not believe in such a
  > service, I would have used a Kill file rather than shut the
  > service down.  THERE ARE MANY VALID REASONS FOR SUCH A SERVER TO
  > EXIST.

  Dana Tyler <[e-mail]>:

  > To: [e-mail]
  >
  > Sorry to hear what has happened to your server. I think the net
  > community as a whole will suffer from it's loss. Posting to
  > alt.personal groups as well as other risque groups such as
  > alt.sex.movies will slow to nothing. I think the people of the
  > world have a right to express thier opinions while revealing
  > their identity. It eliminates pressure from one's peers to
  > conform to norms of scociety. I'll really miss it.

  Richard M. Hartman <[e-mail]>:

  > This is too bad.  I have been perhaps one of the most vocal
  > against your service, but I have ALWAYS maintained that it was
  > not anon postings per se that I was against, as the MANNER in
  > which the service had been started, and the lack of strong policy
  > statements.

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

  > The Guru was leaving his mountain.
  >
  > I was shocked.  I was disappointed.  I was saddened.  I was also
  > proud of Julf for the way he admitted errors and took
  > responsibility. He has nothing to be ashamed of.  A few of his
  > users betrayed him.
  >
  > A hurried exchange of email showed that several of my allies felt
  > the same way -- that *this* wasn't what we had been arguing for
  > -- we didn't want a complete shut-down, what we wanted was to
  > make the anonymous service more accountable and thereby more
  > acceptable.

  Alexander Chislenko <[e-mail]>:

  > I could hardly overstate my respect to Julf's work. I expect that
  > any future textbook on the history of the Net will mention
  > [e-mail] and Julf personally.

  Ze Julf <[e-mail]>:

  > I'm probably not the only one who has been really surprised at the
  > very strong reaction in support of anonymous services that the
  > suspension of the anonymous posting service at anon.penet.fi
  > caused. This proof of support  (evidenced, among other things, by
  > the fact that I have received more than 350 personal mail
  > messages since the announcement of the suspension of the service.
  > Of these, only 6 have been against resuming the service) have
  > vastly improved my chances of resuming full operation. I really
  > want to thank everybody who expressed their support for the
  > service, both on news and in e-mail.  I don't have the words to
  > express how much I appreciate it!


_____
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?

  Ze Julf <[e-mail]>:

  > Due to the lawsuit-intensive climate in the US, many anonymous
  > services have been short-lived. By setting up anon.penet.fi in
  > Finland, I hoped to create a more stable service. Anon.penet.fi
  > managed to stay in operation for almost five months. The service
  > was protected from most of the usual problems that had forced
  > other services to shut down. But there are always going to be
  > ways to stop something as controversial as an anon service. In
  > this case, a very well-known and extremely highly regarded net
  > personality managed to contact exactly the right people to create
  > a situation where it is politically impossible for me to continue
  > running the service.

  Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>:

  > I call for the "net personality" responsible to come forward and
  > accept  responsibility publicly for this action, and explain his
  > reasoning (which may  well be valid, but we won't know until we
  > hear it).

  Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>

  > There is no such thing as a "highly regarded" reputation...anyone
  > who did this act is a net.asshole and deserves any condemnation
  > he or she gets. They obviously are not acting for the good of the
  > USENET community.

  David A. Clunie <[e-mail]>

  > Tell us who the bastard was this time ! He or she may have been a
  > "very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality"
  > but they won't be for much longer.

  Leonard Norrgard <[e-mail]>:

  > *I* expect to see this person step forward and and admit it, if
  > they're that well-respected.

  Howard S Shubs <[e-mail]>:

  > Who and what happened?  Why didn't you give this info in public?
  > Is the person who stopped you ashamed of his/her actions?

  <[e-mail]>:

  > I'll add some fuel to the flame war at this point. Julf is making
  > a very vague statement, aiming at a group of people. He does not
  > state what really happened, that would probably have been easy
  > without telling us the identity of this "extremely highly
  > regarded net personality".
  >
  > I don't know _why_ Julf doesn't reveal the identity of this
  > person, but the way he phrased his article it looks like he's
  > attacking some kind of backbone cabal or high profile person. On
  > the other hand, Julf may have had only good intentions by not
  > telling us the identity. However, that doesn't justify his
  > description of the prson as an "extremely highly regarded net
  > personality."

  H Keith Henson <[e-mail]>:

  > I wish to express my appreciation to Julf for running
  > anon.penet.fi. It is a shame that those opposed could not evolve
  > better ways to cope than just shuting him down.  I also request
  > that the person(s?) who did so would step forward and engage in
  > discussion as to why they felt this to be necessary.

  Dr. Cat <[e-mail]>:

  > I'll add my voice to those who want to know who did this to Julf,
  > and why. Further, I would really like to know HOW it was done.
  > It sounds like there may have been some heavy-handed,
  > manipulative user of power involved.  But certainly I'm willing
  > to hear the "well known net personality" give their side of the
  > story before passing judgement.

  Pat Myrto <[e-mail]>:

  > Other than some folks being irritated by some anon postings, what
  > was the problem?  Surely not as irritating as some un-named
  > individual dictating that only activity that *HE* approves of may
  > occur on the net...
  >
  > Surely this person does not want to hide behind anonymity
  > _himself_, does he, seeing as he apparantly strongly opposes
  > others using it? Actions are a much stronger indicator of where
  > someone is at than statements, and it would be nice to know who
  > is, in effect, dictating overall net.policy, and who gave him
  > this authority...

  <[e-mail]>:

  > if the people responsible for shutting down the service decline to
  > indentify themselves, that would be an example of blatant
  > hypocrisy.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > I think that the highly regarded net personality should announce
  > his name here.  Surely it would be hypocrisy of the highest order
  > for him to try to remain anonymous?

  Eddy Robinson <[e-mail]>:

  > I find it highly ironic that so many people were flamed for
  > advocating anonymity, whether they used it or not; and now Julf
  > is referring to a "net-personality" presumably in a diplomatic
  > attempt to preserve that person from a flamefest. If this centres
  > around a particular poster (as opposed to the 500th complainant
  > about anonymity or something), then I fail to see why they do not
  > "have the courage of their convictions" and stand up to take the
  > credit.

  Tom Gift <[e-mail]>:

  > Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical that the alledged net
  > luminary who is quoted as saying there's no legitimate need for
  > anonymity is him(her)self not willing to publicly take
  > responsibility for his/her actions in this mess?

  Alexander Chislenko <[e-mail]>:

  > I find it very ironic that people who forced Julf to shut down the
  > anonymous service, choose to stay  *anonymous* themselves. Looks
  > like they think that their reasons for using anonymity in this
  > case are more legitimate than any other reasons anybody else
  > might ever have.

_____
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?

  Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>:

  > A reality check; The "net personality" didn't shut Julf down. At
  > most, such a person could ask others (who do have power over
  > Julf) to review Julf's policies and make their own decisions.
  > From Julf's article, that appears to be what happened.

  Michael Friedman <[e-mail]>:

  > Will you conspiracy theorists please make some effort to get a
  > clue? Julf is almost certainly lying or, at the very least,
  > distorting the truth.
  >
  > In fact, Julf's new announcement that his service is resuming
  > clearly indicates that he made the decision to eliminate the
  > original service.
  >
  > In short, Julf, I think you lied.

  John Kennedy <[e-mail]>:

  > I happen to think it's amazingly funny.  Here you have a whole lot
  > of people, fighting tooth and nail for a service and this
  > mysterious net entity manages to get it shut down.
  >
  > Suddenly, you have people you've never seen crawling out of the
  > woodwork crying foul, and demanding to know said net-person's
  > name. Some of these are almost certainly people who used the
  > anonymous service to protect their _own_ identity from just this
  > sort of abuse.  _Regardless_ of how this person behaved, he
  > deserves his anonymous status, don't you think?

  Elioc S. Nevets <[e-mail]>:

  > He has the right to complain; he has the right to remain
  > anonymous. Maybe he didn't make himself known to the USENET
  > community at-large because he knew people like you wouldn't be
  > able to understand that all he did was complain, that he did not
  > shut down the anon.server, and that he has not authority to.
  > Just because he exercises his right to free speech, standing up
  > for what he believes in, and complains, doesn't mean he has to
  > submit himself to public debasement.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > This is getting so boring.
  >
  > Julf, with some admirable restraint, gives us the bare outline of
  > what happened to convince him that his anonymous server machine
  > should be shut down.
  >
  > Everyone *now* jumps in to say that the person who triggered this
  > action is a net.idiot (or other unkind epithets), some of them
  > being the same folks who were jumping on Julf's case for being
  > too liberal with the way he ran the machine.

  Michael Friedman <[e-mail]>:

  > I'm saying we can't trust him because he lies...
  >
  > Oh, and does anyone still believe his claim about some important
  > net-person getting his server shut down?  If so, how do you
  > explain his sudden ability to restart it?

  Jon Noring <[e-mail]>:

  > to: "somebody"
  >
  > I am writing you to get your opinion and advice concerning
  > universal anonymous posting services such as anon.penet.fi which
  > was recently closed down.  Of course, I am aware from several
  > net.people that you, for whatever reason, played a major role in
  > this particular closing...
  >
  > ...  When I first heard of the closure, I was upset and fired off
  > a post, before getting the facts, saying not-so-nice things about
  > the so-and-so net.personality who was instrumental in the closing
  > of anon.penet.fi.  But...
  >
  > ...you must have had a good reason for doing so that had to remain
  > unstated.  Thus, I apologize for my statements, since I now
  > realize that there must be more to this closure than meets the
  > eye.  Julf even alluded to that as well in his e-mail to me - but
  > he's been very tight-lipped about specific details...
  >
  > (p.s., I'm sure you know by now that there are a lot of angry
  > people out there in Usenetia who would hang you from the highest
  > tree if they knew you were the famous net.personality (as Julf
  > called you) - but of course they don't yet know the background
  > information.)

  "somebody":

  > Despite what you may have heard, I did not play a "major" role --
  > I sent one mail message to Julf urging him to shut the service
  > down.  I did what any other person with knowledge of the net
  > might do, too -- I cc'd the administrator of his service
  > provider.  The shutdown occurred because of some interaction
  > between Julf and the admins -- probably aided by mail from other
  > objectors.  I played no active role in the events.

  John Stanley <[e-mail]>:

  > I would hate to contradict a well-known net authority, but sending
  > mail is an active role.

  Ze Julf <[e-mail]>

  > A lot of people have also asked me to reveal the exact events and
  > names that caused the suspension of the service. I don't feel
  > that that would serve any useful purpose at this point, as things
  > have turned out pretty favourable and any public flame wars would
  > only mess things up again. I once again repeat that I'm convinced
  > the individuals involved acted out of their regard for the best
  > of the net, and didn't realize the special circumstances that
  > caused their actions to have such an impact.


* * *

This is Part 4 of the Anonymity FAQ, obtained via anonymous FTP to
  rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-anonymity/ or newsgroups
  alt.privacy, alt.answers, news.answers every 21 days.
Written by L. Detweiler <[e-mail]>.
All rights reserved.