home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!zabriskie.berkeley.edu!spp
- From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
- Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
- Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:48:59 GMT
- Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
- Lines: 31
- Distribution: inet
- Message-ID: <1h995rINNb1h@agate.berkeley.edu>
- References: <1992Dec22.170211.10292@eff.org> <1h7j0eINNs02@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Dec23.023944.19968@eff.org>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu
-
- In article <1992Dec23.023944.19968@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
- >In article <1h7j0eINNs02@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
- >
- >>When a new user signs up for the well he is told:
- >>
- >>> The WELL does not accept anonymous accounts except by special
- >>> arrangement.
- >>
- >>There are essentially two possibilities:
- >
- ><text deleted>
- >
- >Rather than speculate about the possibilities, why not take the empirical
- >approach. I'd prefer to hear from people who actually had problems with
- >the WELL (a system I use every day) than from folks who *speculate* that
- >there *might* be problems with its user policies.
-
- Mike, I talked to quite a few people involved with the WELL
- before starting this thread. Why are you so quick to label
- any information so gathered as "speculation", while proposing
- that additional information gathered by the exact same technique
- might somehow be more reliable?
-
- Part of what we are facing here is a point of policy that is,
- perhaps by design, somewhat vague. Did not fig@eff say something
- to the effect of "we make up some of these rules as we go along"?
- In this kind of environment we can expect to uncover a lot
- of conflicting data. That does not mean, however, we are
- dealing with "speculation".
-
- Steve
-