NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8004

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!morrow.stanford.edu!pangea.Stanford.EDU!karish
From: [e-mail] (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 00:32:22 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steve Pope) writes:
>[e-mail] (Mike Godwin) continues our conversation:
>
>>>... the starting point of
>>>this discussion was the WELL's pseudonymity policy as stated to new
>>>users ....
>>
>>Which doesn't seem particularly limiting.
>
>You're skating on thin ice here.  All the evidence points to it being
>fairly restrictive, including what I've been able to
>learn from WELL admins thus far.

Steve, you don't seem to learn from experience.  Mike commented
about the way the policy is presented to new users, and you
responded in terms of the way that policy seems to you to be
enforced.  Taking his words at face value isn't working
for you!  You put a different face on them than he does.

>>Could we have a number of the *actual* WELL users who are complaining
>>about this?
>
>As for your question, how many users do *not* see it as a
>disadvantage??  Could we have a number for them?

You raised the issue, Steve.  It's your responsibility
to establish that it's a significant one.

>Why do you believe the users I've talked to are not representative?

Because the issue doesn't show up on the WELL or in
face-to-face conversations with WELL users?

>And you keep using the word "speculating" inappropriately.
>An informed consumer thinking of signing up for WELL would:
>(a) look to see what well tells new users when you telnet them;
>(b) ask current WELL users for opinions; (c) pose questions
>on a semi-public forum such as usenet;  (d) Ask the WELL
>admins to explain things further where they seem vague.

If you don't want to be accused of speculating about
WELL policies, there's one more thing you could have done:
called up the current WELL management, not ex-managers who
happen to be handy, and ask about the policies that
interest you.  You have, in fact, criticized WELL policies
on the basis of your own projections of what they might be
and said "How could I have known?" when you were called on
it.  If you want to see a "straw man" attack, look back at
your own posts  with the knowledge you now have about how
the WELL works.

If you don't want to be accused of speculating about
whether the style of user interaction is different on
the WELL from what you see on USENET, do as Mike suggested
and log in there.

>All of which I have done.  How else is somebody supposed to learn
>more about what they're buying into?  Sombody tries to
>gather information on the WELL and you for no further reason
>label them as "speculating".  Sheesh.

Steve, you did more than ask for information.  You expressed
your conclusions in terms that seemed to be critical of
WELL policies and supported your conclusions using arguments
that were quite difficult to follow.

>I did NOT say the WELL had "flaws".  Don't put words in my mouth.

You repeatedly said that WELL policies were "inconsistent",
in a context that I took to indicate that you consider
this lack of consistency to be a flaw.  Don't blame others
for misinterpreting opinions that you never expressed
clearly, even after repeated requests for clarification.
--

    Chuck Karish          [e-mail]
    [phone] x117   [e-mail]