home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!mnemonic
- From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
- Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.224620.6980@eff.org>
- Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
- Sender: usenet@eff.org (NNTP News Poster)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
- Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
- References: <1993Jan3.230620.27916@nntp.hut.fi> <1993Jan4.161132.28288@eff.org> <1993Jan4.194622.2669@nntp.hut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:46:20 GMT
- Lines: 37
-
- In article <1993Jan4.194622.2669@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
-
- >It's not an accusation targeted against anyone, it's an observation
- >about the newsgroup in general. I don't think it's important to
- >discuss publicly _who_ is doing what in a matter like this, but
- >instead to be aware of the problem and discuss ways of how to solve
- >it.
-
- But how can we solve a problem if you aren't specific about what the
- problem is?
-
- >If we start talking about how Jack is being nasty in his messages
- >to Jill, the discussion will quickly degenerate into a useless
- >kangaroo court handling the writings, ancestry and personalities of
- >Jack and Jill, while the issue of how the discussion could be
- >imporoved and kept on topic without the noise will be forgotten.
-
- I don't see how it can be discussed, except in the vaguest and most
- abstract terms, without being particular. How can Jack solve the problem
- of his nastiness to Jill when he's not even sure he's being the one
- discussed, and he's given no clue as to what in particular about his
- posting was objectionable?
-
- Are there other fields in which problem-solving is done without any
- mention of the particulars of the problem?
-
-
- --Mike
-
-
-
-
- --
- Mike Godwin, |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
- mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
- (617) 864-0665 |
- EFF, Cambridge | --Robert Frost
-