Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!ncsuvx!gatech!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!wbt
From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: A SERIOUS DILEMMA FOR THE NET
Message-ID: <1277@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 88 14:22:31 GMT
References: <7086@gryphon.CTS.COM> <7090@gryphon.CTS.COM> <6629@chinet.UUCP> <1219@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6817@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <1282@micomvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 65

In article <1282@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:

(in reference to postings by several people, including myself, 
about problems with Portal)

[re: alleged violations of Portal users]

>These "violations" have in the past weeks included admitting to being 14
>years old, asking what "SO" meant (I think in alt.sex), and exhibiting the
>other traditional manifestations of new users that we must expect.

What makes these violations notable are not the gaffs themselves, but
the manner in which they were committed.  Most of the net posters are
intelligent, educated adults, or, at the very least, college students.
Portal, on the other hand, gives access to many younger and less
experienced users. This is acceptable, but they apparently make 
litte attempt to educate their users about editors or Usenet, and they
further encourage rash postings by allowing anonymity via "handles".
These two factors threaten to lower Usenet to the standards of a
hacker's bulletin board.

>They pretend to represent you and I.

Not true. We represent ourselves, and, we suspect, a fair number of
netters. I have no desire to represent *you*.

>I *do* dislike anonymous postings and I *do* have some problems with the
>type of access sites like Portal enable, however this attempt to coerce
>USENET administrators into taking sides in a flame-fest, in a bogus pretence
>of seeing a "serious dilemma" is at the same level of irresponsible nonsense
>as the jj postings, or some of the more outrageous threats of lawsuits etc.

You are most incorrect. This is NOT an attempt to generate flames; our goal
was to generate RESULTS.  If you'd read (once more) our postings, you'll
note that all we asked was for Portal administration to include the
poster's real name with the posting. We were sincere about the "serious
dilemma". Your opinion is obviously different, but don't assume that we're
being "irresponsible" just because we disagree with you.

>I ask the administrators of the sites whose users have posted the "serious
>dilemma" and associated articles to examine the evidence, closely question
>the actions of those users, and perhaps report back their findings to the
>net.

This is exactly the point.  When *I* post to the net, I put my reputation
and my job on the line. If I embarrass my employer, I can expect various
retributions which could go so far as to affect my career. 

Posters from Portal, on the other hand, risk nothing but their last month's
$10 fee. Anonymity gives them courage to post things that *accountable*
members of the Usenet community would never put their names to.

I felt the problem was serious enough that I was willing to subject myself
to the sort of scrutiny you suggest. I'd like to see Portal users 
similarly accountable.




------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------