[TriLUG] Re: Pseudonyms

[Gnu Man]

For those who are insecure with other's identity on the Internet, maybe
you should rethink the forums in which you choose to participate.

Attacking someone because they don't feel inclined to broadcast in each
email a paragraph containing name, address, phone numbers, fax numbers,
credentials, etc... is pretty lame.

If it is that important to you, put it to a vote to have it added it to
the charter that nobody would be allowed to use aliases on the list.

Remember, by doing so you run the risk of alienating anyone who wishes
to participate, but doesn't feel a pressing need to check in with the
"identity Gestapo" first. 

Remember that there are probably as many reasons for those to use
aliases as there are people who use them. 

One such example could be a developer who works for a software company
that produces proprietary products.  Say this company views open source
software as a direct threat, and would not take a kind view to their
employee's participating and contributing in such a forum.   




On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 13:51, Ed Hill wrote: 
> On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 22:53, Mike Johnson wrote:
> > Ed Hill [ed at eh3.com] wrote:
> > 
> > > ps - And Tanner has an excellent point.  Isn't it curious that 
> > >      you who are trying to make some (ill-defined?) point about 
> > >      code ownership and copyright attribution fail to provide 
> > >      an identity?
> > 
> > No, he doesn't have an excellent point.  How does his identity have
> > anything to do with his arguments?  One does not need to include
> > their phone number, address, and social security number to be permitted
> > to offer their opinion on some random topic.  There are plenty of people
> > on this list (and plenty of other lists) who don't paste their real name
> > all over the place.  Does that make their opinion somehow less valuable?
> > No.  It doesn't.
> > 
> > So please, if you have a beef with the content, cool.  There's no need
> > to attack the fact that they haven't presented their drivers license to
> > you.
> 
> 
> Yes, Mike, he certainly does have a point.  And you're missing it.
> 
> In a discussion where the topic is largely *about* attribution (here,
> the pedigree of source code), theres nothing off-topic or inappropriate
> about me raising broader issues of identity.  And theres nothing wrong
> with me making references to "those present" in order to provide
> concrete examples.
> 
> As long as I'm (reasonably) on-topic and avoiding the ugliness of
> profanity (etc.) you have no grounds to tell me what I can or can't tie
> into the discussion.
> 
> 
> So back to my point: as with any information, one should always consider
> the source.
> 
> [Bad pun intended.]
> 
> Ed