From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Accountability, or rather, JJ's lack of it.
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:19:30 GMT

In article <SHAW.92Aug11021118@whopper.lcs.mit.edu> shaw@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Andy Shaw) writes:

>The difference is that his "electronic" lawn is worthless because it has no
>relationship with his real-life reputation.  His "electronic" face is
>_worthless_.  And frankly, I'm not interesting in burning anything on

Then put him in a 'kill' file.

>anyone's lawn, electronic or real: if somebody burns a cross on my lawn, I
>want to know who that person is, but not for the purpose of burning a cross
>on their lawn.  I want to know because if _I_ know, everyone knows, and
>that person is less likely to go around doing things like that for fear of
>disapproval from society and stigmatization from his community -- because
>he is afraid that people he will meet in the future will know the beliefs
>he holds because of the actions of his past.

This is, after all, a forum for exchanging ideas. If you don't like the
IDEAS, you can a) refute 'em b) ridicule 'em c) ignore 'em d) whatever else you
like. Makes no difference if they are anonymous or not. It is the IDEAS you
should judge.

And actually, you sound like a McCarthey'ist here; you WANT him to be 
stigamatized in the future for his posts here.

>Everyone reading this _knows_ who I really am: if I meet them in real life
>for a job interview, at a conference, while they are reviewing my papers,
>what I say here will affect my real life.  What James says has no effect on

Pity. At a conference, the content of your PAPERS should be evaluated, not
the content of your posts to scaa. All GOOD scholars will behave in this
fashion. Those that do not are probably not that good.

>his real life, and therefore, he can spout whatever bilge he feels like,
>and make whatever accusations he feels like without fear of stigmatization
>or disapproval.  Which he often does.  Which is why his opinions have no
>weight, since they are not backed up by his willingness to face the

If his opinions have no weight, put him in a "kill" file.

>consequences of holding those opinions.  "Electronic" consequences are
>worthless.

>However, James is hiding behind his alias for the same reason that KKK
>members hide behind their white hoods: because he is afraid of the
>reactions of some people who might react poorly to his beliefs, and yet he

How do you know? And what difference does it make? 

>still feels that he must have his word, as long as he does not have to be
>accountable for it.  Do I approve of the harrassment he has experienced?
>No -- just as I don't approve of people who harrass KKK members and their
>families.

>There would be a hell of a lot less KKK members, if they didn't go around
>wearing those hoods and hiding their identities -- people will say and do
>anything if they are not held accountable in real life.

There'd probably be a "hell of a lot less" AA memebers as well, if it weren't
anonymous. Anonymity has NOTHING to do with the discussions here; evaluate the
content of a post.

>He would be taken a lot more seriously if he simply signed his real name --
>what is there to hide?  (What is there to hide, Ed?  Explain that.)

Signing one's real name is now guarantee of being taken seriously. And how 
do you KNOW if someone has signed their real name? Since you don't KNOW,
if you are giving more weight to any post that LOOKS like it has a legit
signature, then YOU are making a mistake.

However, if you evaluate the CONTENT, you needn't worry about such trifles.

>Sign your real name James, and prove me wrong.  I dare you.

What a challenge.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."