From: nobody@tjava.com (Anonymous)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:50:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:US calls for measures against Internet porn [NOISE]
In-Reply-To: <199601040042.TAA29802@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <199601040526.XAA03570@tjava.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


tallpaul writes:
> I was going to post on this topic, especially on a paraphrase of the
> (ostensible) original. I still want to, but let me play either the
> skeptical or responsible journalist (reader's choice of adjectives). 
> 
> Anonymous has *not* revealled the original source as he/it/she claimed.
> They have asserted it came from Xinhua news agency. Will Anonymous post a
> pointer to where we can access on the internet the original? News feed,
> date, and time of posting, as well as message ID should suffice. 

I hope these headers are sufficient. I used the Clarinet news feed on
Netcom to get the original copy of the text. No doubt the story is on
archive sites elsewhere. I did _not_ post the original to cpunks.

From: C-reuters@clari.net (Reuters)
Subject: China calls for measures against Internet porn
Message-ID: <Rchina-internetURelN_5DV@clari.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 9:20:13 PST
Newsgroups: clari.tw.new_media,clari.news.issues.censorship,
 clari.world.asia.china,clari.tw.issues,clari.news.sex,clari.news.issues.misc,
 clari.news.censorship,clare.tw.misc

Thus, this is the first of the two stories you cited in "Will the real
Anonymous please stand up".
<199601040332.WAA24066@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>

tallpaul also writes:
> Herewith is where my confusion developed by Anonymous #1, posted as Date:
> Sun, 31 Dec 1995 18:34:56 -0600, Message-Id:
> <199601010034.SAA07422@tjava.com>: 

I am the author of that message.

> The story as presented by Anon #1, while supposedly from Reuters quotes the
> Associated Press, something that rarely if even happens. 

The original of the story does quote Xinhua. I personally thought it
was a nice satirical touch to equate Xinhua and the Associated Press.
Apparently, my irony was lost.

> Another story, posted by Anonymous #2 (presumably the same entity as
> Anonymous #1), posted as Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:25:12 +0100, Message-Id:
> <199601010025.BAA04537@utopia.hacktic.nl> 
> is slugged "BEIJING (AP)_ " and quotes Xinhua News Agency; 

Not the same anonymous. That was the AP story, and I believe is
legitimate.

> A reference by Anonymous #3 (presumably the same entity as Anon #1 & #2),
> posted as Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:47:35 -0800, Message-Id:
> <199601032247.OAA00603@jobe.shell.portal.com> states that the faked story
> changed the words "Xinhua news agency" to "the Associated Press." 

That's me, thus the same as #1, but different from #2.

> Add to this is the confusion that several entities are posting to the cp
> list using the same name -- "Anonymous" -- without differentiating their
> posts from any of the other posts by (inferentially) other entities with
> the same name. 

I agree this is confusing. I considered signing my posts "Mallet
D'nonymous," but decided that would be too much of a taunt.

> Scientific discussions to which people wish to contribute anonymously are
> OK with me; the same discussions that are starting to resemble the
> confusion of a Month Python skit are not. 

I _do_ apologize for the confusion. I thought it was going to be a
nice clean satire, but the two wire stories made things more
complicated, and I perhaps did not step in to clear the confusion when
I should have.

The only reason I'm being anonymous is to protest the copyright laws.
Theoretically, my post may have been a violation of Reuters'
copyright. I believe this is the same reason why Anon #2 chose to be
anonymous, but of course I have no way of knowing for sure.