From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:22:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Anonymous Thread
Message-ID: <199712070219.DAA28316@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Charlie Comsec wrote:
>Monty Cantsin wrote:
>> Something that I have found irritating about the posts by
>> non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a
>> meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be
>> repudiated, or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster.  I
>> compared this to sound bites.
>
>How is that fundamentally different from non-anonymous posts, though?
>You can always disavow (or attempt to) a previous post by claiming it
>was forged, that someone stole your password, hacked your account, or
>posted it when you accidentally left your terminal logged on while
>you were at lunch.

All true.  But, in the case of the anonymous post there has usually
been no indication other than writing style and topic that suggests
the poster is using the context of previous anonymous posts.  There's
no particular reason to think the second post has anything to do with
the first.

This means that the ideas cannot be developed to any great depth or
detail.  I would prefer to see anonymous posters include the messages
which supply context or just give the message IDs.

>In addition, there's nothing to stop someone from obtaining multiple e-mail
>accounts.  So why should ten anonymous posts be an more irritating than
>ten posts from hotmail.com, juno.com, etc. accounts?  They could be from ten
>different people, just one, or any number in between.

Actually, it's the context and the complexity of the text that
interests me.  If ten different people play the role of anonymous in
one thread, each accepting the context of the previous posters, there
is no reason why that isn't just as interesting as if it were one
poster.

>> On second thought, however, there is an easy way to solve this.  If
>> the anonymous poster accepts the context of previous messages, the
>> discussion can continue.  There's no reason why the person behind the
>> virtual thread has to be the same, but the context itself is important
>> if we want to have interesting discussions.
>
>Agreed.  It's the ideas that are important, not the identity of the person[a]
>expressing them.  The only exception I can think of is if the person
>expressing the ideas is asking that they be accepted because of some unique
>qualification or expertise he claims to possess.

And even then it never hurts to think carefully about why they should
be trusted, how it is that they know what they claim to know, and if
there are any ways to verify their claims.

>> So, if you don't want to sign your messages, just acknowledge the
>> message ID of the relevant previous messages whose context you wish to
>> use.
>
>Unless that's coupled with a PGP signature, there's nothing to keep one
>anonymous person from impersonating another and agreeing to something.
>For example, if "A" is debating "B", there's nothing to stop "B" from
>posting as "C", claiming to be an anonymous KKK, NAMBLA, etc. member, 
>then posting again, impersonating "A", and pretending to agree with "C"
>(by, as you say, "acknowledging C's message id").

That's okay, though, because you deal with each post on its own merits
one at a time.  If person "C" says "This posts uses the remarks by the
anonymous poster in posts 1, 2, 3,.. as context" then you can say,
"You now say X, but before you said Y, and that's a contradiction."

That person (or even another person) can come back and say something
genuinely interesting like "It seems like a contradiction, but in fact
it isn't for such-and-such a reason."

In practice the way people have been doing this is just by signing
their posts "TruthMonger" or something.  But, message IDs give you
more control over the accepted context.

>Nor is it much better if "A", "B", and "C" are non-anonymous.  "B" can open
>a throwaway account as "C", and then forge a follow-up from "A".  Unless
>it's done among a group of people skilled at interpreting headers, it may
>well succeed, or at least arouse a lot of F.U.D. about "A".

Sabotaging a non-persistent identity through a remailer is effortless.
Forging takes a little more effort.

But, yes, I would like to see more people signing their messages.  It
would reduce some problems.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

Subject: Re: Anonymous Thread
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2]
94C43229A76383D818D39952F7A41ACA0394C6FE
2A27EB225593A316A1F4F5CAAA3CC76E2353E437
-1110 1110
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