>> you are being far too altruistic
Uh, well, though I might quibble about the word "altruistic,"
I'm not ready to hand over mentorship of my opinions.
However, I would defend your right to disagree with me.
>> in normal circumstances, one has sight, sound, and
the context of the encounter to identify another person.
Sometimes. Sometimes you know someone only by reputation.
Sometimes you know someone only through other media, e-mail,
or, can you imagine, actual written letters. Some people
can't perceive all the nuances (deaf, blind) or deliver them.
Yes, it is our individual responsibility to be aware of the
possibility, to deal with these cases, and to put it right
when the inevitable mistake is made.
>> I suppose you feel anarchy is more desirable than a constitutional
government since ...
Goodness, a large inference from a small message. You don't
suppose at all accurately.
>> To say it was my error for not responding to the exact
post which represented the flame is avoiding the issue.
I think we all need to use due precautions in determining
to whom we are speaking. How did you discover it was
wrong? Did you report this to Jill? Did you apologize
to the innocent flamee?
Though I don't agree completely, you have a point. SI
could help us by providing a mechanical, non-optional
distinction of some kind.
>>Are you going to defend their right to [impersonate
someone else and make damaging comments]? Or would you
like to avoid the problem in the first place by having SI require unique
identities?
I don't believe that those are the only alternatives.
I believe I can properly state my opinion as a matter
of degree. By analogy, it's certainly legal and reasonable
for two people to have the same name and other attributes
that makes them easily confused. For instance,
I have an unusual name, and I once lived at an address
in a certain city where, through pure coincidence, there
happened to be a person with the same unusual name at the same
numeric address on a street with the same name in a neighboring
town. I know this sounds like I made it up, but it's true.
We used to get
each other's phone calls because information would
give us out at random, so two or three times a year I
would get a call from someone who thought they were
speaking to someone else. This was a pain, and it sometimes
subjected me to hilarious or really sad situations
(I absolutely refused to bail the other guy's relatives
out of the clink, for example). But I would
be very much against a law preventing our having the same
name or living at the same street address, or any
other interference with either of us going about our
own business.
On the other hand, if someone impersonates me,
that's a different matter. There are laws against that.
I support those laws; they should be enforced
vigorously. But I DON'T accept that the solution is to
impose rules on society to make the transgression impossible.
The price is to high; it's too big step (a big-brother step)
in the wrong direction.
Let's don't confuse the one with the other, or we can't
have a reasonable discussion about it.
>> How would you like it if someone took on your
SPOTS identity
They'd be sorry as soon as the got the SPOTS bills
and tried to pay them with the SPOTS paycheck <ggg>.
Seriously, I wouldn't like it, of course, and I would
certainly expect SI to pursue and punish the bounder.
You can bet Jill would be looking at the the first
flame I got on his behalf in a hemisemidemiquaver.
BUT if there just happened to be another friendly,
intelligent, generous, reasonable guy around who just happened to
choose the handle Spots, we could exchange posts and Christmas
cards, and maybe I'd get a little credit for his informative
posts, and more power to him.
Spots
(I think) |
