🚀 go-pugleaf

In the previous article, Joe Parente <jparente@optonline.net> wrote:
> Logical fallacies aside for a moment, I usually only point this out
> to people who are flaming, being abusive or otherwise pissing me
> off. I like to let them know how cowardly their post is without at
> least an attempt at using their real name...

It sounds as if you have a fairly rational attitude toward the online
anonymity thing.  I have been known to tweak someone who was being a
prat in a particularly annoying way for his "cowardice" at hiding
behind an alias.  Mainly, I just object to stupid, childish aliases --
outright false names are another matter.  I prefer to focus mainly on
the content of the message, and I wish others would do more of the
same.

But there are those who think that unless you are actually using your
full and correct name, you must be a total coward.  I think that is
a gross oversimplification, and it's usually self-serving, besides.

> > On the other hand, I don't give out my actual full first name on
> > Usenet, just because I don't want any automated databases correlating
> > my identity now or a few years in the future.  I live to thwart
> > marketing droids.
> 
> Me too. I always alter my name or address in a subtle way every time
> I use it in communicating with a company, just so I can see who
> exactly is selling my name and stop dealing with them.

Here's a tip:  always fill something in for the "Company" line on 
their forms.

The algorithms for correlating and consolidating address information
have gotten pretty sophisticated, and it's unlikely that most
permutations leaving your address intact enough to be usable will fool
them.  However, if you enter a "Company" the algorithms assume it's a
business address and are more easily fooled.  This is necessary
because there can be more than one "Baldwin" at a company, obviously,
so "J.D." and "J" might be two different people.

Note that this technique will probably result in your getting more
junk mail.  However, it will cost the mailers more, and occasionally
you'll get more copies of the things they send that are actually cool
(like the SANS Security Roadmap poster I am happy to have two copies
of).  Plus, it will throw off the tracking software, which is the
really important part.

> No, I'm a trusting soul. I'll believe anything that doesn't have to
> do with my health or my wallet. I tend to believe that people are
> speaking honestly, even on usenet. Call me naive, but I do. Of
> course, if you want me to invest or use a specific product, you damn
> well better believe that I'm going to research the information for
> myself first.

I find that 12 years of reading Usenet has sharpened my bullshit
detector to a pretty high degree.

> > So what it boils down to is this: you are mentally assigning a
> > higher credibility to someone who simply lies about his name than
> > you are to someone who is open about the fact that he wishes to
> > remain anonymous.  That's beyond stupid -- it's downright perverse.
> 
> Do you lend the same amount of credence to an unsigned letter
> in your snail mail box that you assign to a signed letter? 
> I hope you don't. If someone won't use their name on any missive, 
> it tends to destroy the credibility of that correspondence. 
> Not that some of the signed usenet posts are rife with credibility 
> either! 

That last sentence is precisely my point.  For all anyone knows, I am
really some guy named Timothy Johnson, or something.  Now, I may or
may not have "credibility" on this or that topic, but people who
assign credibility based purely on the name in the header would be
making a stupid mistake in my case.  

There is no good reason *inherently* to believe what "Timothy Johnson"
says over the word of "Erik the Destroyer" or "Homer Simpson" and it's
silly to think otherwise.

On the other hand, picking childish screen names probably correlates
highly with other idiotic online behavior, so you have a point.  But
even if that's a valid generalization, it doesn't mean you can make
judgements in specific instances on those grounds.
-- 
  _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\      /  baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------