🚀 go-pugleaf

In the previous article, Ken Prox <kprox@wwnet.net> wrote:
> > Then you won't mind posting your birthdate, home address, full name
> > (including middle name), any other names by which you may have been
> > known during your life and -- of course -- your social security
> > number?
> 
> Not necessary, digital signatures are legally binding for electronic
> identification purposes.

But if a digital signature doesn't lead back to a confirmed identity,
then it's worthless.

And anyway, there's no good reason for a digital signature to discuss
the flavor of Canada Goose white meat as compared to Mourning Dove
dark meat, or whether Hillary Clinton actually eats the children's
hearts after sacrificing them to her Dark Lord.  We're not conducting
financial transactions here, we're just shooting the breeze.

> > 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
> 
> If you lie about your name, what statement does that make regarding
> credibility?

None, IMO, unless the topic on which one is assessing credibility is
the exact spelling of the person's name.  If I write a meticulously
documented and well-reasoned 30-page treatise laying out the case that
George McClellan was a better general than Ulysses Grant, does it
really matter whether I sign it "J.D. Baldwin" or "Wendell Evans"?
Shouldn't the *ideas* be what really matters?  99% of the time, these
flaps over anonymity are purely a diversionary tactic, brought into
play because one side is simply out of arguments.

Ever hear of George Kennan's "X" article in "Foreign Affairs"?  It
shaped the entire Cold War policy of "containment" and may very well
be a factor in the result that you and I are alive to talk about this
today.  Kennan couldn't sign his own name directly for reasons I
forget just now, but who really cares?

I read newsgroups where certain posters whose real names I don't know
and don't care about knowing have enormous credibility.  This
credibility is based on their past contributions and their record of
being correct on issues, technical details, etc., as well as
intangibles like style and netiquette.  Their names simply don't
matter.

And is an alias of "Homer Simpson" a *lie*, really?  I wouldn't call
it that.  It's clearly not intended to deceive the reader. 

> Wanting to remain anonmous dies not justify lying.

So someone who conceals his name with an obviously bogus alias is
morally superior to someone who makes up a real-sounding name and uses
that?  I might agree, but it's irrelevant from the standpoint of
assessing an individual's credibility -- you have no way of verifying
the actual name of a poster, including mine, as I have no way of
verifying yours.

> Is it right or wrong to lie?

Depends entirely on the circumstances.  As a general rule, of course, it's
wrong.
-- 
  _+_ 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
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------