Text 34241, 160 rader
Skriven 2006-07-22 14:11:37 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 34210 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Where where you when the Towers came down?
==================================================
Hello Roy.

22 Jul 06 10:03, you wrote to me:

 RW> 21 Jul 06 19:08, Jeff Smith wrote to Roy Witt:

 JS>> Hello Roy.

 JS>> 21 Jul 06 14:46, you wrote to me:

 RW>>> 21 Jul 06 00:47, Jeff Smith wrote to Roy Witt:

 JS>>>>     Actually I had completed the reply thinking I was
 JS>>>> responding to you as your sig was at the end of the message.

 RW>>> Keep that in mind.

 JS>>>>  Then looked at the message header and edited the T0 field to
 JS>>>> raise the matter of who the message was from.

 RW>>> Which could be varified by the origin line.

 JS>>>> What hadn't sunk in at that moment was the principle of the
 JS>>>> situation.

 RW>>> What principle?

 JS>>      The principle of the name in the From: field being the
 JS>> actual person who wrote the message. Not having to question or
 JS>> otherwise verify messages that one reads.

 RW> Ahh, so why didn't you ever complain about Phil using 'Steeplejack'...

     For the same reason I probably wouldn't complain if you posted a
message using the nic 'Needledick'. <g> I would presume that the nic
was being used as an alias for you and that you were not try to deceive
people into thinking that another real person posted the message.

 JS>>>>  For me at least we shouldn't have to question who a message is
 JS>>>> actually from or if a particular message is real.

 RW>>> How many of those in the nodelist do you actually know
 RW>>> personally?

 JS>>      Does it matter? When I see your name in the From: field I
 JS>> shouldn't have to wonder if you actually wrote the message. The
 JS>> name in the From: field should be the name of the person that
 JS>> actually wrote the message.

 RW> If I log onto a bbs and use an alias such as Ben Johnson, how would
 RW> you know that Ben Johnson or Roy Witt wrote it? The point is, you
 RW> don't know for certain who you're talking with unless you actually
 RW> have met that person. Even then, as it was proven at a R10 sysop
 RW> meeting, everyone there thought they met Roy Witt in person, but in
 RW> actuality, they met someone else who claimed to be me. They didn't
 RW> even ask for an ID, they just assumed that the person they were
 RW> introduced to was me.


        Yes, there is a certain amount of trust involved here Roy. You
could create any number of accounts on a BBS, website, Etc and people
wouldn't know for sure who was the actual author of a message. They would
have to place a certain amount of trust in you that you will not pretend
to be another real person when posting a message.


        That is the key issue here IMHO. Posting a message using an alias
versus posting a message using the name of another real person. Yes, there
is probably another real Jeff Smith out there <g> as well as another Roy
Witt. But I doubt that you will find too many Roy Witt's or Ward Dossche's
in this echo other than the two originals. My earlier point was that when
I see a message in this or other echo with a particular person's name in
the From: field. I will assume and also trust that I am not being deceived
into thinking that the author's name that is displayed IS the true author.

 JS>>>> Heck, I am not even crazy about the use of nics and aliases
 JS>>>> that a number of people use.

 RW>>> But it's not up to you or anyone else to say otherwise. In fact,
 RW>>> most echo rules state that if your message header is an alias,
 RW>>> signing the message at the end if mandatory.

 JS>>     I realize that and agree with you. That is just my personal
 JS>> opinion in matters that I can control. BBS, echos, Etc. Others
 JS>> are free to think otherwise if they so choose. In fact, back in
 JS>> the good 'ole CB days I didn't much care for using a handle then
 JS>> either. My CB handle often times was just Jeff. <g> Yes... the
 JS>> good old kilowatt days with a Moonraker on the roof. Boy did I
 JS>> annoy a neighbor or two now and then.

 RW> Been there, done that...Have you ever heard of a Gizmotchee antenna?
 RW> Speaking in terms of a beam like the moonraker, looking down the
 RW> business end, they looked like this;  |
 RW>                             / \
 RW> They were verticaly and horizontally polarized and switchable at will.
 RW> I made a 4 elemement that I used for years and my partner, to out do
 RW> me, made a pair of them and stacked them together.  |___| They were
 RW> awsume!
 RW>                                                /     \


        The name rings a small bell. A moonraker was about as big a beam
as I could manage, space wise. Another smaller antenna that I had good
luck with was a PDL-II. The signal rejection was suprizingly high 32db
for it's size (Boom 4'10'') and the gain was about 12db as I recall.

 JS>>>> People (Not refering to you) should own up to what they say and
 JS>>>> not hide behind an alias. Just my 2 cents (Before Inflation).

 RW>>> And of course, the reason I used the 'alias' wasn't to make
 RW>>> anyone believe I was somebody else, it was just a wake up call
 RW>>> to dipshit that anybody can get through a twit filter if they
 RW>>> try hard enough. It worked too!

 JS>>     As I have stated I personally didn't have any doubt who I was
 JS>> replying to or did I think that you were deliberately trying to
 JS>> deceive. While it is not my intent to speak for anyone but me I
 JS>> think Ward was also more concerned about the priciple of the
 JS>> matter than the actual message or it's contents. Again JMHO.

 RW> And if that was all there was to it, you'd be right. You'd have to go
 RW> back a ways to review the history between Dossche and me. He's been
 RW> out to remove me from Fidonet for years. I'm probably the only one who
 RW> remains in Fidonet who's a constant pain in his ass. He's not worthy
 RW> of being here, but he's a *C, so, as you know and have just witnessed,
 RW> *Cs can play with the nodelist...If I had been in Z2, I would have
 RW> been removed from the nodelist years ago, just like he did with so
 RW> many who disagreed with him there.


     And I will not try to speak up on the subject in any great depth
do to my lack of background knowledge. Although I do remember the
ongoing interaction or entertainment that you both have provided over
the years. At least from the late 80's when I joined the Fido ranks as
a node.

 JS>> Heck, there are at least a couple people who I think have me in
 JS>> their filter. I am managing to survive under that added pressure.
 JS>> Guess I exceed their stress limits. If that's what works for
 JS>> them, who am I to complain.

 RW> See, if Ward had just kept his mouth shut about filters, he wouldn't
 RW> be so embarrassed by anything anyone says about him. I figure he's
 RW> just a whiner who's com-upance is forthcoming. Rather than get rid of
 RW> me, he's now got his worst nightmare to look forward to.


    See... Another mission in life for you both. That being to keep
each others fire well stoked. <g>


 RW> Roy
 RW> --- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 RW>  * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA *
 RW> (1:1/22)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - MN USA (1:14/0)