Xref: utzoo news.admin:7399 talk.bizarre:39717 alt.flame:11766
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!gcf
From: gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: news.admin,talk.bizarre,alt.flame
Subject: A SERIOUS DILEMMA, etc. (was: Re: forgery (was Re: Important announcement))
Message-ID: <245@panix.UUCP>
Date: 31 Oct 89 12:14:58 GMT
References: <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> <21593@gryphon.COM> <212@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <36049@apple.Apple.COM> <1303@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Beauty in the Beast
Lines: 23

In article <1303@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes:
)In article <36049@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
)[Attribution for the following lost. --hb]
)##No, it's not.  Perhaps if we (the set of all USENET administrators)
)##knew how postings were forged, we'd know how to stop forgeries.
)
)Or perhaps not, at least not in any meaningful sense.  Depending
)on the method, it might be that the only way to stop the forgery
)be to stop the *genuine* article as well.

Obviously, the only way to solve the problem _meaningfully_ is
to insist that _all_ articles be forged.  There would then never
be a question of whether someone really said something or not, as
if anyone cared.

And since the forgeries are generally of a higher quality than
the average article, the quality of the net would be immeasurably
improved.

Look, _you_ posted to talk.bizarre.  Whoever "you" are.  I'm just
following up.  Let's see, whose id should I choose....
-- 
*   Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf   *