Anon wrote:

Anon by necessity

More like "chicken**** coward by choice"

On 11 Mar 2005 14:09:42 -0800, KØHB babbled:

More like "chicken**** coward by choice"

You obviously are totally ignorant of the recommendations for safe
Internet usage published by government organizations such as
www.ftc.gov. The U.S. FTC recommends against giving out personal
information anywhere on the Internet or on Usenet, and instead
suggests the use of handles or pseudonyms. It also suggests that
people go to some lengths to keep their names private even in such
formerly-public data bases such as domain name registrar "whois"
records. That's why major registrars now offer private registration.

You can live in your daddy's world, but the rest of us are all too
familiar with the spammers, identity thieves, stalkers, and scam
artists who now make unscrupulous use of Internet information.

Anyone who blindly publishes his or her personal information on the
net is more like a clueless victim looking for a place to be mugged.

Go ahead: Keep on being a stupid ****. But don't try to promote your
stupidity to the rest of us.

Chris wrote:

On 11 Mar 2005 14:09:42 -0800, KØHB babbled:

More like "chicken**** coward by choice"


You obviously are totally ignorant of the recommendations for safe
Internet usage published by government organizations such as
www.ftc.gov. The U.S. FTC recommends against giving out personal
information anywhere on the Internet or on Usenet, and instead
suggests the use of handles or pseudonyms. It also suggests that
people go to some lengths to keep their names private even in such
formerly-public data bases such as domain name registrar "whois"
records. That's why major registrars now offer private registration.

You can live in your daddy's world, but the rest of us are all too
familiar with the spammers, identity thieves, stalkers, and scam
artists who now make unscrupulous use of Internet information.

Anyone who blindly publishes his or her personal information on the
net is more like a clueless victim looking for a place to be mugged.

Go ahead: Keep on being a stupid ****. But don't try to promote your
stupidity to the rest of us.

Fascinating post, Chris, If you think that anything that you can do is
giving you ANY protection while you are on the internet.........

Well, it is *fascinating* that you think that WE are stupid! 8^)

Safety on the internet means avoidance of it.

-It's *that* simple-

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Chris" ) writes:
On 11 Mar 2005 14:09:42 -0800, KØHB babbled:

More like "chicken**** coward by choice"

You obviously are totally ignorant of the recommendations for safe
Internet usage published by government organizations such as
www.ftc.gov. The U.S. FTC recommends against giving out personal
information anywhere on the Internet or on Usenet, and instead
suggests the use of handles or pseudonyms. It also suggests that
people go to some lengths to keep their names private even in such
formerly-public data bases such as domain name registrar "whois"
records. That's why major registrars now offer private registration.

So tell us how the internet is different form the "real world"?

Hams have used their real names for decades, indeed the law requires
it. They also have to identify themselves with their callsign, which
is unique to each ham, and long before computers existed there were
books where you could look up callsigns to get people's addresses.

Every time I've had a letter published in the paper, it's had my name,
and general location. Now admittedly I could be confused with
others with the same name, but I sure don't use a pseudonym, or
for that matter the paper is not likely to print the letter unless
I use my real name (at the very least, they will expect a real
name, and address, at the bottom of the letter, which in some cases
they will not publish).

When I had some small articles published in "73" decades ago, they
included my name and callsign, and my address.

I've posted to the newsgroups for a decade, and I've always used my
real name, and even a completely legitimate email address that isn't
mangled.

In the local newsgroup, I've put in things over the years that deliberately
place me in the real world; no stalkers have appeared at places where
I clearly will be.

Just because some government agency says something does not make it
true.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:

"Chris" ) writes:

On 11 Mar 2005 14:09:42 -0800, KØHB babbled:

More like "chicken**** coward by choice"


You obviously are totally ignorant of the recommendations for safe
Internet usage published by government organizations such as
www.ftc.gov. The U.S. FTC recommends against giving out personal
information anywhere on the Internet or on Usenet, and instead
suggests the use of handles or pseudonyms. It also suggests that
people go to some lengths to keep their names private even in such
formerly-public data bases such as domain name registrar "whois"
records. That's why major registrars now offer private registration.


So tell us how the internet is different form the "real world"?

Hams have used their real names for decades, indeed the law requires
it. They also have to identify themselves with their callsign, which
is unique to each ham, and long before computers existed there were
books where you could look up callsigns to get people's addresses.

Every time I've had a letter published in the paper, it's had my name,
and general location. Now admittedly I could be confused with
others with the same name, but I sure don't use a pseudonym, or
for that matter the paper is not likely to print the letter unless
I use my real name (at the very least, they will expect a real
name, and address, at the bottom of the letter, which in some cases
they will not publish).

When I had some small articles published in "73" decades ago, they
included my name and callsign, and my address.

I've posted to the newsgroups for a decade, and I've always used my
real name, and even a completely legitimate email address that isn't
mangled.

In the local newsgroup, I've put in things over the years that deliberately
place me in the real world; no stalkers have appeared at places where
I clearly will be.

Just because some government agency says something does not make it
true.

Now is the time that paranoia is encouraged, on an institutional and
especially a personal level.

Especially pernicious is the encouragement of paranoia, coupled with
the "somehow this is your fault" syndrome.

And yet, the real problem isn't posting on netnews. It is companies
such as one in the US, that *willingly* gave out personal information of
thousands and more customers to bogus companies that are doing the
ultimate "phishing".

And I could even possibly accept the anominity aspect of posting, if it
wasn't for the fact that most of the anonymous ones are not exactly the
most civil posters.

How handy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:46:45 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Just because some government agency says something does not make it
true.

Now is the time that paranoia is encouraged, on an institutional and
especially a personal level.

Sure. And when you're out for a drive or walk, go ahead and go
anywhere in town. Ignore the obvious signs of criminal activity and
go right into that rough looking bar to purchase a soft drink.

But you don't do that, do you? You avoid the rough areas of town, or
else make some other kind of adjustment to the dangers. Also, by
avoiding those areas, the people who live there are unlikely to take
notice of you.

Especially pernicious is the encouragement of paranoia, coupled with
the "somehow this is your fault" syndrome.

The internet is indeed real life, but it doesn't provide the same
signals to us as do the streets of a large city. Even now as you read
this, a potential burglar is probably scanning your computer for open
ports. That's the equivalent of someone coming over to your house and
testing out all the doors and windows.

And that's one of the big differences between the Internet and your
daily life. People *can* and *do* reach out and touch you with malice
aforethought, and they do it frequently and from all over the world.

And yet, the real problem isn't posting on netnews. It is companies
such as one in the US, that *willingly* gave out personal information of
thousands and more customers to bogus companies that are doing the
ultimate "phishing".

No, the real problem is ignorance and complaciency. When you deliver
your personal information into the hands of networked servers, you are
reaching a vastly larger audience than was ever before possible.
Thanks to places like groups.google.com, if you slip up even once and
give too much information out, your information is forever maintined
in a searchable data base, and it is there for enemy and criminal alike
to use, even in a future which you cannot yet anticipate.

The net isn't your usual "real life" activity, and if you treat it that
way, you will ultimately pay the price.

The Internet is dangerous enough for the uninformed that people have
seriously proposed a licensing scheme - much like a driver's license -
in order to keep the untrained user from crashing his vehicle on the
information highway.

I think it's probably a good idea which will never be adopted. I'd
like to see people be forced to use training wheels (subscribe to AOL
or similar) until such time as they passed a written, multiple choice
exam on the workings of the Internet. It is the ignorant who
propagate email worms by continuing to open attachments, it is the
ignorant who fall for phishing scams, and it is the ignorant who still
insist that the internet is an okay place to unthinkingly publish
personal information.

If it makes you feel like you have hair on your chest to do so, be my
guest. To me, it proves that you have hair on your knuckles.

Chris wrote:


If it makes you feel like you have hair on your chest to do so, be my
guest. To me, it proves that you have hair on your knuckles.

No Chris, or whoever you are. It doesn't.

Sorry you think I have hair on my knuckles.

And sonnavagun! You prove my point of the anonymous posters and their
basic incivility. I doubt that you would call me retarded in a face to
face meeting. Yet here you see that as acceptable behavior. Good for
you, Chris!

Since you feel comfortable enough to call me a mentally challenged
person, I will give my opinion of you.

You are a fine example of the modern person that attempts to that
attempts to define their fear of life as a form of superiority. Sad sad,
sad.

Embrace it, enjoy it, it fits, eh?

As long as you are happy with that, have at it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:47:10 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

And sonnavagun! You prove my point of the anonymous posters and their
basic incivility. I doubt that you would call me retarded in a face to
face meeting. Yet here you see that as acceptable behavior. Good for
you, Chris!

Of course it was okay when this whole thread got started by one of
your knuckle-dragging, non-anonymous brethren who said "More like
"chicken**** coward by choice" about people who are savvy enough to
remain anonymous for general posting. That was K0HB, the epitomy of
the manners that you seem to think go along with non-anonymous posting.

The point is that, anonymous or not, bad manners are not predictable
by the anonymity or lack thereof of the poster. That's just your
prejudice speaking to you.

And sonnavagun! You prove by means of your own posts that prejudice is
your forte. Good for you, Mike!

Hans old man -- there are numerous organizations on the internet that indeed
recommend the use of pseudonyms.

Here is a quote from URL:
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm

"Be aware of the possible social dangers of being online: harassment,
stalking, being "flamed" (emotional verbal attacks), or "spamming" (being
sent unsolicited messages). Women can be vulnerable if their e-mail
addresses are recognizable as women's names. Consider using gender-neutral
e-mail addresses and pseudonyms."

Children are advised to use pseudonyms for obvious reasons.

Use google and look up "use of pseudonyms on the internet"

I remain -- Anon

"KØHB" wrote in message
oups.com...

Anon wrote:

Anon by necessity

More like "chicken**** coward by choice"

Anon wrote:

Hans old man -- there are numerous organizations on the internet that indeed
recommend the use of pseudonyms.

Here is a quote from URL:
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm

"Be aware of the possible social dangers of being online: harassment,
stalking, being "flamed" (emotional verbal attacks), or "spamming" (being
sent unsolicited messages). Women can be vulnerable if their e-mail
addresses are recognizable as women's names. Consider using gender-neutral
e-mail addresses and pseudonyms."

Wow. Do you mean that someone out there might be mean to people? Now
that is scary.

Sounds like the woman who got so worked up she had to go to a hospital
when her neighbors kids left her some cookies one night.

She sued, and won. Good for her. Live in fear. You won't live longer,
but it will sure seem like it.


Children are advised to use pseudonyms for obvious reasons.

Parents are advised to not allow children on the internet unsupervised.
And any parent that allows instant messaging is getting more on their
computer than they think, fake name or not.

Use google and look up "use of pseudonyms on the internet"

I remain -- Anon

Congratulations!

- Mike KB3EIA -