Re: Subject: Hotmail

["Toan" <toan@usa.net>]

Very interesting case. 

I studied this type of problems as one of the first lessons of a Postmodern
Textual theories class. 

A sense of self (subjective and objective) is NOT the same as in our old
analogies. Cho+. DDo^`ng Xua^n is not SCV.
  
How do we know if ba'c Tua^'n Pham or Frank Nguyen or Toa`n Pham (mine) are
 REAL names? Unless you have know the person; otherwise you might have been
<supplied> with a virtual one all along. 

Let's look at ethos of an identity. It has to be built, even on a fake
name: HXhu+o+ng, NAQuo^'c, HCMinh, 

If I were today, to subscribe to VNSA, though my real name is Pha.m
Phu+o+ng Toa`n, I choose to be known as Te`o. 

The rest of the world only knows me as Te`o. You may not want to hear from
me the first day, the second day, but if I have something of worth across
those three days, would Te`o be a little more <real> to you? Then Toa`n has
built his ethos, on a take name Te`o.

I think a look at this at a broader scope is worth a discussion. Narrowing
it to personal attitude may not be helpful since it will likely side-track
elsewhere. We haven't had that kind of cho+. ca' and anonymity here ...is
it because people are NOT anonymous? It might have to do with other aspects
like how we exchange, our sense of courtesy and respect. These can still
perfectly hold even with an <anonymous identity>.

Cha`o

Te`o!
 
----------
> From: Tuan Pham <tuan.pham@unsw.edu.au>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <vnsa-l@csd.uwm.edu>
> Subject: Subject: Hotmail
> Date: Wednesday, 02 April, 1997 9:31 PM
> 
> Frank Nguyen <frank.nguyen@medtronic.com> wrote
> 
> >It's
> >nothing wrong if one selects for him/herself a different name.  Does
> >anybody know my name is a real or faked one?
> >
> >Any opinion should be heard, even an anonymous,  
> >...
> 
> 
> Hi Frank
> 
> When did the rot set in? Is the attitude above typically 
> American or only Viet-American?
> 
> I grew up in a world where sending anonymous messages
> and using faked names is simply unacceptable. Except when 
> there are threats to one's safety or livelihood, which
> doesn't apply to the majority of SCV participants.
> 
> The reasoning behind this rule of ethics is that
> anonymity leads to irresponsibility. Just look at
> the back of any public toilet door - or SCV :)
> 
> 
> >Why look down on SCV?  Cho+. DDo^`ng Xua^n o+? Ha` no^.i nga`y xu+?a
> >nga`y xu+a no^?i tie^'ng ve^` mo'c tu'i, it did not mean that all people
> >went there were pocket-pickers.
> >
> 
> Since it is the accepted and unquestioned practice on SCV
> to write anonymous messages, it can't be compared to 
> Cho+. Ddo^`ng Xua^n, where people are NOT afraid to
> admit who they are, except for the pickpockets!
> 
> To find a real parallel, try to think of a place outside 
> the net where people go in anonymity to relieve themselves. :)
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Tuan Pham