Re: Hotmail

[Tuan Pham <tuan.pham@unsw.edu.au>]

Hi Ba'c Te`o

>What did I get myself into?!

Don't worry - This dog is all bark and no bite :)


>If asking a question is for an answer, please clarify the question and make
>it so that the person attempting to answer can answer within context for at
>least an attempt at understanding--if that be the purpose of the question.
>
><Personal attitude> is a paraphrase from a message earlier, asking
>something like <is the attitude above this or that? etc in direct reponse
>to a quoted line while not defining or limiting, or explaning the intended
>meaning of the usage of <<attitude>>.
>

The word "attitude" is by definition something that cannot 
be precisely pinned down, it is not an "action" or a "statement"
but a general frame or disposition of mind or set of possibly 
unstated beliefs which underlies or leads to some action or 
statement. Therefore, to pinpoint where an attitude "occurs" is not 
possible, and I was only referring to the whole msg. 


>> My experience is that when a person joins a reputable forum
>> under a fake name it is almost always with destructive
>> purposes.
>
>Yes, as I did state quite a few if not enough times of seeing and agreeing
>with this concern!
>
>Experience with forums, I do not have. VNSA is my first, besides purely
>academics ones at school in the past. Group dynamics made a very big
>difference. The Admins, then mostly were professors, made a big difference.
> 

I might be wrong, but I think that vnsa's rules ban fake identities.
There has been people using them to try to disrupt vnsa.
VNForum also bans fake identities - they have had endless trouble with 
people trying to disrupt the forum using fake identities!
The fact that responsible people ban these things (not at a whim but 
after much careful weighing of evidence) must surely give food for thought.


>I still am a little hesitant to come to a conclusion that a <fake> (we 'd
>better define this word!) name person should always get a <destructor>
>label on the forehead.
>
>George Eliot joined many circles by the name of George Eliot. She built it
>so much now that people refuse to know her by Mary-Ann (?) Evans Cross. 
>
>Who was XYZ in writing, Nguye^~n A'i Quo^'c in Paris, and Ho Chi Minh in
>Pa'c Bo'?
>

The use of pennames and stage names is a well-established practice, 
and the use of aliases by revolutionaries who are constantly 
in danger of getting caught is understandable. Lumping these together 
with  SCV-style fake identities is the kind of "everything is the same" 
attitude that I am protesting against. 


>Then how is a discussion Group likened to A Newspaper ? (Also, how
>differed?). There are intricacies here, I think. With all sincerity of
>thought, I see a difference if not many differences.
>

To me it seems the differences are in the technology not in the 
essence. An opinion on the wall of a public toilet represents 
one end of the credibility spectrum, a signed letter in a newspaper 
represents the other. The difference is that the first is 
completely anonymous, the second has a signature.
The medium does not matter. An electronic forum can be more like the
toilet wall if its members are anonymous, or it can be more like 
the newspaper if its members are open about their identity.

Hope you understand. I won't elaborate or reply further because this is
of no real practical interest (I doubt vnsa will change its policy in that 
respect :)


Cheers
Tuan Pham