[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Useless anonymity
We are accustomed to seeing useless messages of various sorts on this and
other electronic forums. Messages that quote a long article only in order
to add "Me too" at the end, messages of no interest to anyone but the
individual they are directed to, content-free banter, ego-driven flame
wars, and so on. They still happen -- inexperienced people are always
joining the net -- but most people eventually learn to avoid making these
faux pas.
Anonymity brings a new class of useless message, of which the following
from Black Unicorn <[email protected]> is a recent example. I quote
it in its entirety:
>Having worked in Liechtenstein banks, I can assure you numbered
>accounts exist.
"Black Unicorn" is an obvious pseudonym, and I'm assuming that it is not
one with an established reputation. (For all I know, "Black Unicorn" might
be as famous as the Legion of Doom, but for the sake of argument I'll
assume that it isn't.)
What is the use of an unsubstantiated assertion, from an unreputed[*]
source, with no means of verification? Having read Black Unicorn's bald
asertion, I am as ignorant as before of whether numbered accounts exist, in
Liechtenstein or elsewhere.
New ideas or arguments can be useful regardless of their source. Likewise
pointers to places where evidence may be obtained. Assertions by reputable
sources may be taken on trust (I place far more weight on Perry Metzger's
comments about numbered accounts than the Black Unicorn's).
The quoted message does none of these. It is wholly useless, a waste of
its author's time, and of ours.
[*] "unreputed": a word I just coined as an opposite to "reputable",
meaning not "disreputable", i.e. having a bad reputation, but having no
reputation at all.
-- ____
Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems
Internet: [email protected] \ X/ University of East Anglia
uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.