It seems to be an issue of contention that some folks change their name or
their e-mail address from time to time.

1. Is there some "unwritten" rule that states that it is required that one
always use the same name (and address) all the time? I've never heard of such
a thing in the 17 years I've been on Usenet.

2. Isn't it "advisable" to change a mungled e-mail address from time to time
to keep the harvest bots one step behind? I often see this advised in the
popular media as a way to prevent receiving spam.



ANC

A-B C. wrote:
> It seems to be an issue of contention that some folks change their name or
> their e-mail address from time to time.
>
> 1. Is there some "unwritten" rule that states that it is required that one
> always use the same name (and address) all the time? I've never heard of such
> a thing in the 17 years I've been on Usenet.

you're missig the point. some people here are morphing not because they
feel like having a new nick, but because they know they've been killfiled
under the nick they've been using. they morph to avoid those killfiles so
they can provoke people.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

Joost Kremers wrote:

> you're missig the point. some people here are morphing not because they
> feel like having a new nick, but because they know they've been killfiled
> under the nick they've been using. they morph to avoid those killfiles so
> they can provoke people.

Joost, you argument is interesting, but you don't know that as a fact. This is
mere hypothesis on your part.

But for the sake of argument, I will accept it as "fact." Therefore (every
hypothesis needs a 'therefore'), does this mean that these people should not
be "allowed" to morph? In otherwords if Mr. Macon makes a public post saying
"I have kill-filed Joost Kremers" does that somehow strip you of your "right"
to change to "J.K" ....or "Mickey Mouse" or whatever?

What is the basis of Mr. Macon's complaint? Is he saying "Since I've
kill-filed you, you now are no longer allowed to 'morp'." Is the word of Mr.
Macon the law here? (I don't deny him his right to 'belly-ache' I'm just
trying to understand the point of it.)

Curious minds seek to inquire (which is on par with "For those who like that
sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they like" (The Prime of Miss Jean
Brodie, Muriel Spark ).

Al C.

A-B C. wrote:
> Joost Kremers wrote:
>
>> you're missig the point. some people here are morphing not because they
>> feel like having a new nick, but because they know they've been killfiled
>> under the nick they've been using. they morph to avoid those killfiles so
>> they can provoke people.
>
> Joost, you argument is interesting, but you don't know that as a fact. This is
> mere hypothesis on your part.

it's not. i would say it's bleeding obvious, but rm has actually admitted
this once or twice himself: <vc3c6n51k2gt75@corp.supernews.com>, and also
in a reply to me once, which has not been saved on google because rm uses
the X-No-Archive: header.

> But for the sake of argument, I will accept it as "fact." Therefore (every
> hypothesis needs a 'therefore'), does this mean that these people should not
> be "allowed" to morph? In otherwords if Mr. Macon makes a public post saying
> "I have kill-filed Joost Kremers" does that somehow strip you of your "right"
> to change to "J.K" ....or "Mickey Mouse" or whatever?

<sigh> morphing is not the point. the point is trolling. rm morphs in order
to keep trolling.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> It seems to be an issue of contention that some folks change their name or
> their e-mail address from time to time.
>
> 1. Is there some "unwritten" rule that states that it is required that one
> always use the same name (and address) all the time? I've never heard of
> such a thing in the 17 years I've been on Usenet.

Not all the time. But have you ever read any trolling faq? It's generally
accepted that anyone who morphs repeatedly every few months is a troll who
is morphing to avoid killfiles. I've changed my name, but it's pretty easy
to find my actual name (just check my pgp key) and I've used the same email
address. It's an unwritten rule that you respect other people's right to
killfile you.
>
> 2. Isn't it "advisable" to change a mungled e-mail address from time to
> time to keep the harvest bots one step behind? I often see this advised in
> the popular media as a way to prevent receiving spam.

Not really. If you've mungled it then it will be mungled. There's no
objection to people adding extra mungling to their address, but switching
to an entirely new address is frowned upon. Especially when the address is
somethig like fdsa@fdsa.com, which is clearly just morphing to avoid
killfiles.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFASikCseVxKm0DPWERAsADAJ9/dcRdNmm82vC/oT/eKrTi2Uqc4ACg9Fp3
gq46DnGOCE/XNTwygZjCT7A=
=B7vo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <sigh> morphing is not the point. the point is trolling. rm
> morphs in order to keep trolling.

If that's the case, how come i don't "morph" everyday? It's easy
enough to do...

cordially, as always,

rm

MikeyD <m_donaghy50@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Not all the time. But have you ever read any trolling faq? It's
> generally accepted that anyone who morphs repeatedly every few
> months is a troll who is morphing to avoid killfiles.

Well then why doesn't the morphing occur every day? It's easy
enough to do and there are an endless supply of names...

> I've changed my name, but it's pretty easy to find my actual name
> (just check my pgp key) and I've used the same email address.
> It's an unwritten rule that you respect other people's right to
> killfile you.

It may be an unwritten rule for those who run around killfiling
everybody. But if it is unwritten it ain't a rule. So forget
about it.

> > 2. Isn't it "advisable" to change a mungled e-mail address from
> > time to time to keep the harvest bots one step behind? I often
> > see this advised in the popular media as a way to prevent
> > receiving spam.

> Not really. If you've mungled it then it will be mungled. There's
> no objection to people adding extra mungling to their address,
> but switching to an entirely new address is frowned upon.
> Especially when the address is somethig like fdsa@fdsa.com, which
> is clearly just morphing to avoid killfiles.

Some of us morph to avoid cancelbots.

I post to be heard. And I will take whatever steps are necessary
to be heard by as many people as possible. If you don't like it,
write a complaint to my isp.

cordially, as always,

rm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A-B C. thought it a good use of my time to say:

> 1. Is there some "unwritten" rule that states that it is required that one
> always use the same name (and address) all the time? I've never heard of such
> a thing in the 17 years I've been on Usenet.

No. In fact, several people here change info somewhat regularly. I do not
really see that as "morphing". I had to change my email address when I
moved from California to Okinawa, but that does not mean(necessarily) that I
"morphed". Once I got set up here, I posted letting everyone know who I
was, and who I used to be. RM(our example, I'm assuming) currently occupies
17 entries in my KF. This passes my(arbitrary and objective) threshold of
acceptability. I feel that someone who changes their information that often
in the last 6 months has "morphed" to get around the filters I have placed
to keep from having to read his particular brand of 'cordiality'

> 2. Isn't it "advisable" to change a mungled e-mail address from time to time
> to keep the harvest bots one step behind? I often see this advised in the
> popular media as a way to prevent receiving spam.

but why not use a throw-away email address as a From: addy anyway? Place
your true address in the body of the post. The harvesters currently only
get the headers, as scanning the bodies of posts is counterproductive to
them in terms of time and bandwidth.

- --
Slackware - leave the GUI behind! -- Andy McDowell


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFASsaGERStuZltPNoRAh/fAJ9OddHgi9brEvjhIrVQXnPWvBDI4ACgsGY1
m0+uoYwUyp7FC+qhisWuiJs=
=eJZL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A-B C. <atakeoutcanton@adams-blaketakeout.com> wrote:

> 1. Is there some "unwritten" rule that states that it is required that one
> always use the same name (and address) all the time? I've never heard of such
> a thing in the 17 years I've been on Usenet.

Changing your name makes it difficult for others to filter out your posts,
and is a common tactic employed by trolls to ensure that they are heard by
those who have no wish to hear them.

The following is an *extreme* example of what I mean, these all refer to the
same poster, and the list is incomplete.

- % cordiality filter
- [alt.os.linux.slackware]
- Score:: =-9999
- From: Ron Maynard
- From: Ronald Maynard
- From: Red Magic
- From: Reefer Madness
- From: Randy Myers
- From: theregulars
- From: realtomargarino
- From: Ron Matthews
- From: Red Machine
- From: cdba@cdba\.org
- From: justlinux
- From: <rlm@bcda\.bcda\.com>
- From: rlm
- From: RLM
- From: rm
- From: RM
- From: Russell Morse

No, there's no rule, but as a seventeen year veteran of usenet, I'm sure you can
appreciate that it is a courtesy to the entire community change names as
little as possible. BTW, it is also an appreciated mark of courtesy to preface
off-topic posts with an [OT] in the title, for the same reason.


--
David Dutchison

bizness_[spelled corectkly!]address@telus.net

>> I've changed my name, but it's pretty easy to find my actual name
>> (just check my pgp key) and I've used the same email address.
>> It's an unwritten rule that you respect other people's right to
>> killfile you.
>
> It may be an unwritten rule for those who run around killfiling
> everybody. But if it is unwritten it ain't a rule. So forget
> about it.
>
It's common courtesy. Just like saying please and thank you. It may not be a
rule as such, but that doesn't make it unimportant.