Post by thread:[OT] WAS how to compare two strings...

> At 10.35 2005.05.06 +0200, you wrote: > >ThePicMan [spam_OUTthepicmanTakeThisOuTinfinito.it] wrote : [I was the one that said the remark below, and I take responsibility for it. I am also moving this to OT where it belongs] > >> >I agree fully with this. I tend to think of people with obviously > >> >made up names as mere kids pretending to be "in" > >> > >> You are insulting me and others with no reason. No, I am not insulting you. I was saying what I believe to be true. And to further it, I believe that those who are not willing to stand up and take credit for their statements believe said statements have little worth. [Somebody else responding.] > >Having a clear name in the mail header have nothing with > >anti-SPAM to do. Is there any other resonable reason to > >not disclosing the name on this kind of forum ? > > Either you see a reason for it or not (it's not up to you, > it's up to the person that signs itself), it is perfectly > reasonable and "within the rules" of the mailinglist to not > sign with one's real name. Yes, it is within the rules. I can think of many good reasons for using an alias. However, all the ones I can think of are either childish, petty, lame, or dishonest. I know that I'm an odd person. The only thing I do anonymously is pure charity. > There are people using false, but perfectly sounding names. > Is it reasonable for you? Well, at least I don't realize it. > Calling "kid" someone that makes a choice that doesn't > break any mailinglist rule and whose reasons you simply > don't understand is gratuitously insulting him/her, IMHO. I never called *anybody* a kid. I just said that I thought this behavior was the actions of a kid. Perhaps you should examine why *you* feel insulted by my remarks? > seen that, instead I've seen the worst kind of people > making libellous affirmations on someone's real name, > because he was a dangerous competitor, and making night > calls to him to scare his family. This is just one example There are legal remedies for this. > of the abuse that some people can make of someone else's > real name. And this is one of many possible good reasons > to choose not to use the own real name. Oh? And you think that a large portion of this list couldn't find your real name and more quickly and easily? Note: I mean through strictly legal and easily available searches. > Either I have personally good reasons or not to use a > pseudonym, I'm sure it is correct to use one, and I do! Your reasons are your own. Frankly, from your paragraph above I think that they are because of fear and paranoia. And this, to me, is one of the worse reasons to use a pseudonym. -- D. Jay Newman ! Polititions and civilations come and .....jayKILLspam@spam@sprucegrove.com ! go but the engineers and machinists http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress

At 10.47 2005.05.06 -0400, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>> At 10.35 2005.05.06 +0200, you wrote: >> >ThePicMan [thepicmanKILLspaminfinito.it] wrote : > >[I was the one that said the remark below, and I take responsibility >for it. I am also moving this to OT where it belongs] > >> >> >I agree fully with this. I tend to think of people with obviously >> >> >made up names as mere kids pretending to be "in" >> >> >> >> You are insulting me and others with no reason. > >No, I am not insulting you. I was saying what I believe to be true. > >And to further it, I believe that those who are not willing to stand up >and take credit for their statements believe said statements have >little worth. > >[Somebody else responding.] > >> >Having a clear name in the mail header have nothing with >> >anti-SPAM to do. Is there any other resonable reason to >> >not disclosing the name on this kind of forum ? >> >> Either you see a reason for it or not (it's not up to you, >> it's up to the person that signs itself), it is perfectly >> reasonable and "within the rules" of the mailinglist to not >> sign with one's real name. > >Yes, it is within the rules. I can think of many good reasons for >using an alias. However, all the ones I can think of are either >childish, petty, lame, or dishonest. Which doesn't exclude that there may be other, this time better, reasons. Or does it? >I know that I'm an odd person. The only thing I do anonymously is >pure charity. And publicizing your modesty very well. >> There are people using false, but perfectly sounding names. >> Is it reasonable for you? > >Well, at least I don't realize it. Well.. you can call me John Smith, then. >> Calling "kid" someone that makes a choice that doesn't >> break any mailinglist rule and whose reasons you simply >> don't understand is gratuitously insulting him/her, IMHO. > >I never called *anybody* a kid. I just said that I thought this >behavior was the actions of a kid. Is there ANY difference, in the substance?? >Perhaps you should examine why *you* feel insulted by my remarks? Because they're very pointless remarks, not because you "touchet" me. Just to stop your illusions. >> seen that, instead I've seen the worst kind of people >> making libellous affirmations on someone's real name, >> because he was a dangerous competitor, and making night >> calls to him to scare his family. This is just one example > >There are legal remedies for this. In fact. If you have time to dedicate to it. >> of the abuse that some people can make of someone else's >> real name. And this is one of many possible good reasons >> to choose not to use the own real name. > >Oh? And you think that a large portion of this list couldn't find >your real name and more quickly and easily? Note: I mean through >strictly legal and easily available searches. I don't care.. the only thing I care about is to be honest regardless if I appear anonymous or not. And as long as to be anonymous (which is still better IMHO than use a real-sounding false name) won't break any mailinglist rule, I'll think it's entirely reasonable to do so. I have to respond to my conscience (which doesn't mean I'm religious, by the way), not to anyone on this list wanting to enforce pointless rules. And I'll feel insulted if somebody says that it's "kid" acting, either if this someone signs with his real name or is anon, it doesn't make any difference. Because to me what matters is the substance of things, not your telephone number. That one's useful only for (truly kiddish this time) revenges, and the like. As I said in another post, if someone does you real damage, there are legal ways to breach any false identity. So it's all pointless talking to moan at somebody just because he doesn't sign with a real (or seemingly real) name. A name is a name, let anyone chose his own name or handle. He won't stop nor limit your freedom by doing so. So what's the point? >> Either I have personally good reasons or not to use a >> pseudonym, I'm sure it is correct to use one, and I do! > >Your reasons are your own. Frankly, from your paragraph above I >think that they are because of fear and paranoia. And this, to >me, is one of the worse reasons to use a pseudonym. It takes you too little to make assumptions on somebody's personality. And this is a good reason not to put in the mouth of people like you a real identity, I may say. Anyway, this thread is boring. Better close it now IMHO. >-- >D. Jay Newman ! Polititions and civilations come and >.....jayKILLspam.....sprucegrove.com ! go but the engineers and machinists >http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress >-

> I think that at least 80% of the piclist membership are employed by > someone other than themselves. Try to put yourself in their position, > knowing that the list is archived on the internet, which means > essentially forever. Then, if you still want real identities, ask. Maybe I'm strange, but I have never cared if an employer or potential employer has cared what I say in public forums. My opinions are open. I've said things in staff meetings that have cost me promotions, but I believed had to be said. And then I've gotten the promotions anyway because I was the best systems analyst my unit has ever had. So am I worried that my employers might check the archived lists? Frankly even if they had the time, I've spoken my mind more openly straight to them. I still feel that if you are not willing to stand 100% behind what you say (and of course admit when you're wrong) then why are you saying it in the first place? > Peter -- D. Jay Newman ! Polititions and civilations come and EraseMEjayspam_OUTTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! go but the engineers and machinists http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress

By the same token, why is it necessary for someone to give their real identity? Given that there are some risks inherent for many people, self-employed or not, what should matter is the quality of their posts, not their identity. Some people are more likely to share really interesting information if they don't have to reveal who they are or why they know. People choose to not reveal their identity for reasons other than nefarious. In today's very small, very crowded world, it is smart to control your own personal information. Eric --- Wouter van Ooijen <wouterspam_OUTvoti.nl> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I think that at least 80% of the piclist > membership are employed by > > someone other than themselves. > > Yes, me too (50%). > > > Try to put yourself in their position, > > knowing that the list is archived on the internet, > which means > > essentially forever. Then, if you still want real > identities, ask. > > Out of interest: why would it be important whether > someone is > self-employed or not? > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products > docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu > > > --

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > Out of interest: why would it be important whether someone is > self-employed or not? There exists a formula that relates the pointed-headedness of one's boss, co-worker, rival, SO, etc to the amount of time it takes for him to start looking for legal ways to part company with someone, or to do him damage. There are also other reasons. There are lots of employers who require their employees not blog without their knowledge. I did not make this up, it's real, and it's a growing phenomenon. Also if you are less than perfect, and who isn't (excepting Olin), you will eventually post enough goofy posts that someone will be able to quote 10 of them to do you some damage. Also, why do you assume that if someone calls himself John H. Quigley IV instead of nobody666, that is his (or her) real identity ? Names are conventions. Look at all tose respectable names in the Nigerian mail scams. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Peter

At 22.19 2005.05.08 +0300, you wrote: >On Sat, 7 May 2005, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > >>Out of interest: why would it be important whether someone is >>self-employed or not? > >There exists a formula that relates the pointed-headedness of one's boss, co-worker, rival, SO, etc to the amount of time it takes for him to start looking for legal ways to part company with someone, or to do him damage. There are also other reasons. There are lots of employers who require their employees not blog without their knowledge. I did not make this up, it's real, and it's a growing phenomenon. Also if you are less than perfect, and who isn't (excepting Olin), you will eventually post enough goofy posts that someone will be able to quote 10 of them to do you some damage. > >Also, why do you assume that if someone calls himself John H. Quigley IV instead of nobody666, that is his (or her) real identity ? Names are conventions. Look at all tose respectable names in the Nigerian mail scams. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, and "ThePicMan" (me) was first kicked and then warned. Incredible. Ok that the PICList isn't a democracy, but it's incredible nonetheless. Or was it a space/time warp effect? >Peter >-

> Yes, and "ThePicMan" (me) was first kicked and then warned. > Incredible. Ok that the PICList isn't a democracy, but it's > incredible nonetheless. Or was it a space/time warp effect? Bit of everything probably. Plus add in overworked admin without enough people willing to do the work (who me?). A bit of *inadvertent* rough justice may occasionally get dispensed in the interests of the admin trying to stay sane or not become insaner. It hurts when you are the recipient of rough justice but if you were gone and are back again then no great harm was done (not none perhaps) and you are sadder and wiser and we are wiser :-). In an ideal society it doesn't happen this way but to approach ideal we'd need a lot more workers plus better behaved citizens. Supporting the admins, even when they sometimes may not get it quite right, or when we think they haven't, helps keep things going smoothly overall. QL * * In the mood of the above plus IBM/HAL