On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that John Smith won the KOM award, we shouldn't include Smith's name, because to do so is to use Usenet as a *source of information regarding a subject other than itself*.
Whoa, that's getting pretty epistemiologically twisty... "A person named 'J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h' was mentioned as KotM on Usenet, but we make no claim as to who that designates in real life".
That's not what I meant. I was using the name John Smith only as an example. My argument about Edmond is that we shouldn't name him at all, not that we should give him a pseudonym.
At some point you have to fall back on common sense, or else be confined to working on philosophy articles.
Are you saying that people who work on philosophy articles tend to have no common sense? LOL! Okay, I may have to concede that one to you. ;-p
Another irony is that Usenet was once as revered as a source of good information as Google is today - I suspect part of the disconnect in the discussion is the difference in perception between people for whom it was an important part of their lives (in my case, 1982 to 1994 or so), vs those who've never known it as anything other than a flame board.
That's a good point, though we're discussing it as a source the way it is today.
Sarah