--- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > > wrote: <snip> > > > Shemp unsubscribed shortly after Rick posted a really nasty > > > email he had received in response to a discussion on FFL. Rick > > > and I sniffed around and discovered that the nasty email was > > > actually from Shemp, but from an email address tied to his real > > > name. With his cover blown, he unsubscribed. > > > > Rick should never have posted the email without first > > asking and receiving permission to do so, IMHO, no matter > > who it was from, no matter how nasty it was. That's a > > serious breach of electronic etiquette. > > It's quite common for people to make an exception about > posting private email when the email is abusive.
I should think it would be less common for the owner or moderator of a group many of whose members don't use their real names and apparently believe they have good reason not to. At the very least he should have deleted the name. > > Rick > > > and I sniffed around and discovered that the nasty email was > > > actually from Shemp, but from an email address tied to his real > > > name. With his cover blown, he unsubscribed. > > > > But Alex, it didn't take any "sniffing around" to recognize > > that it was from Shemp; it was obvious from what he said in > > the email. He wasn't attempting to hide who he was, he just > > mistakenly sent the email to Rick from the address linked to > > his real name. He had sent an email to me once the same way > > by accident. > > > > I can't imagine Rick was unaware that he had "blown Shemp's > > cover" when he posted it. I think that's *why* he posted it, > > to "punish" Shemp for having been nasty. > > > > And I think that's why Shemp left, because he figured Rick > > had done it on purpose. > > I looked in my Yahoo Inbox at the emails we exchanged about > it, and Rick seemed surprised that it was Shemp. I think Rick > just didn't make the connection. The email clearly referred to a recent FFL discussion in which the writer had participated--the last exchange was quoted at the end of the email--but nobody had ever posted here under the name attached to the email. One would think that would trigger a red light warning that the writer could be an FFL member who posted here using a handle, and that the email name was the real one. > Rick is very stong in his support of the anonymity rule, > even to the point of granting the special dispensation of > restored anonymity in the case of someone who had > previously identified himself by his real name. If Rick > had known that mail was from Shemp, I doubt he would have > forwarded it without the email address redacted. He coudn't have spent much time thinking about it if he didn't realize it was written by an FFLer who posted using a handle. If Rick is so strong in his support of the anonymity rule, why didn't he take the time to be reasonably confident he wouldn't be revealing a poster's real name?
