Re: degree programs, liability for msgs sent

["Kelly K. Hoffman" <hoffman -at- LOGICRAFT -dot- COM>]

Joyce Hammock <uupsi5!NIHCU.BITNET!HBJ> writes:

>[...] unless I missed something,
>I haven't seen anything posted in which [Paul] denies having
>been the sender.

Steve Fouts <uupsi5!ELLISON.SC.TI.COM!sfouts> writes:

>Uh, this is all a fascinating discussion of legal liability here, but Paul
>already wrote to tell us that he not only wrote the RPI flame, but that he had
>his own little newsletter just filled with more of the same [...]

My post was never intended to comment one way or the other on whether Paul
actually made the comments or some unseen snooper did it in his name. My
concern was the idea that *if he did NOT actually post it*, we should hold
him responsible anyway because, after all, he *must* have left his terminal
unattended or something, so it's really his fault.

I think it's important for anyone using this medium to understand that it
is inherently very insecure; e-mail is too easy to fake. [If this message
came from kelly -at- beach -dot- today -dot- com, would that reinforce the point?] This
factor needs to be taken into account whenever pointing fingers or
assessing blame based *solely* on the contents of electronic mail
(encrypted signatures notwithstanding).

[Steve continues:]

>There are some folks out there who get their jollies out of posting
>>inflammatory stuff and then sitting back to watch the results. The best and
>>most appropriate response is thundering silence. It's easy, you read the
>post, >you say, "hmm, he seems to have a bug up his butt." <Delete> <Next>

Yes, absolutely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly K. Hoffman              Logicraft                "Reading the manual
Technical Writer              22 Cotton Road            is admitting
hoffman -at- logicraft -dot- com         Nashua, NH  03063         defeat."