Re: Anonymous Posts

Subject: Re: Anonymous Posts
From: Megan McMacken <mcmackme -at- FRC -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:55:01 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: P.A. Gantt <pagantt -at- POSTOFFICE -dot- WORLDNET -dot- ATT -dot- NET>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Anonymous Posts


*SNIP*

>Because "anonymous" was asking about Denise's credentials'(sig.) yet did
not
>give his/her sig. Rather unfair to Denise
>and others willing *not* to be "anonymous" and stand by
>their statements with their name.

I think we need to remember that Anonymous's first post about the Washington
Post's article included some sensitive comments about one of the companies
mentioned in the Post's article. From what I can remember, the comments
were valid but sensitive enough to warrant posting anonymously. And it's
kinda tough to make an anonymous post and then reply to followups
UN-anonymously. :D

------------------------------------------------------------
Megan E. McMacken, Electronic Documentation
FANUC Robotics North America, Inc.
Rochester Hills, Michigan
email: megan -dot- mcmacken -at- fanucrobotics -dot- com
"The best thing in life is definitely free..." -BTR

http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/



Previous by Author: Re: seer internship
Next by Author: How to Cite
Previous by Thread: Re: Anonymous Posts
Next by Thread: Re: Anonymous Posts


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads