In the social world every situation is unique. Although we have developed
principles that guide our behavior, sometimes an exception to the principle
is OK as long as the well being of the other party is not affected.

I think that in this case we didn't experience any manipulation. The alias
was intended for protection of the author and not for discrediting a list
member. On the other hand, we need to consider that the alias approach was
used because the discussant wanted to escape from an overt confrontation
with list members. This poses a number of other questions about the
discussion ethics -- who is pressuring whom and in what ways. Democratic
procedures allow a large group of people or a small, well organized group
of people to impose their views and believes to the detriment of science
and other institutions. I have mentioned several times to this list that
Adolf Hitler was elected in 1933 in democratic elections. He created the
dictatorship after that. So, consider the this side as well.

I don't believe that a list member was discredited. The outcomes of the
experiment didn't affect the well being of any member of our group.

I don't believe that it will be helpful for any of the parties as well as
the whole community to continue this debate. Actually, the discussion might
do more harm than good.

In this light, it is enough to mention the case, develop a common policy
for future interactions, and close the case. Just let's agree that in the
future we would not use aliases.

With kind regards,

Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.


At 12:40 AM 12/15/2004 +0800, Karen wrote:
>I wonder how the moderators of this list are thinking after reading
>some of the responses here. Sure, the internet has a lot of personas.
>Real or fake, we have to think of some real issues behind them.
>Impersonation in this case did show some issues regardless.
>I think there are a few people who may have already understood.
>
>ken/cindy resolution ?  Perhaps we should focus on the other side of the
>coin. Reason being that no one can really solve the double or even multiple
>personas problem on the internet. However with astute judgement,
>one could still be able to place and
>identify the real situation and about a person's character too---even
>with all the talk going on etc.  In this case, I think Prof Friedman was
>fine. The
>impersonification was a mischief and it was sneaky. It wasn't exactly fun,
>but then again, the intentions weren't evil. Nor was it really that bad.
>and I beleive all of us have learnt some things from the incident.
>
>If you were to think writting a forum post to the Papers/Press, and use a
>Pseudonymn instead of a real name; basically the Cindy/Ken case isn't that
>big an issue anymore.  I feel his attempt, though not encourageable,
>was respected in that light of opening up various issues about the topics
>as well as how people actually react to different people. I think the list
>should focus on these areas rather than to talk about multiple personas
>in this case.
>
>Would be good to hear from the moderators about this issue too. I
>usually don't trust people/dealings that easily---- especially on the
>internet.
>Until I know that person well, I wouldn't think of exchanging/giving
>precious info and data
>at all. But I know in this world, its very hard to come by with people who
>are genuinely
>receptive. And Prof Friedman is one of the rare ones.
>
>
>With kind regards,
>Karen Fu