| From: | "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Awakening... |
| Date: | Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:26:35 +0000 |
Goldberg <michael.goldberg@*******.COM> writes
> On a more serious note, do we have that many bad guys checking the
> list that warrants the amount of encryptions usage that goes on here?
A while back a few people ranted about "how would anyone post stuff like
XXXX to a public board?" and "NOT TO's useless and unrealistic" so
PRIVATEs started appearing all over the place.
Personally, if the consensus is to move much more NOT TO's for sensitive
material and reserve PRIVATE for more restrained posts, I'd prefer that.
> I don't know about you guys, but I have a tendency to not pay
> attention as much to posts (including my own) if they are encrypted to
> someone. I'm slowly trying to cut back but its hard if you are trying
> to hide information from a person, say like Midnight. You can't just
> use NOT TO: Midnight because he has too many friends.
There be the problem. Personally, unfeasable or not, I'd prefer NOT TOs.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
