From: bhk@dsl.co.uk 
  
 On Sunday, in article 
       
      rbob@blueflintcat.us.invalid "Ramblin' Bob" wrote: 
  
 > If we are to trust the vote taker to make the determination of the 
 > results of a Usenet vote on a CFV why is it then necessary or even 
 > desirable to post the email addresses of any of those who voted? I 
  
 Because it has always been done that way, and has the advantage that all 
 can see how individuals cast their votes.  In particular, if someone were 
 to promise everyone that s/he really supported some proposal, and yet 
 voted against (or vice versa) then their lack of integrity would be known 
 about before the next vote. 
  
 All the same, it does stem from an age when the Internet was a more 
 civilized place. 
  
 > went through this on the rec.gambling.poker.moderated vote and unless 
 > the process is changed in the future I don't intend to ever vote 
 > again. 
  
 You really have nothing to fear from someone posting unmunged addresses 
 to newsgroups: spammers (strictly, senders of UCE/UBE) do not, as widely 
 believed, harvest any part of the bodies of articles.  Indeed, the 
 majority of harvesting is done from web sites (and I /don't/ mean Google 
 groups).  So please don't get paranoid. 
  
 > If the vote taker is trusted enough to take the votes he should also 
 > be trusted enough to check for voter fraud without posting the 
 > addresses for the nasty trolls to later repost for the world to see. 
 > I'd appreciate some feedback on this matter from the news.groups 
 > folks. 
  
 Please see my  in the "Ping Tony 
 Stromboli" subthread resulting from the colx vote. 
  
 -- 
 Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk 
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi- 
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet 
    software and decent hardware support." 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)