There are several issues I want to address in this message. One is communication style, another is the nature of my anonymous service, and finally, what I think about the whole thing. On communication style: some people have this delusion that they can write to others and expect or even demand a reply. Well, it isn't so. If someone writes to me, I'm under no a priori obligation to read, to try to understand, or to spend effort replying. This is irrespective of the style *or* the content of their message. In general, the only thing that obligates one to answer another is the prior respect that one should have for others -- which has to be lived up to in *their* actions. Mr. Detweiler simply blew it. His original message was full of insults and insinuations and, quite frankly, he should consider himself honored that I bothered to tell him where he went wrong. _Of course_, any legitimate issues he brought up in the same message weren't addressed. He demanded of me that I address those issues -- and that I deal with hus abusiveness. As you may guess, I really have no interest in addressing Mr. Detweiler directly; I figure he's got a few years of mental development to go through before I'll consider him fit for carrying out any sort of rational conversation with. However, others have been more reasonable and I'll try to address some of their concerns and to point out some of the relevant circumstances surrounding my service. The first thing you need to understand is that my anonymous service is integral to a specific community of people who have suffered through childhood abuse and adult sexual abuse. (In fact, essentially everyone on the group who is dealing with adult sexual abuse is also dealing with childhood abuse.) It is intended only for the users of a specific set of newsgroups, alt.sexual.abuse.recovery and its .d group. On the newsgroup, there are usually several individuals who are "that close" to committing suicide. Some will be shortly, or have been recently, in psychiatric wards. Most have been in, or are contemplating, psychological therapy of one sort or another. Quite a few are taking medication for various psychiatric conditions. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss the wherefors and whys of abuse recovery; you'll just have to take it as a given that the rules used for understanding people in general won't work so well when applied to this newsgroup, or to my anonymous service. I provide a service to people who, at least in specific areas, are not rational, who are definitely irrational. I know of, for example, one person who went into convulsions simply because they received e-mail from a person who, many years ago, had abused a child. In line with that, my service differs from the standard anonymous services. One is that it *is* integrated into the community. I am a survivor myself, I offer personal assistance (in computer matters) to people in the group, I forward the newsgroup via e-mail to those who can't get it otherwise, and so on. These are all part of what I do, not just running the anonymous service. (In fact, I have to occasionally correct the erroneous belief that I am responsible for the newsgroup; not surprising when you realize that over half the newsgroup goes through my server.) My service has things like being able to turn on and off e-mail forwarding. People can remove themselves from the server automatically. Shortly, people will be able to specify by id who they do or do not get e-mail from. The other area where my service differs is that the others provide two distinct functions, confidentiality and privacy, but there is no attempt, or reason, to protect their users from any sort of e-mail. It's enough to deal with harassment claims when they arise. In mine, I've chosen a different direction. I've decided to make the attempt to keep out specific types of e-mail, with the cost that I cannot guarantee privacy from me. Also, I probably have a higher standard of confidentiality than the other two services. (This is not intending to suggest that there's anything wrong with their standards, just that I suspect mine are a bit tighter.) People on the newsgroup post their innermost secrets and fears and many have a need to believe that those won't then be used against them. (And, for that reason, the default for e-mail forwarding is "off".) Public posting is one thing but it is quite easy for one skilled in the art of abusing (and, yes, there are such people and they do read the newsgroup, getting a kick out of the pain of others) to manipulate people behind the scenes into abusive situations and in such a way as to keep the victim from being able to speak of what is going on. *That*, and similar things, are what this is all about. As to my thoughts on the relevant principles. As I mentioned, I am an Objectivist. That may clue you as to where I'm coming from. But in case not, the primary fact is that I'm offering a *private* service. I run it out of my home, using my phone lines, and paid for with my money. While I offer it to all on the newsgroup, it *is* *not* intended for the general public. Only survivors and their supporters are legitimate users. (Though I tend to be lax on that. Just as I am with my encryption proscription. There are users who send encrypted e-mail through my service but they have recieved my prior permission to do so.) No one, other than myself, has any right to specify what I do with this, beyond the minimum of respecting their rights. Their rights do not extend to arbitrary protection of their confidentiality or privacy. Those who use my anonymous service have an implicit right to protection of their anonymity *and that is all*. (And even that is only up to a point.) Any other protections I offer beyond that are mine to choose; they are not implicit in an anonymous server. In addition to confidentiality, I offer privacy in two ways: from others, because it is necessary to protect confidentiality, and from myself, because no one likes their innermost thoughts gratuitously pawed over by one who is essentially a complete stranger. But that latter privacy is only with respect to *gratuitous* invasion by myself. Beyond that, I offer a watchful eye to keep abuses in hand. The bottom line is this: I provide a useful service to over half of the newsgroup. Most of its users are happy with it. Most people who have communicated with me, who are or are potentially legitimate users of my service, have been either neutral or positive about my policies. (Yes, most people who have expressed dislike for my policies are outsiders.) As things are, they work well. No change is *necessary* though some may be *desirable*. Careful thought and respectful dialog may convince me of desirable changes. Logicless rhetoric and verbal abuse, however, will, at best, cause me to ignore both the speaker and his message.