tallpaul writes:

I was going to post on this topic, especially on a paraphrase of the (ostensible) original. I still want to, but let me play either the skeptical or responsible journalist (reader's choice of adjectives).

Anonymous has *not* revealled the original source as he/it/she claimed. They have asserted it came from Xinhua news agency. Will Anonymous post a pointer to where we can access on the internet the original? News feed, date, and time of posting, as well as message ID should suffice.

I hope these headers are sufficient. I used the Clarinet news feed on Netcom to get the original copy of the text. No doubt the story is on archive sites elsewhere. I did _not_ post the original to cpunks. From: C-reuters@clari.net (Reuters) Subject: China calls for measures against Internet porn Message-ID: <Rchina-internetURelN_5DV@clari.net> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 9:20:13 PST Newsgroups: clari.tw.new_media,clari.news.issues.censorship, clari.world.asia.china,clari.tw.issues,clari.news.sex,clari.news.issues.misc, clari.news.censorship,clare.tw.misc Thus, this is the first of the two stories you cited in "Will the real Anonymous please stand up". <199601040332.WAA24066@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com> tallpaul also writes:

Herewith is where my confusion developed by Anonymous #1, posted as Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 18:34:56 -0600, Message-Id: <199601010034.SAA07422@tjava.com>:

I am the author of that message.

The story as presented by Anon #1, while supposedly from Reuters quotes the Associated Press, something that rarely if even happens.

The original of the story does quote Xinhua. I personally thought it was a nice satirical touch to equate Xinhua and the Associated Press. Apparently, my irony was lost.

Another story, posted by Anonymous #2 (presumably the same entity as Anonymous #1), posted as Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:25:12 +0100, Message-Id: <199601010025.BAA04537@utopia.hacktic.nl> is slugged "BEIJING (AP)_ " and quotes Xinhua News Agency;

Not the same anonymous. That was the AP story, and I believe is legitimate.

A reference by Anonymous #3 (presumably the same entity as Anon #1 & #2), posted as Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:47:35 -0800, Message-Id: <199601032247.OAA00603@jobe.shell.portal.com> states that the faked story changed the words "Xinhua news agency" to "the Associated Press."

That's me, thus the same as #1, but different from #2.

Add to this is the confusion that several entities are posting to the cp list using the same name -- "Anonymous" -- without differentiating their posts from any of the other posts by (inferentially) other entities with the same name.

I agree this is confusing. I considered signing my posts "Mallet D'nonymous," but decided that would be too much of a taunt.

Scientific discussions to which people wish to contribute anonymously are OK with me; the same discussions that are starting to resemble the confusion of a Month Python skit are not.

I _do_ apologize for the confusion. I thought it was going to be a nice clean satire, but the two wire stories made things more complicated, and I perhaps did not step in to clear the confusion when I should have. The only reason I'm being anonymous is to protest the copyright laws. Theoretically, my post may have been a violation of Reuters' copyright. I believe this is the same reason why Anon #2 chose to be anonymous, but of course I have no way of knowing for sure.