In this thread, we will see Zardoz repeat a different bit of Usenet lore, this one perpetuated by those who would keep Usenet the coward's paradise that it has been. I refer to the 'urban legend' that holds that it is a violation of copywrite law to repost a flame e-mailed to one. Now, this myth was started by an author who admitted that he had no legal background, and may easily be dispelled by a visit to an actual attorney. Let us note how often this 'rule' is violated online and how rarely one hears of a successful suit resulting from this (try, never). Like the three-fold delusion mentioned above, it is a vain attempt to drive away fear. In this case, the fear that if one's rude behavior is made fully public, that one may be treated by others as one treated the recipient of one's rude behavior.
It is the fear of the bully, as he gathers with his friends to gang up on one lone individual, that the lone individual might get some people to come to his assistance - or worse, god forbid, that people might get in the habit of doing so on behalf of each other, and assembling lynch mobs might get to be more hazardous, and less effective, than it used to be. There is a type of person on Usenet that when encountering a post that contradicts a pet theory, instead of talking things out rationally in public, will join together with a few dozen of his d**ky little friends, and bury the dissident - or his sysop, if the victim to be has dared to erect a mail filter - in e-mail reading like the transcripts of a series of obscene phone calls. This group of people - this cabal - is not seeking open and rational discussion, when it goes online in 'its' group. It is seeking validation and control.
If it succeeds, those who disagree with it will be mostly terrorised into not doing so openly on the group. Those who do persist can then be easily ganged up on, and a little rumor mongering will guarantee that most newcomers to the group won't be willing to examine the dissenter's posts with an open mind (see the introduction, main page). Finding the whole exercise pointless, the initial hold outs eventually give up and the dissenting lurkers find the group no longer worth reading, and leave. The cabal now has total control of the group. What poses as an open forum is reduced to being nothing more than a propaganda tool for those who have bullied their way into domination of the newsgroup.
Like any gang, it can be a bit much for the lone individual to deal with, but is not so big that the community couldn't deal with it, if it organised. Thus, for these few to deny the many their right of free self expression and see to it that only the ideas they approve of will be heard, they will try to see to it that those attacked are denied an effective way of seeking support when ganged up on. What more effective way could there be than to expose those who sent abuse to the possibility that their hate mail will be replied to by a second crowd, in kind? Thus the "rule" about reposting e-mail, which is given to be a rule of "netiquette", because "we say so". But why should the rest of us honor a rule, never given a rational defense, with such an obvious sleazy application? Why should the rest of us feel obligated to be this gullible?