This isn't the most egregious example, but if the line is beng drawn,
it's best that it be absolute...
In this Times, a declaration of war is attributed to a character and
faction (falsely, I might note), and there is an "aka Ben" after it.
Since Ben had nothing to do with said bogus message, allowing it to be
"signed" by him seems pretty abusive, particularly since the format used
is _precisely_ the sort of thing that people talked about as a way to
"sign" a message... save that the response address is a pbm.com address,
whch means that whoever did itlacked the chutzpah to sign it with Ben's
reall email address.
IAC, I think that this steps over the boundary -- again -- of what the
Times _should_ alow, and that Rich, who presumably _does_ know where this
piece of tripe came from should have a very serious conversation with the
The objection, to restate it, is that people are involving players in
_in game_ messages to the Times. Since it has internally erroneous
"facts" in it, it can be shredded into small pieces for the Olympian public.