>Hi Joe, just for "argument" sake,
>
>>there are a few problems...like, John Smith is not the John Smith I was chatting with yesterday
>
>you can create firstname/lastname eg. From: John Low To: Joseph Kempel in UT.
>


What are you disagreeing with? The original poster's point was to make things more simple by not having unique usernames...just unique passwords. Of course we can add more fields and only show the users some fields, but that was not the original poster's idea...I am not arguing about how the UT does things...where did you get this idea? BTW, if we use firstname/lastname fields, they will also have to be unique to avoid the same confusion. So call it username or firstname/lastname, it still has to be unique. What is your point?

>>now I can take a list of users and I know that one of those users are using that password...
>
>I believe you don't know my username here in UT, do you???

No, I don't. But you are forgetting the original post. The idea was to eliminate a field that is not private (eg. username or firstname/lastname) and just have a unique private (password) field.


John, I really am not sure what you are arguing about...do you agree with the original post?

Joe