Calling Anonymous Posters

To the Anon poster on Kathleen's journal:

I think we've both (assuming there is one poster) taken up enough column inches on Kathleen's journal. My thanks to her for hosting such a long thread. Since our postings veered off topic, it seems fair to start a new thread here.

Now, to business:

Daniel, why post things if you can't handle the responses? I'm not complaining about your posting things, I am criticizing the content of your posts. You guys are soooo concerned about my bloody name rather than what I have posted.

You appear to be the one who has trouble handling responses.

I too, when responding to what I believe are your posts, respond to your content. When you talked human rights, I talked human rights. When you complained about being chastised for being anonymous, I addressed those claims. When you (was it you?) wanted to talk about what makes a hero, I talked about qualities I admire in heroes.

No one is impeding your ability to post anonymously, so I don't see why you keep claiming people are trying to shut you up.

I can't speak for Kathleen, but my interest is simply being able to reference past comments in a thread without my debate partner being able to say "that wasn't me." Psuedonyms accomplish this while preserving the anonymity you crave.

Sometimes people just want to drop by, leave a single comment or two and leave. It doesn't make sense to make them register.

But someone such as yourself who appears to post frequently (are they all you?) and who is very happy to call me by name and bring up my past record (as anyone is free to do) would be courteous if they either registered (I don't care under what name) or emulated Duke Ender by using a distinctive tag line.

You have the right to post without being courteous, but you you are not entitled not be called on it.

Comments

Fang-Face, Incondicional or Bibliofuture? Yes.

I agree, if the faceless ones could be anon1 or anon2 or anon3 then one could keep a sense of structure. I never know if the poster is going to be a rational anon or a knee-jerky anon. and I just find them uninteresting.I will read posters with names I can track like Fang-Face, Incondicional or Bibliofuture.

Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Games

Daniel: I initially didn't think it was a big deal to post anonymously. I was doing it more for convenience. But now, I do it for the principle. That it annoys you and mc is gravy.

You want me to put my mark on my posts for impeachment purposes. You want to write, "...well, Renee Richards, you are contradicting your earlier post in that..." Now this is a pretty valid concern on your part, but that would make it too easy. Wouldn't it? Come on, don't be naive; comments exists for the freak-show atmosphere (I suspect I overpunctuated this sentence). In my humble opinion, I think LISNews would really blow if it wasn't for the food fights. A person can only take the "Are books dead yet meme", "Google is great/Google is evil", and the oh-so-typical left-wing Bush-bashing in moderate doses.

Others want names to keep lists so they can label people and do the odd little things that they do. They get their thrills "outing" people. "Free speech for me, but not for thee" is a way of life for some.

For as long as it is an option, I'll use it. If the owner of LISNews wants to kick me off, I'm sure the owner of LISNews will do that. If so, I just won't post and you won't spend as much time being overly concerned with my identity.

BTW, it is not a right to post anonymously, it is a privilege.

N.B. Total speculation on my party, but: You don't have kids, do you? If you did, I bet you'd handle this differently.

Re:Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Games

Sorry to hear that you enjoy food fights more than dialog. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Re:Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Games

...but that would make it too easy. Wouldn't it? Come on, don't be naive; comments exists for the freak-show atmosphere...

I do not think this is true of all comments. Comments can lead to real discussion and education of issues. Your comment of "freak-show" suggests that people comment and read comments just for amusement.

It sounds like you might post anon just so people can not effectively counter your comments. If you post anon, like many others, the comments run together and others cannot tell who posted what and follow your train of thoughts. It would be much easier to present and argue your thoughts if people could follow the history of your postings.

The fact you post anon just to aggrevate and annoy is very small of you.

Re:Fang-Face, Incondicional or Bibliofuture? Yes.

Good. I knew the light-switch would go on, eventually. Good luck, ironwill.

Re:Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Games

But aren't you a tad bit concerned about what the anonymous poster linked to at Shush regarding "outing" people who hold certain ideas?

Re:Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Games

I think you maintain you anon-status but still have some type of name that allows people to follow a conversation. With a few people posting under anon, it can be confusing. Just pick a random name that no one can track back to you.

Re:Fang-Face, Incondicional or Bibliofuture? Yes.

I agree with the good Doctor on this one. If there were some way to differentiate the anonymous patrons I would be more comfortable with AP.

One does not have to use their real name, a nom de plume is fine. Just so we can keep track of the players without a program.

Re:Fang-Face, Incondicional or Bibliofuture? Yes.

That's an interesting idea, and it could be done (kinda)One thing to keep in mind, slashcode is written by people whose primary goal is crowd control. There are many many things I see on the backend you (the unwashed masses) can't see on the front end. Every comment that is posted has an IPID "hash" associated with it, I can browse by IPID "hash". IPID is not the same thing as an IP, all I see is a short string of letters (e.g. asdhe or 8dhd) that I see. SO, sometimes I can tell who left what comment as AP if they've also signed in with their regular username using that same IP.So it would be possible to do that, but it would cause some APs to be sold out. It's not something I could ever have the time to write, but it might be worth an RFE to the slashcode guys.Coincedently I have a full explanation of what I see almost written I started last night that I'll be posting soon, so a quick summary only tonite.

Re: The owner of LISNews

I think I've only banned a couple people, maybe one other, but for the most part most LISNewsterz (Anonymous or not) are resonably well behaved. If I banned everyone who was a jerk it'd be pretty quiet around here unfortunatly. There has been times I had to play ref, and a couple journal posts have REALLY gone over the line, but I guess we've been lucky so far.It would take alot to get kicked out of here, hell, I haven't even kicked Fang out ;-)

We Can Kill Anonymous Patron

Remember back a couple years we all did decide to turn the Anonymous Patron account off completely because there were a couple people who were way out of line and enough people gave the thumbs up. I turned it off after the election, and it's been fine since.If enough people think it's time to revist Anonymous Patron posting privlages please do let me know. Personally I don't think we're at that point, but I like to leave that decision to the "community"

Don't sell out APs

"So it would be possible to do that, but it would cause some APs to be sold out. It's not something I could ever have the time to write, but it might be worth an RFE to the slashcode guys."Hi Blake, I don't think tracking comments is worth the possibly of selling out APs. There's enough thoughtful comments, extra information that I wouldn't want to see APs outed. Especially if it was a whisteblower just dropping off a needed bit of information. Hasn't happened yet, but you never know.Thanks for being interested in the issue of "telling people apart without a program." I'm with mdoneil on that.

Re: The owner of LISNews

It would take alot to get kicked out of here, hell, I haven't even kicked Fang out ;-)

Ah, it's always an ego boost to find you that you really are setting standards. :-)

Re:We Can Kill Anonymous Patron

If enough people think it's time to revist Anonymous Patron posting privlages please do let me know.

I'm opposed from the viewpoint of Zen Buddhism. In Buddhism, even your enemy is a friend in the context that he, she, or it provides you with an opportunity to develop self-discipline and to promote spiritual growth through patience (read: tolerance).

The downside is that is that developing self-discipline is such a pain in the patootie.

The difficulty with this particular anonymous poster lies with the laws of thermodynamics. Destruction is alway easier than construction, whether one is working on a building, an argument, or a thought process. And this one (or one in particular) has clearly demonstrated that he, she, or it has no interest in rational debate. The several petty comments posted about me have shown that, along with the comment:

. . . don't be naive; comments exists for the freak-show atmosphere . . .

I don't post comments to promote any "freak-show atmosphere" even though I do sometimes post to be deliberately provocative. (Note to AP: the difference is that I do it with style; you don't.) We have already seen that only a couple of loud-mouth-with-a-bitch-but-no-brains types can divert discussion and debate into flame wars with very little effort, which is why the feature was deselected a couple of years ago. The thing to keep in mind is that each of us is responsible for his or her actions. Or reactions as the case may be. Ultimately: if you let yourself get sucked into a flame war, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Snide contents are content free; they rankle, but can be left alone to fester like the vomitrocious slop they are. More complex comments that are merely trolls are equally easy to identify, although they tend to draw a response because most of us can't let misinformation and disinformation go unchallenged. You can always set yourself a limit -- say no more than two sallies, although the fallacious logic of the troll is most apparent after the third sally.

When in doubt: let it go.

Them's my two cents.

+1 insightful, if I could mod and post

Lots of good advice I'll try to take to heart.Plus, I heartily agree with:

I'm opposed from the viewpoint of Zen Buddhism. In Buddhism, even your enemy is a friend in the context that he, she, or it provides you with an opportunity to develop self-discipline and to promote spiritual growth through patience (read: tolerance).

From a Christian perspective, we say it is an opportunity to see Christ in all of His wretched disguises and an opportunity to practice the mercy and love of God whose sun and rain fall on just and unjust alike.On comments in general, I find most of them to either be informative or add additional context. Little freak show atmosphere.

Okay, okay

In light of me being a uniter and not a divider, I have opted to reveal my identity: My name is Inigo Montoya. You Killed My Father. Prepare To Die!

Re:Fang-Face, Incondicional or Bibliofuture? Yes.

Oh, AP knows this is possible and even probable. AP would not be surprised that someone might out AP that way. It would reinforce AP's notion that certain people on LISNews will go to any length to out people for their beliefs. It would show that certain people on LISNews don't really believe it when they say they respect privacy or when other people post statements like, "... [he] is unafraid of opinions different from his own and sees no reason to suppress them. He may be wrong and often is. Factual errors should stamped out as quickly as possible."

Re:We Can Kill Anonymous Patron

(Note to AP: the difference is that I do it with style; you don't.)

Hey Mr. Style, you've been on record calling groups/individuals the "Christian Taliban" and other times calling groups/individuals "Hitler". That always gets one style points.

Re:+1 insightful, if I could mod and post

Hey Daniel, do tell us how mc's comments (regarding the VP's hunting accident where she invokes a term like "chickenhawk") were informative or added additional context?

Re:We Can Kill Anonymous Patron

Suckered you into replying to that dig, didn't I?

Re:We Can Kill Anonymous Patron

And you did it with so much style, didn't you?

Syndicate content