Posting anonymously

Subject: Privacy Issues and Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:07 PM

Left this site to go read my evening web news, and what pops up on the Netscape News window, but this, courtesy Reuters

I edited for space and relevance. Story can be found at tonight's Netscape News.

Knowing I risk the wrath of site admin. and others for lengthy quoting, but clearly, people need to pause and consider other issues beside their own comfort levels. People get fired, families lose providers, etc etc

Please, just rethink your positions on anonymous posting/posters.

All

Third of U.S. Employees' Web Use Monitored - Study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than one-third of U.S. employees who browse the Web and use e-mail at work have their Internet use systematically monitored by their employers, a privacy group said on Monday.

The Privacy Foundation found employee monitoring to be growing rapidly, spurred by the cheap price of surveillance software and concerns about productivity and sexual-harassment liability.

The study found that of the 40 million U.S. workers who have Internet access in the office, 14 million, or 35 percent, are constantly monitored by their employers.

Worldwide, 27 million of the 100 million with Internet access were monitored.

Unlike earlier studies of workplace surveillance, which were based on questionnaires or surveys, the Privacy Foundation based its numbers on sales figures of monitoring software such as Websense Inc. (WBSN.O) and Baltimore Technologies Inc. (BALT.O)'s MIMEsweeper.

Surveillance software allows employers to monitor and record the Internet activity of an entire office, not just workers engaging in suspicious or potentially damaging behavior.

Federal law gives employers broad latitude to monitor their workers' activities, especially when they are using company computers or other equipment.

While the software may be cheap -- as low as $5.25 per employee -- its low cost and ease of use makes it easy for companies to overstep personal boundaries, said report author Andrew Schulman, chief researcher at the Privacy Foundation's Workplace Surveillance Project.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: 8_Pints
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:26 PM

The issue is I take it whether personal use of the net whilst at work, or are you concerned on a broader question of any messages?

It seems to me that work related messages are a legitimate concern for employers. What happens if a staff member becomes ill, incapacitated or resigns. For the sake of continuity the correspndence must be accessible to successors.

Illigitimate use of email for private messaging hardly requires any ethical consideration - just don't do it without permission. Its only good manners!

Bob vG

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:38 PM

Bob vG

IMO, issue isn't about responsible employers, but irresponsible ones.

I once had employers convince an apartment caretaker of a very large complex, that he should break into my apartment to check on my "safety" because I hadn't reported for work "as required."

A day after I had called and resigned, refusing to come in again. The caretaker obliged, and my apartment was invaded, ransacked, etc.

Also, point worth considering. Spy technology is cheap. It isn't only employers using it. Without guest log-in and guarantees of anonymity, people are required to use email, also easy to monitor.

Just asking that people consider that you *will* lock people out of this forum without an enlightened policy on guest log-ins and anonymous posting options. You don't know or care (or, it appers, have much empathy for) what their reasons are for doing so. Including positions on the right to free speech here, which I haven't mentioned, others have. Some people have very strong opinions on it, including those in folk scene.

Is that Mudcat's intention to keep them out by not welcoming/informing? If so, fine. Forum belongs to you.

But if not, then IMO, site owner owes it to forum users to notify them of same up front in writing (ie faq).

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:38 PM

For myself, I use the net in my own time and at my own expense; anybody who does it in their employer's time -and at their employer's expense- really has no right to complain about being monitored; privacy is not, in that case, either a right or even an issue.  I also believe that it is important to accept responsibility for our own actions, so I always post under my real name; if I say something that is incorrect, or inappropriate, then I have to live with it, where an anonymous correspondent does not.  It is simply a question of having the courage of one's convictions, and accepting that one may, from time to time, get things wrong.  I have no difficulty in admitting that I have been wrong in points of fact, and I apologise, more often than not (though quite possibly not often enough), if I have hurt peoples' feelings.  This doesn't strike me as a difficult thing to do.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:42 PM

Malcolm,

Seems an easy position for one who has the luxury of posting with one's own resources.

Many don't have that luxury or wealth. Sure, they might be "breaking the rules" to come here. But your response seems pretty harsh for something you claim is pretty harmless. I don't know of anyone in my workplace (and it is very large) who don't technically break the rules.

If you want to side with employers, its your right. On this, we definitely disagree.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:03 PM

Surfing the web from work is a form of theft. People who do so are using equipment that doesn't belong to them, occupying bandwith on an internet connection that their employer pays for, and killing time that they are being paid for doing something else. We advise employees of this when they begin and periodically afterwards. We also tell them that they are free to do so during breaks and lunch.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:06 PM

Hmmmm...

Seems I'm landed in a company town in a "right to work for less" state.

Folk management?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:07 PM

It's not a luxury so much as a privilege quite dearly bought; I don't, for example, have the luxury of the relative security of being employed (I am a freelance illustrator) or the kind of wealth available to people who get a regular paycheck: I am poor by many people's standards -quite likely by yours- but have learned to live with it, and with the resultant limitations it involves.  Nor do I side with employers against employees (I have, after all, no reason to); I'm simply saying that if you do the equivalent of stealing from the stationery cupboard, you are not necessarily doing anything very bad, but have no right to complain if you get caught!

We posted simultaneously before, incidentally, so my remarks didn't relate to your second message, which I obviously don't have the knowledge or experience to comment on.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:15 PM

Et tu Malcolm?

Assumptions about my income?

Just got my latest Social Security Statement in teh mail. Other Americans will know what this is.

I'm late middle aged. Have yet to break the $10,000 year mark. Many years show zero from raising kids. Monthly rent $1200/mo. No second income of spouse/SO, just roommates. We share our networked computers at home. Learned the hard way not to use the email provided by employer, when posting off site, on our own time.

S'pose we had it coming, cuz ignorance and no laws is just an unlucky combination.

Not looking for sympathy votes, BTW. Just to say, do people really believe it just so simple to say "theft from the employer, your problem?"

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:19 PM

"All"

It is not that straight forward.

Employers often do wink at casual internet abuse. They punish only the worst offenders. But if they don't monitor, they do not know who the offenders are. Also there is quite a bit of harrassment going on via company email and the internet. Employers need the means to catch the offenders so that they can protect their employees.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:21 PM

RobDale, others

Glad you trust employers. I don't. Never will.

Am going to bed.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:26 PM

Bollocks

1, you don't have to use your real name (apart from catspaw49 who insists on using his). All you need to do is use a regular nickname

2, If it's traceable to your computer anyway, then it doesn't matter whether you use a name or not.

I am not so blind as to be unable to see the wood for the trees.

I hold little stock in pamphlet quoting. I find that many people do it, not to back up any valid point, but to create a smokescreen designed to hide the shallowness of their thinking.

Do you have a better excuse?

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:42 PM

PS

We are "virtually" socializing when we interact on the net. If someone felt that they had the right to make comments about me or to me without telling me their name (or nickname) when asked, in any other social environment, I would seriously wonder why and I would stop talking to them.

If they persisted, I would tell them to leave me alone in increasingly unpleasant language, and probably prepare to protect myself.

Think about it.

It's very strange behaviour.

hmmmmmm.........

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:04 PM

When you are at work, the computers are *theirs*, the network is *theirs, the internet access is *theirs*, your time is *theirs*. So long as there is not a camera in the bathroom, they have the right to monitor their equipment, and their dollars and cents. Surfing the internet while on the job is no better than watching soaps or calling your best friend for hours on end whilst working. It is theft, as they are not paying you to play on the internet. Unless, of course, they are paying you to play on the internet, in which case, you have nothing to worry about and need not be anonymous (and where do I apply?)

I would also like to add that, when someone posts "anonymously" with respect and politeness, that is one thing. To hide behind anonymity in order to post something nasty is sheer cowardice. Why should the owners of this site have to be accomplice to that if they do not wish to?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,mmm1a
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:17 PM

My boss would laugh him self sillier then he already is ,if he ever heard me say this , but.... when I go to work I am there to work (definately not pleasure ) I put in 8 or more hours and am payed for it. To use the internet (if I had access to it)for my own pleasure would be stealing , plain and simple. Alot of public libraries now have computers with internet access , better to go there then risk losing your job. mmm

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:24 PM

I don't think that saying "quite likely by yours" implies any undue assumption on my part about Guest All's income, which is neither my concern nor my business.  He or She's comment, "Many don't have that luxury or wealth" to which I was replying, does, however, seem to make an assumption about mine.  He or she has apparantly allowed themself the expensive indulgence of having children, which is one of the things I have foregone because I chose instead the relative freedom (and the considerable risk) of living outside the framework of conventional employment, which I did in no small part because I did not trust the employer class, having, for example, seen what they did to my father.  That implies no superiority on Guest All's part or on mine; simply that we have elected to follow different paths in life.  As I have said, we have to accept responsibility for our actions, and for their consequences, or we surrender the right to have our opinions taken seriously in the first place.  Most of us are not so significant in the scheme of things that we need to conceal our identities in order to express ordinary opinions in a public forum, though I accept that G(All) may have good reasons for doing so of which I am unaware.  It's a bit difficult to refer to her, or to him, in anything other than the third person without being able to tell whether any particular message comes from him/her or not, though; I would genuinely welcome a more open dialogue, and would appreciate the courtesy of at least a consistent name which I might address.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:26 PM

Dear Celtic Soul,

Your points are valid and true. However, GUEST does not care about that (let alone understand why).

He claimed to be writing from his office, and then he went to bed.

If he wasn't writing from the office, then he could have used a name.

Either he actually does have his own computer (the imperialist pig), or else he can sleep at the office whenever he wants, and doesn't have to worry about the setbacks he quoted in the article.

My earlier postings are aimed directly at him/her.

You show good character in giving the benefit of the doubt, however, I feel it is misplaced in this context.

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:34 PM

I do not "Trust" employers. I do not trust most people. But I do trust employers to behave as employers. Trouble is they are allowed to do that type of monitoring. To protect themselves from liability, they will. That is a reality we all have to accept. How we deal with it makes the difference.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:17 AM

Late middle-aged? Yet to crack $10,000 a year ? Gimme a break ....

Murray

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: hesperis
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:38 AM

Social Security doesn't give enough to get a person over the poverty line. So that part of it may be true. For the rest, I'm staying out of it.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 04:05 AM

my internet use is always at home. In the great scheme of things, I probably work 4 or five hours unpaid, each day, for my employer and in the UK I know I am not alone in that. If therefore, I use the odd biro for home usage or the ocassional pair of scissors does not get returned, I do not lose sleep over it. If I had the time to use the internet at work, I would equally feel no guilt about it. On reflection, I wish I had used my own name, but that has come about since meeting more and more catters.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:54 AM

Malcolm,

Meaning no harm to you.

You say privlege, I say luxury. Not far apart is it? How you define your privlege and I my luxury is each up to us.

As to the use of the Internet by employees, I made it clear we have different positions, don't wish to argue.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 07:19 AM

What is the point of this thread?

What has "posting anonymously" got to do with monitoring of Internet use? Posting anonymously doesn't safeguard you from your employer's monitoring processes.

And don't assume that those of us who post from work necessarily do so in breach of our "terms of employment" or at any cost to our employer . .

And, of course, for those whose employers don't allow private Internet access, and who can't afford a PC, there are public libraries, Internet Cafes, etc.

I note - sadly - that even the question of whether someone has internet access of their own has become an excuse for name calling . .

George

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: bbc
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:10 AM

Just want to put my 2-cents' worth in on the side of those who choose to work during work hours. I take my job seriously. I appreciate being employed, as there have been times I wasn't & the bills kept arriving anyway. The only time I use the Internet at work is during my 30-minute lunch break. We each make our own choices in how we live. For me, it has less to do w/ respecting my employer than it does w/ respecting myself.

bbc

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: English Jon
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:32 AM

The nature of my work (sound engineering) is such that there is either a mad rush on, in which case, I'm not on Mudcat, but working myself into the ground, or there is sod all to do. This is part of the nature of the business. I do use the net far too much, but I am also bloody good at my job, and pretty much indespensible to the company. I'm lucky in that my employers are pretty relaxed in general. As long as the work gets done well and on time, they don't mind how you go about it. Anyway, the pay is pretty low, so they tend to be cool about net use, phone calls etc, as long as no one really takes the piss. Other side of the coin being, if something urgent happens, most of the employees will turn up at weekends etc, generally move heaven and earth to complete on time.

EJ

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:40 AM

Could people seem to be confusing anonymous posting issues with SPAM?

Usenet standards don't define SPAM based on content. It is determined (by those who adhere to the definition) by the number of posts and the number of forums identical messages are posted to. Have a fancy formula for figuring this out.

Usenet standards also caution against any filtering/blocking/deleting based on content. That is a free speech issue, which actually does have a lot to do with anonymous posting in teh legal/cyber worlds right now.

Attempts by French government to ban anonymous posting in legislation in 1999? or thereabout. Many good, informative sites about this: do searches for organizations like Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), who recently published "85 recommendations for a democratice internet in 2000"

Concern with French legislation was that, even though the proposed law would require all website operators to disclose identity, the fear was it would be extended to individuals in chat rooms, bulletin boards, discussion groups like Mudcat.

Also, in U.S. recent "The1Quiz" case in Fla. In US, do searches for Electronic Frontier Foundation, ALCU, etc. to read about the case.

Whistleblowers need to have their anonymity protected. People who fear that expression of their opinions (which often the world needs to hear, and the employer/media (even folk media) don't want you to find out about, will result in retaliation or reprisals which can effect safety, their jobs, or even their ability to get work in folk communities!

Anon. poster(s) in CM/DB thread both gave legitimate reasons for anon. posting in that particular thread. IMO, free speech reasons. Reaction against their controversial opinions is now being thrown in with name calling, and immature flaming. Not the same. Not the same at all.

Maybe it will take a defamation lawsuit against certain parties by Dave Bulmer/Celtic Music to get people to wake up and smell the coffee.

I don't buy the "accountability" arguments. IMO, used by capitalist power brokers to justify everything from censorship to testing in the schools.

Compassionate conservatism seems to be the land here. Company town, and I guess Mudcat would be the company store.

Just my opinions, know and support enthusiastically everyone expressing theirs, whether anon, pseudyonym, or real name. Life is beckoning, no time to chat here for now. Hope your disussion of the issue, if you choose to carry it on, proves fruitful and illuminating to you.

All

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:08 AM

Lox, I don't agree that people need to use a name to accompany a posted message. It's nice when they do, but makes their opinions no less valid when they don't. As to the argument that people at a real-time party introduce themselves, that is not always true, especially at a very large party; sometimes they simply strike up a conversation, chat a while, and move on to the next conversation. So I see nothing wrong with doing so here.

IMO, all that is needed is for everyone here to respect one another and refrain from name-calling, insulting, and making assumptions about one another's status or work situation.

Remember the line from the BeeGees song? "We don't care what your name is, boy; we'll never turn you away..." Can't we be like that?

SharonA

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:09 AM

Lunch break? What's a lunch break??

G. And Guest, do us all a favour and FOAD, will you? Your credibility here is zero . . 'Suppose that's why you've chummed up with Bulmer . . Oh, do sue me for defamation, if you wish - my identity is quite open.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Gary T
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:22 AM

I recognize the line SharonA quoted from "Ferry 'Cross the Mersey," by Gerry and the Pacemakers. I haven't heard it by the Bee Gees.

I don't understand what connection there might be between posting anonymously and the issue of employers monitoring internet use. I'm the third one to mention this, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to how one relates to the other.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:24 AM

Sadly, GeorgeH, you have just answered my last question. Thanks loads.

Play nice, please!

SharonA

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:27 AM

Guest. If I wanted to send you a personal message about something, I can't. You and I must use a public forum which inhibits my ability to say something that I consider personal and private. I can send such a message to anyone who signs on as a member. Simply put; if you are not a member who are you, and do I really want to communicate with you? Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:33 AM

Yup, sorry, SharonA - lost my rag again. (I was returning to apologise - to other 'catters - for the terms in which I responded to Guest).

Not that I accept your basic point; there is no reason for anyone to welcome here those whose presence is entirely negative. Most folks do respond to polite reasoning, a very few don't.

G.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Celtic Soul
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:47 AM

I guess that some of the debate may be coming from peoples personal definition of "anonymous". Some people use handles that are not their given names, but post respectfully, and others are posting nasty messages while hiding behind guest names (Trolls).

The intent makes all the difference in my mind.

And Lox, you have many good points. Being anonymous from work does not inhibit the boss from monitoring your internet useage. I may be very naive here, and may be giving more benefit of doubt than is deserved, but I think that, as a new person here at the Cat, I am also being cut a great deal of slack by the long timers (for which I am very grateful). And I think the world would be a nicer place if there were more grace and good will, like in the "To those that think my arse..." thread.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:50 AM

GaryT

"The1Quiz" case is about anonymous postings made by a group of individuals, who seemed to have insider knowledge of a company's and its CEO's possible illegal business activities.

The individual CEO (not the company) sued Yahoo in Florida's 3rd district court, to force Yahoo to reveal the identities of the anonymous posters, who had revealed information about company & CEO in a financial/stock related newsgroup. CEO was claiming postings were libelous. Curiously, CEO has not claimed the content related to the purportedly illegal business activities of his company were wrong, avoiding dealing with "burden of proof" issues into whether the allegations were, in fact true.

This falls in a grey area--ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation defended one anonymous poster in the suit. CEO claims anonymous posters are "disgruntled former employees" but, of course, can't prove it without their identities.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:33 AM

Sharon A

please note the words "when asked" in my earlier post.

Imagine this - "and your name is....?" followed by a change of subject ... repeatedly avoiding the question.

If it is not odd behaviour, then it must be rudeness, since it demonstrates that the conversation is completely one sided, as one person is clearly not listening to the others concerns.

GeorgeH is not being rude, he is giving GUEST a chance to justify their position. The more the question is not answered, the more GUEST's credibility will suffer.

sherlox (nyuk,nyuk)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:39 AM

Thanks. Lox, but if you understood the acronym I used you would realise that, in fact, how I expressed myself was rude. I'd just read a few more polite requests to Guest to either respect the wishes of the majority round here or "go play someplace else", and was feeling rather exasperated . .

If you want me to PM you with a translation I'll do so . . and watch my esteem plumet further.

Cheers

George

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:49 AM

GUEST,

If the content were true it wouldn't by definition, be libel. It could be illegal, but if its true it isn't libel. All of that is interesting. But it has nothing to do with Mudcat. Or your first point. All most folks here are asking is that poster consistantly use the same nickname so that they know with whom they are conversing. I don't necessarily agree but it is not an unreasonable request.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,See below
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:54 AM

I am GUEST/All.

Signing the name at bottom of posts. Even some well known and liked local folk (Jenny) who posted to other thread same. Double standards perhaps?

Also, forgot to sign All last night (too tired).

Tried to correct immediately (also, as have seen others do), take responsibility for my post.

Am doing the best I can, and as much as I'm willing to do here.

Many people posting referring to me only as GUEST.

I have, on every message except ones noted, posted "All" as my sig. Probably help clarify the conversation if those complaining loudest about "GUEST/No name" postings would start referring to GUESTS--like All! :) who are using names.

No incendiary intentions posting this. Just seems people are making things needlessly (intentionally?) obtuse.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:15 AM

Not needlessly,

I'm sure that you will understand peoples uncertainty about GUEST's when there is so much flaming carried out by them.

I didn't see your reason for not putting a name as being valid, and I didn't understand why you seemed to be dodging the point.

I look forward to reading future posts from you GUEST-all.

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:15 AM

Guest/All (and others), at the risk of being obtuse, again, let me gently point out that the whole point of registering with Mudcat is so that a name is unique. Anyone can sign a post with any name (and they do), but nobody can use my unique, registered name but me.

I can also delete my cookie and commit all kinds of mischief.

I repeat, there is never a justification for anonymity.

All (see what I mean)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:23 AM

I like "see below" too.

It sounds like something from Batman (sub-zero)

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:29 AM

I hope this is the final thread in out regularly scheduled two month burp. This one is so confusing that and I'm so stupid that I can't find any salient point.....just assorted ramblings that go from A to Z. I know a lot of you are really trying to answer specific points, but taken as a whole, I can't find what the object of the exercise is here.

Have fun and if you have a clue as to what this is about, PM me.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:30 AM

Guest "All" it would kill you to put your name in the "from" spot?

You have several times complained about politeness of the "regulars" on this forum. Yet you are doing the verbal equivilant of refusing to take your shoes off while stepping onto the mats of a dojo, or into a traditional Japenese home.

No one here "requires" that you (or any guest) become a member - most of us do feel there are benefits to it. No one requires that you provide us with your real name, address, sex, age, etc. MOST of us however do prefer to have some kind of convenient and consistant "handle" to address someone by, and the appropriate place to put that is in the "from" spot when posting a message.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Gary T
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:31 AM

All--thanks for the clarification.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:33 AM

Sorry about that folks,

connection difficulties. Very annoying.

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,See below
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:43 AM

Thought it a happy compromise.

Others mileage may vary.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:52 AM

Gary T, you're right, of course: "Ferry 'Cross the Mersey" was done by Gerry and the Pacemakers, NOT the BeeGees. Mea culpa! (I still hope we can play nice, anyway!)

SharonA

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: IanC
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:54 AM

Well, Guest: See Below (quite a good appelation) I like the fact that you're identifying yourself. Means I'm inclined to join in the conversation. Must be inconvenient for you, though, putting "See Below" on all your posts and signing them below with another name as well.

Why don't you join Mudcat now and you can let the forum add your nom de plume

Cheers!
Ian

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:58 AM

yup - and that is a useful comprimise.... grazie

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,See below
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:09 PM

Gladness, graciousnes notwithstanding:

I am GUEST/All. I have posted since yesterday with that name, and I don't want it changed.

Not GUEST/See below.

See below means: I compromised with those who made what I saw as big deal over nothing: "Fill in the From: Line or we won't talk to you!"

Whaaa? I say to myself. What are they talking about.

Said so yesterday. Please read GUEST/All's posts a bit more carefully!

Not filling in the From line and signing at bottom is something others GUESTs do too, as noted (Jenny Bellamy)

Don't like double standards.

Feel I've been playing fair all along, identifying myself: "All" in every post, except last night.

Why aren't people reading what is actually being said by "All"?

Harumph, I say.

Compromise means we both get some satisfaction out the deal.

Don't address me as "GUEST/See below"

Just follow the directions, like you are told to do :)

You can always find me here.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:12 PM

Lox: Oh! "...when asked"! I get it now. *enlightenment dawns* But the persistence of the anonymity already answers the "What's your name?" question with "I'd prefer not to say". I guess the heart of the debate here is whether that's a polite/legitimate/acceptable response. IMHO it's less polite than actually TYPING "I'd prefer not to say", so if GUESTs can type those words without being badgered as to their reasons for their preference, maybe that's the solution.

All: I like "see below" too (especially the fact that it's got more characters than "All") – hee hee!

SharonA

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: IanC
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:19 PM

Guest, See Below

Names are a 2-way affair. They're what people call you ... what they understand when they see you. People can address anyone as they like (they often seem to have done so to you far more rudely). My teenage children have all gone throught the "Don't call me ..." stage and grown out of it.

Please don't get all excited and upset, it isn't necessary. If you want us to call you "All", why don't you just use "All" in your From: line? Doesn't seem all that hard to me. Or oppressive.

I seldom do what I'm told (but then neither do you).

Cheers!
;-)
Ian

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:24 PM

Sorry "all" - I haven't ever seen a post from Jenny Bellamy, nor can I find any with the search, nor do I know which "other" thread she posted upon; so I have no idea how frequent a poster she is nor how often she has "been" here, therefore I cannot comment on double standards.

My "standard" is that for more then one shot questions *I* would prefer to see some kind of consistant name following the "guest" in the from slot. It DOES help communication to know with whom you are interacting. I have experienced this over and over again working a telephone support desk. Though I have met very few of my clients - but I have a name for all but a fraction of a percent. And rarely do I get two calls from the same person without getting a name.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:36 PM

Whaaa? I say to myself. What are they talking about.

She (or he) still doesn't get it. Or possibly one of our regular trolls. Who cares?

You're right, Spaw.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:50 PM

I really dont understand this thread at all, I am very confused

John in Hull (puzzled)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Noreen
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:58 PM

MMario, Jenny Bellamy posted once to the thread-which-must-not-be-named, as she had relevant information to contribute. As far as I know she has not contributed before or since.

There is the difference, GUEST/All. When one wants to continue a relationship/conversation, it is wise to try and fit in with what is expected, as I am sure Jenny would. Another irrelevant point.

Noreen

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:07 PM

All.

Initials: A-l-l.

Sorry for exasperation IanC, have tried to be reasonable. Initially embarrassed by scrutiny of the way I posted as a GUEST, went straight to message box and started typing, didn't go back to From line before "Submit message"

A few haughty sniffs later, some point finger: "fill in all blanks properly, or submission automatically rejected by those scrutizing GUEST messages with magnifying glass."

Response to finger pointing:

Bad All.

Bad, bad All.

Give sheepish explanation: didn't fill in From: line because I just didn't.

Met with more hostility.

Resolve to do better next time.

Next time: give anohter, hopefully polite explanation.

Not good enough, All.

Do it our way, or else.

Try to find a humorous, happy compromise for all.

"See below" in From line.

Keep signing All at bottom as I had been.

Then told "All" was a bad name to begin with, should just go with "See below" (NOTE: All's interpretation)

Harumph she says.

Can you imagine the next scene:

{Why is she typing initials A-l-l? Why doesn't she use caps?}

{To GUEST See below: We won't talk to you until you type the initials in all caps! Go away you troll!}

Not See Below.

Fed up GUEST.

Think I'll just leave it at that.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: IanC
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM

Guest, All (or whatever)

I think some of the hostility was generated not by you, but by some other unpleasant people using GUEST only appellations to do unpleasant things. I, for one, am sorry if this has caused you pain.

People (myself included) find it easier to talk to others if they know it is the same person. I know you have signed all your posts and I respect that. However, the use of your name on the From: line enables us to go to posts by a particular person by clicking and makes it easier to make sense of what they are saying in a non-continuous communication like a thread ... makes it less like spaghetti.

I have been avoiding posts by GUEST alone because of the unpleasantness ... I'd rather not read it and can avoid it this way.

Once you started posting with a name (or whatever) in From: which identified you, I started to read, then read backwards, then responded.

No punishment. No oppression. Just welcome. Would you like to join, give yourself a name? If not, you're free to leave of course.

We have just spent 2 days doing very little simply because of unpleasantness directed from person/people calling themselves GUEST alone. I for one would like to get back to the really fascinating thread discussions.

:-)
Ian

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:28 PM

what he said.

Subject: Will that be the 5 minute arguement?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:40 PM

(I'm sorry I don't have time to read all of this. From what I've seen so far (including my own posts) one thought comes to mind)

Or the full half hour?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:48 PM

Life's too short to head back and forth through threads trying to put quote into context etc. Especially when there's no easy way of knowing which are the quotes and which are not - and when half the time references are being made to other unidentified threads of various sorts.

If people want to stick their name or pseudonym at the bottom of a post rather than a thread, that's not a big deal. At the top makes more sense, because then when you read it you can put it in context with the last post that person made, and it's easier to find it again, and to pick it out from other GUEST posts. But it's not a big deal.

The characters who screw things up are the ones who just come in as unadorned GUEST, without any kind of name or whatever, even a temporary one. And the reason that screw things up is that there's no way of sorting them out from each other. That buggers up the process of person-to-person communication. It also means people get blamed for things someone else has done, and then take umbrage, because they probably haven't even seen the offending posts that are being laid at their door.

And don't take all this so personally All - this is an issue that has come up time and time before.

Maybe this will illustrate what's been going on if you think people have over reacted. PG Wodehouse wrote a Jeeves story in which the plot hinges round an amateur concert. A number of people all get advised to turn up and sing the same song, unbeknownst to each other. A harmless enough song, Sonny Boy. The first one get's a good reception, the second less so - finally when the last one in the sequence turns up and sings it, he gets almost lynched. Which was the idea in the first place.

It's the same reason why a normally amiable enough person will sometimes erupt at having the same merry quip uttered to them for the twentieth time that day. The last straw.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:57 PM

But . . (and by someone else's count this is at least the fourth time of posting) . .

The subject line of this thread is Posting anonymously, yet the head article has absolutely nothing to do with posting anonymously, as far as I can work out . .

Still, it's clearly not going anywhere so I'm out of this one, folks . .

G.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:15 PM

Have said all along, I've no interst in joining. Have used GUEST log-in for my convenience, which it seems was the point of Mudcat providing it for GUEST use. Been here, engaged in extremely limited posting to linked threads on one subject: anonymous posting.

Used a name by which I could be identified on all posts, as netiquette requires.

Didn't fill in all the blanks--initially inadvertently. Shamed by forum cops.

Gave lame explanation, said I didn't think it mattered because I was just passing through, didn't intend to join.

Kept posting the way I had.

Finally, relented to critics, filled in the blank.

Sighs of relief from members. Finally!

And then: horror!

Members, who had made such a huge issue over my identity, which had always been there, now decide to ignore my self-selected identity, adding further insult to injury.

Demean me and my contribution further by affixing a pet name *they* feel comfortable with--and oh, think its grand.

Effectively erasing everything I've struggled to say in this and the GUESTS thread.

As if All were never here.

Isn't that what you all wanted? For All never to have come here? For anonymous posting not to be allowed in Mudcat?

Defacto, you've done it, despite nary a word in teh faq.

Proved you don't need written rules. The Lord of the Flies scenario played itself out again, to the desired effect some were so obviously seeking.

Subject of GUESTS and Posting Anonymously threads, safely defused.

There will be no one allowed to support anonymous posting in this forum by God! Blind prejudices. Petty tyranting. Power of the majority. Dissenting views, effectively silenced.

Redirected thread topics: Who is GUEST/All and why the hell won't she fill in the blank?

Quite the homage to Marie Antoinette, catters.

I remain as in the From line,

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,guest in hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:20 PM

John, you're not the only one confused. am I being totally simple here, or does guest All maybe not know that you sign in using the 'from' box, not at the end of your post?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:22 PM

"All" (a difficult name to use since it could also refer to everybody who has posted) you are now repeating yourself - with comments that don't even come close to the addressing points that were made in the posts following your previous post.

People have repeatedly tried to address the issue in you original post of this thread and you ignore those attempts and have conniption fits over how you are addressed - tho it is very difficult for readers to determine whether you wish to be known as "fed-up" "see below" "all" "guest" or some unknown combination of the above.

What does come across loud and clear is that you prefer to be a non-conformist then to communicate clearly.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:35 PM

This kinda' reminds me of the guy who couldn't swim and kept going in the deep end of the pool and damn near drowning. Instead of learning to swim or working up from the shallow end, he kept leaping in and being hauled out. Finally he decided the problem was with the pool and demanded that the deep end be filled in. 5oo other people were using the pool and most of them had the good sense to figure that it had a deep and a shallow end and there were some basics that made it practical to learn to swim. But the other guy kept ranting about the depth of the deep end..............

Hey folks.......Just let it go. We all know that this kinda' crap accomplishes nothing, least of all to appease the non-swimmer. In the meantime, we miss all the good that is going on elsewhere. "All" doesn't seem to get it and wants this site changed to fit the image expected in their mind.

"All".....feel free to keep bitching; Call Max and tell him you hate the place and we're all rude and a bunch of dorks and you can't stand the way you've been treated. Give him a call and make your suggestions for improvement and tell him all the folks you think are rude and should be banned from the forum and the site. Make sure you have all your complaints detailed and give him a call. There's a toll free number and everything....go for it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:39 PM

I concur with George in being puzzled at the thread title. Also at why All seems to assume that any cutting remarks about anonymous GUESTs are directed at her, since she isn't one, having never (well hardly ever) posted anonymously here.

Pretty well every post I seem to have read by her seems to end up saying she's off out for good. And then she isn't...Mind, there've been a few more like that.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:45 PM

But then again.

Just reviewed GUESTS and Posting Anonymously threads.

Spot checked some others.

Sometimes, GUESTS are referred to as: GUEST (their From line).

Sometimes GUESTS sign differently at top and bottom: Pseudolous/Frank. Referred byu users in follow-up as one or the other. Sometimes both.

Sometimes GUESTS sign at bottom, leaving From line blank. Sometimes referred to as GUEST, but also by name at bottom. Sometimes both.

With nothing in faq instructing GUESTS how to use GUEST log-in;

With no standardized way of member and guest users using the GUEST log-in, being easily discernible by new users;

With no standardized way of users responding to those using GUEST log-ins;

Could perceived GUEST problems (from both members and new users perspectives) be the result of sins of omission from faq/permathread?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:05 PM

Mary from Kentucky

You are absolutely right. Don't "get" the program for GUEST log-ins here, and the hostility hurled at me for being dense.

Apologies for not getting the well-disguised Mudcat "unwritten, informal rules" for using GUEST log-in.

Didn't understand the uproar over anonymous postings, when so many member users and guest users were using pseudonyms, and anonymous posting was so common (hint: click on the GUEST clickie and see how many are doing it acceptably and unacceptably). Point being, its been done A LOT! <:O

Sorry, no time to sift through all 500,000 postings to establish "general forum practice" before I post!

Nothing in the faq or permathreads explaining "the way its done here" for newcomers.

Been around on-line long enough to know exactly what net abuse looks like. Not that slow a learner.

Realizing it might not be just me. But you and other catter regulars who just don't see the difficulties of sorting this all out before posting messages.

I feared that might be just the point. Offering GUEST log-in at site, but not supporting it with faq/general practice guidelines.

Then, a paradigm shift: this is so easy to remedy!

Add guidelines for GUEST log-in to the faq for all users pleasure. :)

Could even make it like a whole new forum! Much nicer!

If so many members and regular GUEST users are so miserable with it, why not try something new?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:17 PM

"All" - yes, you are correct - and maybe "we" should add something to the FAQ about that. (The FAQ is a voluntarily maintained piece of information administered by a single person - so please understand that "we" is more or less rhetorical in this situation.)

Additionaly - please understand that sometimes the difference in name use is that some posters know each other in 3D, some do not. Some "know" each other through extensive off-forum correspondence of various sorts, others do not. And sometimes it is just random. it occurs with longterm and short term members and regulars as well as Guests.

There are people posting here I know - and address both here and in 3D by their posting names; others whom I know and address by posting name here and by another name in 3D; I am addressed primarily by my posting name, but have never hidden my real name nor objected to it's use, but most people use my posting name because that is what others see, and also what I routinely use on the internet, and in a lot of 3D interaction.

the "guest" posting is available because neither Max nor most of the users of this forum wish to make this forum inaccessable to the casual user/visitor. It also allows for travelers, borrowing computers, work/home differences, etc. Very few have had problems with it.

A few people - (and understand it is only a few people) have used this allowed anonymity to deliberately stir up hostility - which has made some of us very sensitive.

For a parallel example - if you had recieved a series of anonymous harrassing phone calls - then recieved a call from some one and asked for a name, but got inconsistant responses from them, would you not suspect the motives of the caller? (Please note I am not ascribing such to you)

anyhoo. *deep breath* just so you might get an inkling why you are getting some of the responses you are getting.

And to bring this back around to the subject of the first post; what you are called or not called here has no bearing whasoever on the success or failure of tracking/monitoring by employer or ISP. They have other means at their disposal, many built right into the very software that allows the communication to occur in the first place. Even the so-called anonymity software that is being sold would not hide your identity from the administers of the local network or ISP your message originates on.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:19 PM

In this case, A-L-L isn't the "stain-lifter", but the stain itself. Seems to me that the use of the short statements seperated by a blank line seems very familiar.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 04:17 PM

Sorry, I'm retiring from this thread with a headache. I applaud your ability GUEST/? to be pedantic beyond the call of duty. You remind me of my grandmother, who started everything with the expression 'Well actually, I think you'll find....' May you never find yourself buried without a headstone -goodnight and God bless! Linda Kelly

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 04:45 PM

(click)when so many member users and guest users were using pseudonyms

Forgive me while I shout: THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE USING PSEUDONYMS AND NEVER HAS BEEN. "Anonymous" means no identity at all, so that it only becomes possible to tell one GUEST from another by textual analysis. "All/Fed Up" -whatever you may think, you are not anonymous.

That doesn't mean I've the faintest idea who you are, but, for example, I know you are not the same as the GUEST who posted at 3.19 pm. You are All aka Fed Up. (Fed Up is a better pseudonym than All I reckon. All in all.

The FAQ is a fairly recent innovation, and very helpful too. There wasn't any when I drifted in a couple of years ago, and I never had the least problem in finding out how things worked. If I needed to know, I asked. Maybe if I'd stormed in telling everybody they didn't have a clue about everything it might have been different. But it takes all sorts, and there's no big problem in adjusting to that style, if we have to - still it tends to get reciprocated, which is a bore. (Though there have been plenty of friendly and helpful responses which have been ignored. Which again is par for the course.)

Anyway I hope everyone lightens up. I imagine they will - they always do when this kind of confusion has burnt itself out.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:30 PM

In this post (click), our antisocial, multinomial guest continues to insist that he/she is quite innocent in all this, and thinks the FAQ should spell out how people should behave. Sorry, but that's not the purpose of the FAQ. I've stated in the FAQ that the rules of behavior for Mudcat are the rules of common courtesy and common sense. You can call them "unwritten rules" if you like, I suppose. In case the guest does not understand, let me state unequivocally:

If you behave like a pain in the ass,
You will be treated like a pain in the ass.

This is a basic rule of human interaction. If you have trouble understanding it, then perhaps you need to seek professional help (actually, I suspect that you know damn well what you're doing...).
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:54 PM

Guest All/Fed up-Are you taking the pi**? There is a box there, all you need to do is put a name in it(it does not have to be your REAL name). I am considered thick by some people, but even I had no problem with this at all!

John in Hull (just wondering)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:22 PM

The entire point apparently trying to be made by GUEST All is facetious as anyone can post as THAT GUEST. The argument was flawed from the start. I am surprised any of you gave it the time of day.

kat

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:50 PM

I've got a lovely bunch of cocoanuts
there they are all standing in a row
big ones, small ones, ones the size of your head

Is this trad? It's not in the DT.

Alex

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Snuffy
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 07:37 PM

It's here, Alex, with the ^^ to show it will be in a future version of the DT database

Wassail! V

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:05 PM

Herself says, reading over my shoulder "are you going to go on with this nonsense?" Everything that needs to be said has been said, several times over. This is a thread that deserves to die. Why don't we all let it go away...which is apparently done by not responding any more.

BTW, my name is my name, if its important to anybody.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:08 PM

Im not telling you my name, its a secret!

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:18 PM

What "people skills" the Mudcat site adminsitrator has.

Never seen anything quite like *that* sort of conflict resolution on the Internet. Site admin yelling at the users, slapping people down, publicly shaming them.

Sure, that'll solve your problems with trolls.

Wishing you just the sort of users you deserve, and continued interesting times with your forum.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:38 PM

We'll get along fine, thanks.

Appreciate your thoughtful input. Let me know if you come up with some constructive suggestions or valuable information on folk music!

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,NoName NoCity
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:47 PM

This is thread creep, I know, but...

Malcolm Douglas:

You have posted here and in other threads about personal use of the internet while at work, and that the company has this right ; that you should leave that to be done on your personal computer. Then, according to your argument, there is no need for secrecy in posting. However, in the real world, things are seldom as clear cut as you try to make them appear. I ALWAYS advise persons who work for others to NEVER post anything personal or surf the internet for anything other than work-related items.

BUT

I also warn them that if they think their computer use is being monitored while at work, that they should never say ANYTHING about the company in any way, shape or form from their personal computer unless powerful (and I do mean powerful) encryption protocols are in place. Why? Because that company may also monitor your home computer, or nearly any other computer you use if certain bits of information can be attached to your transmission. Your company knows all about you - hundreds of details like credit cards, bank statements, social security numbers and on and on. That information can be used to form a profile that can identify you almost anywhere on the internet.

How do I know that? Because I've written such a program. (Sold well, too)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:03 PM

All - just to clarify - Joe is a volunteer - and a contributing member. He has voluntarily taken on some additional duties - but like us all is a human. It takes quite a bit to make him lose his cool, but it can happen.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:20 PM

Geeziz Guest All..........You don't know crap about who's who here and yet seem to have all the answers. If you'll just go back to my previous post, the site owner/admin is Max and I suggest you call him directly, toll free and list all of your grievances and super suggeestions. Or you can write him a letter or e-mail him...anything you like and tell him how mistreated you have been. Tell him about all of these nasty-ass folks and how we should change things around and all. Tell him that Spaw called you a miserable little pissant and bestowed the Order of the Golden Shower upon you. Have at it and be sure you are comprehensive in your suggestions, complaints. and other such crappola.

Just click on the jumping catfish at the top of the page and scroll down for the phone and e-mail info. Until you do that, let me pass on my favorite suggestion for miserable pissants........"Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."

To the rest of you piddling around with this simple ass.......Let's all go back and do what we do best.....Answer requests, have some fun, research some songs, tell a few lies.....all the usual Mudcat good stuff. This doof has no interest in understanding as you all know so why bother, let him/her/it take it up with Max.

Guest All.......Have at it and have yourself a truly good time and a mediocre day!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:22 PM

Spaw:

Jeez, man, get it off yer chest!! You don't have to hold back with us!!

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ralphie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:23 PM

Just to cut through the crap........Guest-All/Fed up, has to be the same person who made a complete mockery of the Dave Bulmer/Celtic Music thread.......Having just read through this pile of poo....(for that is what it is)....Who was the first person to mention Dave Bulmer???.....Guest-All.........Who was the first person to mention Peter Bellamy's widow...........Guest-All.....
Need I go on?? As someone who has been intimately involved with all that has happened to various people in the UK for at least 25 years.May I beseech you........Whoever Guest (make up your own name here) is.......This person should be avoided....Not for the continued ridiculous anonymity...and just for the record......my name is Ralph Jordan.....there....that didn't hurt....I felt no pain.!
but, for confusing, obfuscating (I made up this word!!), and generally bewildering a bunch of people whom I consider to be pretty decent...Enough Enough...Guest All, or whoever......As we say in these parts....PUT UP, OR SHUT UP.....Cheers Ralphie......(Oooooh, I did enjoy that!!)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:44 PM

Fine Ralphie....Now move on and back to all the good things you came here for and are now enjoying. We're glad to have you and if I was gone and didn't get the chance before.......Welcome to the 'Cat!

Amos my friend, I appreciate your concern and I'll try to do better!!! At least I maintained an even strain and didn't say that Guest All could suck the valves out of a Chevy small block did I? Or that they'd suck a root as long as a rake handle....Didn't say that now did I? I'm trying to get in touch with the kinder, gentler, Spaw........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ralphie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:09 PM

Mr Spaw....Yes, I'll do what you suggest, but, I Really(!) enjoyed that bit of spleen venting......In the past month or so, I've discovered a lot of info from the good people here that may have taken me months to find elsewhere.
. But the odd Prune has got in the way, sadly. So, I might just hang around for a bit longer, if that's alright with the "Mafia" (lol) that runs the place> Hope you're feeling well...Best wishes from the "Auld Country....Ralphie x

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:32 AM

Ralphie,

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. You didn't make up the word "obfuscating". You will find it in any decent dictionary.

The oxford concise dictionary (tenth edition), defines obfuscate as follows:

It is a verb, and its meanings are 1, to make unclear or unintelligible, and 2, to bewilder.

To make matters worse, it seems that your usage and spelling were both perfect in every possible way.

Either you are a subconscious academic, or you were born with an intuitive vocabulary, but I'm afraid you didn't invent that word. (unless you are very very old ....... how old are you?)

lox (nyuk nyuk)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:36 AM

No Name, No City,

Thanks for mentioning the very points I was trying to make when I initiated this thread.

The point of this thread, for those who were wondering, was to offer, from a GUEST user's perspective, some legitmate reasons why people have concerns about using email accounts as website log-ins. My apologies for not being more articulate.

There is a strong, mainstream point of view that anonymous Internet posting should be banned. I pointed to two cases, both involving government actions, where the intent was for governments to ban anonymous posting: one in France, one in the US.

I realize that many Mudcatters are opposed to anonymous posting in all circumstances, or extremely limited circumstances (which they have failed to spell out, I might add). Therefore, I would presume this is the position being most stridently and vocally defended here.

I just wanted to point out, in the contributions I was trying to make here, that banning anonymous posting in newsgroups, discussion forums, and chat rooms is being opposed internationally in courts, in government legislatures, and in the court of public opinion by free speech advocates.

I support the positions of free speech advocates. I believe that the "personal accountability" issue is a smokescreen, which, if legislation is enacted, will result in widespread violations of right to privacy laws outside of the Internet, and to widespread abuse by governments with strong interests in carrying on with secret campaigns against citizens expressing dissenting points of view.

We've seen the violations of rights to privacy and free speech in the US in the very recent past: anti-dissident campaigns against communist, labor, civil rights, gay rights, environmental, human rights, and other left leaning movements by the FBI and CIA. Anyone who believes this *is* somehow a thing of the past, and something the US government no longer in engaged is, I think, sadly mistaken.

Especially because of the historic relationship between the US and British folk revival movements with many of the movements targeted for goverment surveillance of their members I mentioned above, I believe anonymity is extremely important for anyone who wishes to express views freely in any folk music Internet forum.

Others may disagree. I note that the membership of this forum appears to be pretty conservative poltically, despite rhetoric of progressive attitudes being regularly expressed by many members.

But they shouldn't be defacto silencing the debate by burying it under a bunch of meaningless diatribes over "cowardice" among guests and "hurt feelings" of the Mudcat "clique". That ends up demeaning the importance of the issue of anonymity, rights to privacy, and free speech.

Again, thanks to those posters who did comment on the issues raised intitially in this thread, and attempts to keep it focused on the topic, rather than on individuals posting about it.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Kjell
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:07 AM

I have been reading threads here for about a month before I joined. I never once posted as Guest, not because I thought I would have bad treatment, more to find out about the place and get a feel for it. I think I did the right thing. The argument for privacy etc. does not work, you can call yourself "paperclip" if you want - no person will know who you are. I think you have dug a bit of a hole for yourself "Guest" Unless this was the intention - just to stir up the forum. I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I use my own name as I feel quite safe here
Kjell

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM

If free speech were an issue at Mudcat, then you would see a lot of deleted postings and a moderated forum. The fact that your posts and mine are not deleted and that you and I are still free to post should say something. As a card carrying ACLU member, I can also state that rights and freedoms all have certain responsibilities attached to them and abdicating the responsibility eliminates your right.

Again, take your complaints to Max. Let him read them and your postings here and see how he feels. He has tried very hard to provide a place of truly open communication. Or, you can continue to harp on your worn out diatribe here and please have some cheese with your whine.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:20 AM

This thread is entitled "Posting anonymously". Not "employment security & civil rights on the internet"

I never argued that you were a coward "all", I pointed out that your concerns regarding employment security were irrelevant to the question of whether or not you had a nickname by which people could recognize you on THIS forum.

You never once responded to my point because I'm right and you know I'm right.

Equally, your concerns about civil liberties have little to do with the mudcat cafe. If you don't want to give your real name, you don't have to (check back you will find I have been consistent). You are free to discuss anything you want here, under any pseudonym you choose.

You have been spending a lot of time here lately. Do you have any desire to know with whom you are discussing individual points? I do.

There is a genuine feeling amongst many of the regulars here that they know each other. Why? Because they have been coming here for a long time.

I don't know what most of the people here look like, and I don't know many of their real names, but I am able to recognise who is posting by their nickname. I know some people to be funny, some to be learned and some wise.

I also know some who I think talk a lot of unconnected shit. I think you are one of them.

When you demonstrate, clearly, how being recognizable on the mudcat forum has anything to do with job security or civil rights, I may begin to reconsider.

I am less reminded of the monty python argument sketch here, than I am of the abuse sketch.

Do you have a masochistic streak? If not, why must you set yourself up to be abused. And why would you come back?

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,No name and not much else
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:37 AM

Sorry

Me again

I am a nutcase

Please Ignore all my previous postings

All

Or someone else

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:44 AM

Sorry Max, Joe, everyone else. It was me above without my cookie. I would not normally do such things but it does serve to point out the major advantage of being joining. No-one can send messages as you.

I guess our anonymous guest(s) may now send messages using 'Guest: Dave the Gnome' but I think I have made the point.

Cheers

The one and only original Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Noreen
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:47 AM

MUDCAT HEALTH WARNING:
Trying to reason with this guest may seriously damage your equanimity!

I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that so many good, reasonable people have spent a great deal of time, energy and logic, attempting to reason with this unreasonable "GUEST". The effort spent is admirable, and it says a lot about the wonderful people who come here (guests and members alike) that they keep trying to be reasonable when the goalposts are constantly being moved- not just in this thread.

Enuff is enuff, friends. Time to get back to the real Mudcat!

Love,

♥ Noreen

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:48 AM

Spaw,

As a card carrying member of the ACLU, its seems a bit odd that you would hold the views you do regarding anonymous Internet posting, considering the position of that organization on an issue you obviously feel so strongly about, although I can appreciate one need not agree with all official positions taken by the organization of which one is a member. However, the ACLU's position on anonymous posting on the Internet is very clear, your membership notwithstanding.

To suggest that forum moderation is censorship is specious. Any forum can, and often is, censored by those who control access. Which was, in fact, the issue I was responding to initially in the GUEST thread: limiting access to GUEST users as a means of silencing views which are not in agreement with the Mudcat mainstream.

I have no desire to take up anything with Max. My initial contribution to the GUESTS thread was in response to the suggestion--made by others, not myself--that Mudcat should change the GUEST log-in policy. The justification given for those changes mentioned two threads: the CM/DB saga thread, and the (name deleted) thread. The original post to the GUESTS thread suggested that the forum was being abused by GUESTS in the CM/DB thread in the same way the forum was being abused by GUESTS in (name deleted) thread.

I suggest they were used by the GUESTs in each instance quite differently. In teh CM/DB thread:

1. Guests in the CM/DB thread were choosing to post anonymously to express a dissenting, controversial point of view which was at odds with the views held by a majority of people participating in that thread.

2. Guests in the (name deleted) thread were clearly abusing the GUEST log-in feature to engage in troll activities.

IMO, teh two are not equivalent.

The former is about free speech in this particular forum, and the rights of anyone, member or guest, to voice unpopular opinions anonymously in this forum.

The latter is about Internet abuse by trolls.

I disagreed with original poster's assertion that GUESTs in teh CM/DB thread with "abusing" the forum by choosing to post anonymously. As long as the site owner chooses to allow anonymous posting, I believe all users, whether members or guests, should respect the site owner's decision to allow anonymous posting, even if they disagree with it.

For those who feel so strongly about anonymous posting that they are willing to start flame wars over it in this forum, I would respectfully suggest that the burden for getting it changed lies with you, and not those who support the Mudcat status quo.

Anonymous posting is currently allowed here. It is my opinion the membership should stop harrassing and flaming those who choose to avail of that option to contribute to Mudcat.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:49 AM

ARSE.

I thought it meant that this would all be over. I wish you hadn't done it.

Never mind.

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:07 PM

All that said, I submit that what brings out the nasties in these parts is not anonymity. It is the refusal to communicate or the actual effort to undo those who wish to. The forms of this impulse include complaint without suggestions for improvement, a refusal to acknowledge others, carping criticism, and the kind of hateful littering of others' communication we occasionally see from the very young in brain. These are communication destructors, and they bring people to arms because the only treasure of the Mudcat is its communication, and its historical data.

I notice "All" is communicating here, not just sniping, or bleating piteously, or making generalized negative statements without specifics. I think this is great,

My perception is that we have no drum to beat here for knowing who anyone is or is not in the "real" world, but we do have a drum to beat for people standing up as genuine communicators, not snipers or vicitims.

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:11 PM

First, apologies for failing to put "Fed up" in the From line in my 11:48 response to Spaw.

Lox,

No Name, No City explained perfectly well, from a technical standpoint, the reasons why an anonymous posting and a posting using a pseudonym are different. Pseudonyms attached to email log-ins can be captured, and used to follow a poster. One reason why I began this thread was to draw attention to how readily available and inexpensive that technology has become. I used the example of employers monitoring employees only to illustrate how pervasive the use of the technology has become just in that one sector alone.

People here do seem to have their heads in the sand about the capabilities of the technology, and about how pervasive its use is by many people, from employers, to government spy agencies, to criminals interested in exploiting your identity or gain access to your financial assets, to crazy stalking stuff.

Some people who post anonymously will avail themselves of the best technology they can buy to counter the tracking technology. Some won't. But some of us know that logging in to websites with emails just makes it easier for those trying to do the tracking. It is just another "easy" link in the trail.

And as I said, if so many people here feel so strongly about anonymous posting, the appropriate thing to do is to try and get it changed, not harrass the people who choose to use the option to express an unpopular opinion.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:17 PM

Guest All........Be sure in your reading of the ACLU issue involvement that you do not confuse privacy with anonymity as they are not the same.

In any case, let's just move on from this particular idiocy and Guest All, at least try to continue using the same handle because your meds may have kicked in and you are almost making a modicum of sense.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:26 PM

Following news is forwarded from Declan Mcullagh's "politech" e-newsletter. A.
=============================================================

Politech archive on anonymity:

http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=anonymity

********

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:26:56 -0400 From: "Paul Levy" To: Subject: Protection of Anonymous Internet Speakers

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has just handed down a terrific opinion protecting the right of internet speakers to post their criticisms anonymously. As the first appellate court in the country to address this issue, it is to be hoped that this opinion will have broad influence, and that businesses that think they can easily unmask their critics by simply filing a lawsuit and expecting the names to fall into their laps will be discouraged from suing unless they have good reason to think that they can succeed on the merits.

In Dendrite International v. Doe, a three judge panel, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Robert Fall, upheld the decision of Superior Court Judge Kenneth MacKenzie to deny Dendrite the opportunity to identify an anonymous critic who challenged the company for changing its revenue recognition policies to show immediate benefits for the bottom line, and who sneered at the CEO for unsuccessfully trying to sell the company. Judge MacKenzie found that, even if all the other elements of a defamation case were met by the plaintiff's evidence, there was no hard evidence that the company had been harmed by these posts.

In affirming, the appellate court enunciated firm guidelines for trial courts to follow when confronted by a subpoena at the outset of a case seeking to identify anonymous internet posters so that the lawsuit can proceed against them. The court should first require the plaintiff to attempt to notify the anonymous posters that their identities are being sought and give the defendants an opportunity to oppose the request. The plaintiff must identify the exact statements alleged to be unlawful. The court must then decide both whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief and whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to support its claim. Finally, if these first three criteria are met, the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the case and the necessity for identifying the poster.

The court found that this test was needed to "strike a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation [against] actionable conduct of anonymous, fictionally named defendants." Applying the test, the court agreed with Judge MacKenzie that there was insufficient evidence of harm, and did not find it necessary to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to meet the actual malice or other elements of a defamation claim.

In a recent court appearance, Yahoo! told a California superior court judge that it receives "thousands" of such subpoenas; and AOL recently told a Pennsylvania court that in the year 2000 alone, it received 475 civil subpoenas, "the vast majority of them" seeking to identify its subscribers. Thus, the development of standards for adjudicating these subpoenas is a critical task for the courts, and the first appellate opinion could go a long way to assuring internet correspondents that their identities can remain confidential so long as they do not violate the rights of the persons whom they criticize.

The opinion will be posted on our web site later today at http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/dendriteappeal.pdf

Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:29 PM

This site doesn't require that you connect your psuedonym to an e-mail login - however, if you choose not to do so, then you are labled as a Guest,psudeonym. That is fine by us.

But we do like to have a name we can "hook" our conversation to; and yes, we get aggravated if someone uses the fact that the forum doesn't require this to specifically to rile people up.

BTW - THANK you for comprimising on the use of a consistant psuedonym. As Dave the Gnome pointed out - doesn't mean someone malicious couldn't come along and do the same - but *I* for one refuse to be that paranoid.

NOTE:just about everyone on this forum has disagreed with just about everyone else at some point or another. (And probably will again if they stick around) And most of us have managed just fine doing it under the exact same posting name we do everything else on the forum under.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:42 PM

Alligator
Allegro
Allure
Alley
Allegory
Alleluia
Allergy

Which is it short for? I'd bet on the last one.

Goodbye. You are the Weakest Link.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM

Don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree
Stay outa my orchard, leave my peaches be.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM

MMario,

You seem to have missed the point again. The issue to many posters wishing to be completely anonymous, is they want the right to post *without* a pseudonym.

Because posting only as GUEST enrages a certain percentage of the users here doesn't mean they have the *right* morally, or from what I can ascertain from the faq, to intimidate and harrass people for doing it. No one should be forced to use a pseudonym to log-on and participate, IMO.

My opinion is different from some, as is clear from this thread and the GUESTS thread.

I suggested a short addition to the faq could clarify this issue for all. I still believe it would be in the best long term intersts of the forum itself, to clarify this for both guests and members, both of whom are engaging in ridiculous flaming of anonymous posters for no legitimate reason.

And I say legitimate because, as long as anonymous posting *is* allowed, then I think the site owners and administrators have a duty and responsiblity to their users, to see that anonymous posters who contribute are treated as fairly as those who use an identity, whether that identity be their real name, or a pseudonym.

I started to use the From line to defuse the argument of the people who were focusing on me, instead of the points I was trying to make.

I did that because, while the right of posting with complete anonymity was not one I chose to exercise in this instance, I wanted to defend my and your and everyone else's right to do it. Here in Mudcat, and in every other forum on the Internet where people choose to express points of view anonymously.

If I don't stand up for that right for others when they need it, it won't be there when I need it.

This is about more than just Mudcat to me. I accept it might not be to others. We should be able to respectfully agree to disagree without mocking, insulting, intimidating, harrassing, name-calling, flaming, etc.

It has been my personal experience here in Mudcat--which has only been limited to following these threads since last week, that there is more of a problem with Mudcat members trolling and flaming, than there are guest users. That is my perspective as a newcomer--an outsider.

Others mileage may vary.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:04 PM

The meds are obviously short term effect only...........

Tell Max dumbass, and if he thinks it needed, he'll change it. Giving a name isn't an issue of rights or freedoms, it's a simple courtesy that has worked well and makes it easy to address the person as in "Guest All".......The whole membership thing and your aversion to it suggests you are a paranoid of monstrous proportion.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:13 PM

all - no - you don't get the point. no one is forced to use a psuedonym. however - for more then casual interaction it is polite that one is used. and yes, eventually constant rudeness will sooner or later be ansewered with rudeness.

and the site owner/administrator has not gotton involved. it is the other posters on the forum - and yes, basically we have said play the way we want or we won't play with you. You of course don't have to play the way we want - but if you choose not to conform to the norms then you can't expect others to conform to YOUR norms.

MANY, MANY people have come here as guests, been welcomed and stick around - some as guests, some join. and *gosh* they all have names attached.

and while free speech is a right (in the US - and many of this forum do not live in the US - remember that) in the US the right to know and face your accurser also stands. So since the "Guests" we have the gbiggest problem with are the argumentative, attacking ones, yes, it is nice to have names to put to them.

As far as addressign you rather then the issue, you still continue to completely avoid discussing why the thread title and the first post address totally different issues - neither of which you have actually addressed except in passing.

In addition - every time it appears that this thread is about to "simmer down" - you come back and post another little "dig". but we are suppossed to believe that you are not trolling? Luckily for you - i'm tired, I'm brain burnt and I don't have the self control to resist answering you. it worked. Happy?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM

Spaw

Right to free anonymous! speech is guaranteed in teh Constitution's First Amendment.

Right to privacy has been determined by the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, and is often rooted in both the First and Fourth Amendments. Though not exclusively.

Doesn't matter. Some federal and state laws give citizens more rights, some less. They are both universally recognized rights at the federal level in the US.

It would be very helpful if we all recognized that these issues are important to some, even if they aren't to all. If the issue doesn't concern you at all, why start a flame war over it?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:31 PM

MMario,

My logged off Mudcat yesterday after my 8:18 p.m. post. No Name, No City posted after that.

I logged into the site this morning and responded to the only post that was discussing the subject I was interested in discussing.

Still trying to do just that.

My posting today wasn't done to stir things up, although I do understand there are a number of people annoyed with me.

They do, however, have a choice as to whether to read or respond to me, or even, to participate in teh thread. They always have. I haven't been intentionally antagonizing anyone in this thread, or any others, IMO. I've tried to walk a very straight line in this regard, though the harrassment yesterday was clearly getting to me too.

If your head hurts because of me and what I say, maybe its time for you to stop reading my posts. Headache gone! :)

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:40 PM

I have three questions:

1) Why am I sitting here reading this when I could be doing something more productive, staring out the window and picking my nose?

2) GUEST,Fed up/All/etc./etc., Are you at all interested in folk music?

3) If not, why are you here?

Just curious. . . .

Don Firth (who identifies himself with his real name and who also signs his handiwork. If I say something stupid, I'm willing to take the blame, if I say something brilliant, I want full credit for it)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:43 PM

Lest I be misunderstood or misinterpreted, my above post is not a flame. I am genuinely curious, and I feel the questions are fair.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:54 PM

Don Firth,

Well, in light of my post responding to MMario, and your Question #1:

Why are you here?

Is it because enjoy harrassing people you disagree with?

It seems this forum allows for some discussion of relevant non-music topics.

It seems discussions about changing the user features of the website discussion forum are probably also on-topic here.

Annoying you may find me, but I'm not a troll, and I'm following the official and unofficial rules of engagement. I'm behaving politely. Not flaming individuals, even though I do reply to a number of you.

I'm doing my part, so as far as I'm concerned, the better question is, why do some of you still feel the need to continue harrassing me?

Not interested in a repeat performance of yesterday, thank you very much. Yet here we go again, with some people trying to divert this thread to discuss me, rather than the topic.

Happy to discuss the issues surrounding anonymous posting by GUESTS in music related threads (I hope people would define the CM/DB thread as being about music anyway--I certainly saw it that way!). But this is the last post I'll respond to that's about me.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Minnie Mouse
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM

...and this relates to folk music because...?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM

Damned if I didn't leave off my From line again.

I hate that feature! ;)

Don Firth, our posts crossed, but my message is the same. I didn't start posting to discuss myself. I'd rather stick to the topic of discussion.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:03 PM

Minnie Mouse,

Good damn question!

Why don't you ask the same of the originator of the GUESTS thread!

Or the Another Sectarian Killing Thread!

Or any number of other non-folk music related discussions, many of which are quite controversial, and currently going on here in Mudcat!

Now, how about I ask you this question--if you wish to discuss and read about folk music, what are you doing in this thread?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:18 PM

Knowing I risk the wrath of site admin. and others for lengthy quoting, but clearly, people need to pause and consider other issues beside their own comfort levels. People get fired, families lose providers, etc etc

Please, just rethink your positions on anonymous posting/posters.

I have paused and thought and scanned this thread. I notice GeorgeH picked up on a point that I haven't seen answered:

Surely for any monitoring software to be effective, the admin needs to know who has used a given computer at any time. Assuming the admin has a system that meets this most basic requirement, posting anonymously will not prevent a user from getting caught.

Any user that thinks that they are cheating their system by posting anonymously to a site like Mudcat is likely to find themselves in for a very nasty shock.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:23 PM

Whoa! Before I log off here, I wanted to be sure to say thank you Amos, for your contribution. I know you had your doubts about me initially, and it is really just delightful to see how open minded you have been.

You have certainly been through the fog, and found your way to clarity, and done it very honorably too! Your contributions here shows real honesty and integrity.

You are quite the prince.

Also didn't want to log off without begging forgiveness of GaryT, Sharon A, and IanC for my waffling a bit under pressure. To say I was feeling a bit overly sensitive at that point would be an understatement. You were wholly gracious to me--thanks very much to you as well.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:24 PM

Hey, "all",

You better watch out, I heard that the CIA are after a guest called "all".

OH MY GOD! You should never have given your pseudonym out to us on the mudcat.

Thanks for saving our lives by pointing out how we have laid ourselves bare to all those predators who will be following us dilligently around cyberspace. I will buy myself a virtual mac and trilby and skulk around in virtual alleyways from now on.

If only I had known that in putting "Lox" at the top of my mudcat posts I was going to be harrassed by government agents, gangsters, and virtual psychopaths.

Then again, maybe you're the stalker, then again, maybe I am. Ooooohhhhh...........

You aren't going to get into trouble for spouting off here, unless you are stupid and do some blatant corporate spouting. The worst you will get off us is an alternative opinion, or, when we think you are really talking shit, a ton of abuse.

Be realistic. This is a folk forum. The vibe here is based on that of a pub with music and conversation - on whatever topic you want. It is social. That is why there is no need for anonimity.

Are you suggesting that you are some kind of spy for whom things are different?

Well if that's true, you need to stop calling yourself "all" before you're rumbled.

lox

PS Don Firth was curious (as we all are) to find out more about you. He was not rude to you as you have just been to him. You didn't answer his question (you know, the one about music).

I would like to quote someone who (though I have spoken to him less than I have spoken to you) has spoken my mind quite clearly on this issue.

"FOAD"

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:31 PM

Jon Freeman,

Yes, you are right about the software. Also, the spy/tracking software is much cheaper than the technology to defend against it. Max apparently is running the operation on a shoestring, and likely doesn't have the ability to upgrade, just as most small sites don't.

There is some protection from the law, however, as the case quoted by Amos shows.

I believe that is the concern of most anonymous posters. Whether or not their anonymity will be violated. The laws regarding the handing over of a website user/member list is, to me every bit as chilling as the attempts to force handovers of membership lists to the communist party.

So, I hope I've answered your question at least in part. It isn't just about the technology. Its also about the laws governing the technology. Those of us posting anonymously, and apparently (though that isn't clear to me in above ruling, and could, down the road, end up being made a loophole by people who want the lists) with pseudoynms, are better protected legally than are those of you who choose to sign your name and give your email address here, because you've already disclosed that information publicly.

Hope I've made that somewhat understandable. It is very complex. Am not an expert. Just knowlegeable enough to be dangerous in Mudcat! ;)

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:40 PM

Lox,

Hey! Government spys have been after some of the most distinguished folkies in Mudcat for decades!

While I say that merrily Lox, it is also true. You apparently didn't live through the ages of the McCarthy and COINTELPRO

What I said earlier about the connections of many British and American folk musicians with movements for progressive left social change is a good example of why the membership list should be private, which it is.

Because people who care are fighting hard (and a good fight it is too, IMO) to keep it that way.

One thing you learn about legal and political battles though--the good guys lose with alarming frequency.

If you aren't worried about your privacy, thats fine. As I said, people's mileage may vary.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Gustaf
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:41 PM

You can't "log off" unless you've "logged in," which you can only do as a member. Hitting the little "X" in the top right corner of the window is not "logging off," but merely "closing". As in "put a lid on it".

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:45 PM

Oh and lox--it is quite rude to keep asking for personal information about someone who has already told you they don't wish to share that PRIVATE AND PERSIONAL information with you.

That's the point I'm making here, remember?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:00 PM

All, you have lost me on your first paragraph - Perhaps I'm missreading you. If I'm interpreting it correcty, I can't see how software at Mudcat would protect someone from their company's monitoring software but I've been wrong on what can and can't be done before - maybe you can elaborate.

As for the rest of your post, we do seem to be straying from your original concern but I do see your point particulary regarding those of us who use real names on open display here(I don't believe registering for Mudcat constitutes making personal information public).

Also, I must admit I'd failed to see legal implications such as an owner of a list being required to hand over information in certain circumstances when making a post in the "GUEST" thread earlier today.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:14 PM

Jon,

OK--this is my last post--fingers flyin' I REALLY gotta get off line here!

Paragraph #1: I don't have time to clarify right now, I'd need more time to think it through, will give it a shot later if no one else answers--where are you No Name, No City? My point: some of our employers are already monitoring us here in Mudcat, whether people choose to believe it or not.

Your Par #2: Straying from original message--yeah, we are, but I thought/hoped some of these other relevant issues whould pop up in the conversation to get discussed too. Thanks to AMos for posting that decision.

The Yahoo case referred to in Amos' post is the one I mentioned yesterday I think as "The1Quiz" case in Florida. Or was that someone else who mentioned it? Duh!

Anyway, the point is, a lot of individuals, companies, government agengies are trying to get this information about Internet users through the courts A LOT! Right now!

Also, just because *you* believe that putting your name and email (and other information if you choose) here at the website, both at log in and in the posts, doesn't mean someone can't get a subpoena to get that information from Max and use it against you in a court of law.

They will have a bit more difficult time getting a judge to agree to granting a subpoena in light of the above case (thank goodness!), but that case may be appealed, or another circuit could rule on different point of law--we ain't any safer legally than we are technologically right now if we freely divulge that sort of information in newsgroups, chat rooms, and discussion forums.

Good talkin' to ya--byyyyeeeee!

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:19 PM

help, the paranoids are after me!

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Manitas
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:27 PM

Ahh! End of term.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:28 PM

Good Grief...

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 05:18 PM

Guest All/See Below/Fed up or whatever you call yourself today-I think Joe was right about you, you are insane and in need of help.I can't help wondering, if I saw you at a session or festival and said "Hello I am John, who are you? " what your reply would be! Although after seeing your posts hear I think I would keep right away from you.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM

John, I don't think you would ever see this person at a session or festival. I don't believe GUEST,(whatever) has any interest in folk music at all. I think it's someone who found an easy forum to screw around in an yank people's chains. The unfortunate part is that we allow our chains to be yanked. I'm gonna try to do better from here on, and just not respond. Let them flail around all by themselves and, deprived of attention, they'll soon just go away and pester some other web site.

Don (heavy sigh) Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From:
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:01 PM

Wonders can be done these days with psychotropic medication.....

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:20 PM

Don-I am sure you are right, this Guest is not a folk music fan, it is just a fool who is trying to make trouble, so I will not read this thread anymore, it is pointless and a waste of time.john

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 06:23 AM

Jon,

To get back to Paragraph #1, the point I felt needed to be made in this thread (and the reason why I used the example of employer spying), was that people shouldn't be lulled into a sense of false security because they believed the technology would protect them.

Also, it seemed to me there was a general malaise over the issue, because of a belief in Max's benevolence. Max and Mudcat aren't the people who would be guilty--people tracking Mudcat posters would be. Defending against it isn't cheap or easy.

As to the legal side of the issue (or I should say, one aspect of it): what people can do *legally* with information about you they have collected with the technology is still being worked out in the courts, legislatures, national and international bodies concerned with technology and civil and human rights.

Your belief that posting private information about yourself here (ie your email, and other private information you wish to give to people) doesn't constitute publication of it, wouldn't likely hold up in a search and seizure legal context. If you willing give out the information for the Mudcat directory, then you likely would not be able to successfully claim a right to privacy, and information gathered about you on-line could be used against you in a legal case. This would also include any personal/private information you choose to reveal about yourself in your postings. All that information, here and in any other forum where you post, could all be considered public information, and could be used in a court case to prove "whatever" without the burden of proof falling on whomever was bringing a case against you.

However, if you have posted anonymously only, and someone suspects it is you, to bring a case against you, they would have to identify you. Because of the first amendment right to free anonymous speech, that can't be done without the courts intervening, issuing a subpoena to websites in question, etc etc etc. In order to determine your identity, they have to have access to all the posters' IPs, to determine which posts were yours, so the entire forum's list of posters, anonymous and public, would likely be included, as members can use false identities just as easily as anonymous guests can.

So, my point is, even though everyone who posts in newsgroups, chat rooms, and discussion forums is at risk. But those who use their real identities are, in fact, at higher risk because they willing have revealed their identity and whatever other private information they choose to reveal. A court order or subpoena isn't required to use information in the public domain, and so far, the courts have decided that the Internet chat forums, in fact, are a public domain.

So, anonymous posting gives people *legal* protections that posting with a real identity does not provide. Regarding free speech and right to privacy issues, the legal side is much more important than the technical side.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:09 AM

All

You are very persistent, and I admire that a great deal.

Whatsmore, in your last couple of posts, you have shown to my satisfaction how the thread title and the wider subject matter that you have been discussing are related.

I'm impressed.

I'm still not satisfied though.

1, Do you really think that the mudcat will be the new McCarthy's first port of call? (I would concur that in a country with GWB as its president, this is not entirely improbable)

2, when you post, can't you be traced via your ICQ number. Does it therefore matter whether you use your real name, a nickname, or no name.

3, If you log on via a cyber cafe or public library computer, couldn't you use a special mudcat nickname without fear of being traced.

4, If you can be traced by ICQ number, and "they" decide they really want to find you, they will look for you at whatever public terminal you used last.

5, if you nevr use the same terminal twice, you can continue to use your special mudcat nickname.

6, isn't this all a bit over the top? especially considering the type of information that the mudcat holds on me (favourite colour, hobbies etc)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:23 AM

All

The point of all this is that you can maintain your anonimity AND have a nickname.

You have accepted this and called yourself "All"

I now know who I'm talking to, even though I don't know your real name, where you are from, what you look like, or who you work for.

It was clearly not necessary for you to log on as nothing more than GUEST, just as it is not necessary for anyone else to do likewise.

If you had contained your urge to muddy the waters by mixing the wider issue of internet security with the local mudcat issue of GUESTS who flame, you would probably have found that this forum would have shown a great deal more interest in you and your knowledge.

Do you get my drift?

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:23 AM

All, I acknowleged most of what you said about displaying names in my previous post. I also recognised that a web site owner may be forced to divulge private information for legal reasons.

One area I seem to disagree with you on is the availiblity of information given in the membership. To complicate matters, I am in the UK and not even well up on our own laws but if Mudcat was over here, I would think that this information would be considered private information and that Mudcat would have a legal duty under the Protection Of Data act to ensure its security. I think it would need some legal action (although for all I know, there may aleady be clauses covering access for police and suspected ciminal activity) for any 3rd party to obtain it. I would assume a similar situation exists in the US.

Perhaps someone familiar with US law can clarify.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 08:16 AM

Lox,

I came into this thread because I had followed the debate in teh CM/DB thread.

I mentioned previously that I felt there was a *potential* for that type of posting circumstance to end up in court as libel and defamation. It is similar to the circumstances of teh Yahoo/The1Quiz case, in that it was a CEO who claimed a poster had libeled him in a newsgroup related to his business.

Theoretically, an argument could be made by CM/DB that because these charges against were being done in folk forums, his reputation was damaged and his business suffered. People were suggesting CM be boycotted, there seems to be a possibility that at least some of the charges being levelled against him contain could be considered spurious, hearsay, whatever.

And also, I should mention, that defending against such charges0 might easily be done by parties posting about CM/DB. The point is, we don't control who decides to take up a lawsuit against us. Once one is filed, one must defend against it. In today's litigous world (and I trust that isn't much different in the UK than the US), I believe it is a real risk. Others mileage may vary.

I'm not saying this could, should, would happen. I'm saying there is always a possibility of such occurring. And that anonymous posting does protect against it to a certain extent, as the prosecuting parties have a burden to prove they need the identity of the poster revealed, which will slow many down.

As to Jon and others in UK--I recognize the laws are different there, and I'm not at all familiar enough with laws there.

Regarding the laws here, I'm referring to criminal law, the most likely use of the law against political dissidents. Government long arms (in the past in the US such as HUAC) don't have to comply with "regular" statutes either, as they (government bodies) appoint themselves special powers of prosecution--ie the Watergate, etc era of special prosecutors, who essentially replace the HUAC committees.

A lot of people here also seem to share a lot of personal information about personal problems. That too is an area ripe with problems. Again--connecting physical and mental health issues is one way people's reputations are often routinely destroyed on the basis of undermining public perceptions.

People can say "it can't happen here" of course, if that is what they want to believe. I just don't think they have the right to force their beliefs on others, and make them comply.

As I said, if anonymous posting is allowed here, the right to do it without harrassment (which, in my mind, definitely includes the right to decline giving personal information to the forum just because people want to know it to converse with you) needs to be safeguarded.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 08:55 AM

Where is the CM/DB thread?

What is it called?

I would like to read it.

All, Cheers for making us aware of the risks involved in posting potentially libellous remarks, or putting potentially life ruining information about ourselves on the net.

When I see such information posted by a guest, I will understand why they have kept their identity to themselves.

In the meantime, I will continue to wonder why those without this justification, will refuse to offer a means by which others can address them in what is (on this forum) an almost entirely social context.

I cite your use of the pseudonym "all" as an example of how it is not necessary to be completely unidentifiable when you have nothing "risky" to say.

In fact, I am interested to know how you imagine this discussion would have developed without your use of "all".

I don't see any more "mileage" in this discussion.

Bye

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 12:11 PM

Just to wrap things up:

ALLFedup, I finally see what you mean and it's proper for me to publicly agree with you. The right to anonymity is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution. You can easily verify the early mindset on the issue by finding a copy of the Declaration of Independence- not a soul signed it.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 12:51 PM

If "they" are out to get me, they'll get me, whether I post anonymously on Mudcat or otherwise. But why would they be? Are you an escaped convict, AllFedUp? Are you advocating the violent overthrow of the government? Your technical reasoning is impeccable but your paranoia seems harder to defend.

Alex

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 11:45 PM

Guest-You do seem rather paranoid, I feel if "they" are out to get you, they will find you anyway.The people that run Mudcat have my full name and address, I have no problem with this at all.Do you hear voices in your head? (just a thought!)

John Evans

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Denise;^)
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:12 AM

Cantcha just see it now--

There I sit, in the courtroom, being grilled by an attorney:

"Did you, or did you not, ask the Mudcatters for the lyrics to "The Dixie-Bee Line" during the week of July 8, 2001?"

Jeepers, how would I reply? I mean, the fate of nations would rest on my answer...

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:16 AM

"That depends on your defintion of 'lyrics', sir!"

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:19 AM

LOL ! BG :-)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:26 AM

Problem is, could something like the Harry Fox Agency (hisssssssss, boooooooo) see me answering a post with copyrighted lyrics and decide to use me as an example...

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:37 AM

I should add, it is quite possible to beleive something is trad when it is copyrighted, some people copyright arangements of trad songs, etc.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Margo
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:16 AM

My husband is a systems and network administrator. He HAD to install "spy" software. His boss doesn't want it, my husband doesn't want it either; he thinks it is just another thing to keep him from his real work.

The problem is that the employees weren't acting like responsible adults, and brought it upon themselves. One gal came to her supervisor complaining that a certain someone was going to porn sites. He was asked to stop, and said he would. He didn't.

Another guy was fired for running a porn site from one of the servers on the job!! No, I think it is ok for employers to keep an eye out. Margo

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:54 AM

"What is folk music?"

"I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me!"

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 08:27 AM

As I said, for those who aren't really interested in this issue, it begs the question: why join this thread just to post taunts and insults to me?

There will always be those who prefer fiddling the night away while Rome burns.

I agree with some previous poster--this thread has clearly run it's course. Many more flames and trolls being posted that serious conversation.

Not interested in engaging with member trolls and flamers.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 09:16 AM

We're all a bit paranoid, or can be from time to time, and this paranoia varies from individual to individual. It only becomes a problem for Mudcat when it affects how we treat people.

Some different types of paranoia I've noticed:
1. GUESTS who are afraid of any accountability for their words, whether it be from bosses, the law or individuals who know them or may eventually meet them.
2. People who don't agree with others and have to ascribe evil intentions and motives to the other person in order to dismiss or belittle their views.
3. People who judge all GUESTS based on the actions of a few, and believe they're all out to disrupt the forum.

I'd still rather that people focus on what others say and not what they look like. I think some of the GUESTS we paranoidly accuse of being paranoid may just be testing the water and be thoroughly disgusted when they're hit with anger and suspicion instead of a willingness to get to know them. If guests really are that paranoid, let it be their problem and not ours.

There are GUEST trolls. I don't really understand the level of fear that would make someone not type any conistant name into the "From:" block. In my opinion, people who do that must have a real fear of accountability. Either that, or they see themselves as verbal terrorists. For the sake of myself and the forum, I still try to focus on what the person is saying. The way I try (not always successfully) to behave:
1. Is the person making a point I wish to respond to?
No: don't respond. Yes: respond to the point.
2. Is the person either intentionally or unintentionally turning the discussion into an argument about their personal motives?
No: see #1. Yes: Ignore it and let someone else turn it into an off-topic flame war.
3. Do I think the GUEST is deliberately trolling?
No: Maybe say so in the thread. Yes: Have a Coke, smile, and shut the **** up. If it really is a troll, any reaction is what they desire. Oh yeah - if I can find a point to discuss in their troll, I may try that instead of reacting. Some good discussions have resulted from possible trolling attempts when folks have ignored the emotional provocation.

The flame wars and trolls will never stop because someone will always respond. I can't do anything about other people, only myself. Sure, I try to convince folks I'm right, but at the present time. I'm not Supreme Ruler of the Universe, so no one has to listen.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 09:33 AM

Jeri writes:

"I don't really understand the level of fear that would make someone not type any conistant name into the "From:" block."

And that is it in a nutshell. There are a number of people here who don't like people who wish to post anonymously, because they are hung up on the "accountability" issue.

People who defend the US First Amendment rights, and who are in solidarity with free speech and right to privacy activists around the world, find the "accountability" issue specious.

You can agree to disagree without flaming those who support the right to anonymous free speech in forums which allow it.

And Mudcat members aren't doing that, as I see it from a GUEST perspective supporting the right to post anonymously in THIS forum, which DOES allow it.

Jeri's three rules seem very sensible to me. But it does seem as if some membership has some considerable difficulty adhering to them, or even wishing to honor the spirit of them in threads I've participated in.

As someone said in one of these threads a ways back, this is an issue for members to work out among themselves. It shouldn't require heavy handed intervention from site owners and site administrators (some of whom clearly have self-control and anger issues to deal with regarding their own responses too). You should be able to police one anohter when you see things getting out of hand.

When you are a leader of the forum, and garner the respect and admiration of the membership, that puts the onus upon you to set an example. No GUEST has that power, either as a newcomer or occassional visitor.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 09:50 AM

"People who defend the US First Amendment rights, and who are in solidarity with free speech and right to privacy activists around the world, find the "accountability" issue specious"

No. The First Amendment was intended so people as individuals with names and identities could express their views. If you don't use a name, you're not excercising free speech. In effect, you're saying it doesn't exist - that you believe "J. Doe" can't say what they will, and must hide who they are to be free. This isn't freedom. This is what the First Amendment was trying to eliminate the need for.

As far as site owners (there is only one) and the rest of us expressing emotions, unfortunatly we got 'em and sometimes they get the better of us when it comes to words. Look at it as all of us having the right to free speech. When it comes to actions, all of us who have an edit button had better keep the emotions out of it and behave as professionals. I think we've done pretty good on that score.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 09:54 AM

Jeri writes:

"I don't really understand the level of fear that would make someone not type any conistant name into the "From:" block."

All writes:

"And that is it in a nutshell. There are a number of people here who don't like people who wish to post anonymously, because they are hung up on the "accountability" issue. "

I'm confused and will join the rest who just give up with this thread.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 11:24 AM

Jeri,

I suggest you read the First Amendment to the US Constitution before posting in public discussion forums about what *you* believe it says, and inform yourself a little better about the several hundred years worth of legal briefs written at every level of the US judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court.

The current Supreme Court, known for it's judicial conservatism and narrow interpretations of the Constitution, might be in disagreement with your interpretation of anonymity and the First Amendment.

Now, as I said, there are people here who express strong dislikes for people who post anonymously, period. They don't have to change their minds about that, and are entitled to their opinions and beliefs.

But are they entitled to abuse those who do things they have the right to do, that said posters don't like them doing?

That is the question at the heart of the matter here.

It is clear there are some members here with a deep hatred, if not just an exteme dislike of anonymous posters coming into this forum, even when those anonymous posters are behaving perfectly well, and merely availing themselves of the opportunity the site owner provides for anonynmous posting.

For some wholly irrational reason, those same people seem to think they also have the right to intimidate and harrass those people who choose to use the anonymous guest log-in feature at this website.

And you could possibly be right in this regard: by the site owner allowing anonymous posters to be so harrassed, abused, and intimidated, this small group of members engaging in this behavior have effectively seized control by investing themselves with defacto powers to set an "unwritten and unofficial" rule on anonymous posting, which is being practiced regularly by certain long-term and well-respected members of this forum.

But that doesn't make it right or reasonable. I've seen over and over in other threads, members and guests expressing discomfort and outright disagreement with this behavior being well tolerated in this forum. I've seen members and guests make statements about the abuses they've seen being heaped regularly upon members and guests by certain powerful members of the forum, who appear to be operating so negatively here with impunity. And I've seen a whole lot of members flaming me, who then turn around and deny their dark side in this regard, by suddenly waxing poetic about how lovely a group this is.

I first stumbled across this forum a couple of years ago, and lurked here for a bit. Found it to be pretty friendly, so long as you were a member of the group. I didn't find it to be particularly welcoming though, and wandered away. This time, I came back and saw the same thing. Only decided to say so before I left, knowing full well I was making myself vulnerable to the abuse which would undoubtedly be heaped on me by those members who clearly are using this forum like petty tyrants, and the forum their fiefdom.

When newcomers/visitors see that, a certain number will always join in, as they too are looking for getting those kinds of fixes through Internet posting. Many will also recognize it just for what it is, and leave without ever saying a word.

Many here have proven that there is a core group who will kill every messenger who dares pull back the curtain, revealing this dark side of Mudcat. It apparently, according to some regulars, happens with regularity here.

I would suggest the problem isn't with the occassional visitors, but with the abuses of power being exercised by this core group of members, who keep perpetuating this status quo to protect their own position in the group hierarchy.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 11:24 AM

Hey.....we could eliminate this poor dead horse by eliminating the use of "Guest" altogether, as someone (All?)said much earlier...I thought the reason we don't is that Max likes to use different pseudonyms to offer his comments without having to communicate more than he has time to. It's for Max, isn't it? Otherwise, he would have changed it already....just a thought....harpgirl

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:03 PM

harpgirl,

You're right, I think I did make such a suggestion--tongue in cheek.

I believe the onus is upon those who are vehemently opposed to allowing anonymous posters in Mudcat, to find a reasonable solution, rather than attacking and harrassing the innocent anonymous posters they are projecting their negative beliefs and fear of strangers on.

One such reasonable solution is for them to start a forum of their own, which would not allow anonymous posters.

The other is to accept that anonymous posting is allowed here, and be gracious, respectful, and polite towards respectful anonymous guests, in spite of the strong negative feelings that triggers in them when they see an anonymous guest posting.

What isn't reasonable is to attack anonymous guests who are behaving appropriately, and trying to get others to join the crusade to make you appear to be right, by virtue of the numbers of people you can get to behave just as badly towards polite guests.

I've gone as far with trying to explain my position as is reasonable here. I think the debate is healthy, the flaming and attacking, not.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:37 PM

All, I know you said that, actually. I have followed this discussion with interest. I do believe that the problem you are articulating in your post above would be eliminated by eliminating the Guest/Member distinction and making everyone type a name into the From: box. Those who wished could use a consistent name. Those who didn't could change their names in order to protect their privacy a little. Then we would have to be polite to one another or not based on other more sensible notions, not the specious "anonymous equals bad" argument.

It would be wonderful if we could do as you say in the above post, but we have not been able to thus far, it seems without a change in the structure. Any good behavioral scientist will tell you that in organizations where "personality problems" repeatedly occur a change in the structure of the organization is required to eliminate the interactive problems. Without that the problems will persist....harpgirl

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM

Harpgirl

Agree with your assessment entirely--100% dead on for this group.

However, we disagree about the solution. I would look to site owner to resolve by putting something responsible in the faq, as I've said repeatedly here I don't think that lovely piece of fiction Amos penned which was recently added to permathreads clarifies a thing for guest posters and occassional visitors. It simply denies this dark side of Mudcat that keeps repeating itself here.

It has always been my position, as a free speech advocate and writer, that just because we feel certain people *should* be censored for their bad behavior/language, doesn't mean that it is the right way to deal with people in our midst who are creating those kinds of problems. As I think Jeri pointed out, people *do* have a right to behave badly, or use their own strong emotions as a club on everyone around them. Which is happening here.

Thing is, I just don't think censorship is the answer. Sorta like using a sledgehammer for thumbtack.

IMO, it would be much better for site owner to set a new policy, rather then end anonymous posting for good.

And it's a practical matter as well. It will always be easier to make the members behave than it will guests. Members have a long-term interest in improving the forum, guests usually don't.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: pavane
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:03 PM

As far as I can see, not many people look in FAQ before posting. It's a bit like the old 'If all else fails, RTFM'.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:11 PM

Well, I said I was out of this thread but...

Harpgirl, the Guest tag was only added to protect members from impersonation. At least under the current sytem, everyone who does choose to register is guaranteed a unique identity which can not be used by anyone else.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:22 PM

and....UNLESS you have posted here thru a proxy, Max 'could' find the IP under which you posted and come fiarly close to finding you....which he normaly has no need, desire or time to do.

On the other hand if you DID post thru a proxy, he can't find you if he wanted to....typing a name, as guest or member, has little to do with it, if I understand it correctly...all a membership does if GIVE you a few extra bells & whistles and restrict that name to YOU.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:32 PM

All, I still think Max should make a structural change in the organization along the lines I have suggested or probably he would think up something better, don't you think? I admire your ideas about promoting free (and polite) speech.

With fine minds such as Jon's and others, we could come up with a structural change which would protect anonymity and keep one another from using each other's names in the process. Surely we could find a structural win/win solution. What you are expecting individuals to do is still a long way off in the future behaviorally, without structural organizational changes to help them, in my view. But I appreciate your attempts to resolve these problems without further site changes. harpgirl

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:34 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...

This is rather long.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1788:

"A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing anything they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed.''

It seems to address accountability.

This also:

L. Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties--The Darker Side (Cambridge, 1963). Thus President Jefferson wrote to Governor McKean of Pennsylvania in 1803: "The federalists having failed in destroying freedom of the press by their gag-law, seem to have attacked it in an opposite direction; that is, by pushing its licentiousness and its lying to such a degree of prostitution as to deprive it of all credit. . . . This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its credibility if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the States are sufficient for this if applied. And I have, therefore, long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses. Not a general prosecution, for that would look like persecution; but a selected one.'' 9 Works of Thomas Jefferson 449 (P. Ford, ed. 1905).

If one feels they need to hide their identity, I don't see why the 1st Amendment is effective and we might as well get rid of it. That's how folks try to stay out of trouble in places that don't protect free speech. Now, I can see how some people may have tried to twist the meaning of the amendment to suit their own needs. If they ever should have to defend this in court, they'll have to use their name.

I'm not sure I expect any sort of logic to be forthcoming. Perhaps you have a fact or two?

Jon's right about the origination of "guest" here. Someone began posting as other "members." If there were a way to prevent identity theft and remove the guest prefix, I'd be all for it.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:36 PM

Jon,

Thanks for that bit of information. Very revealing.

The (sole?) reason for setting up the guest log-in was to protect members, and not welcome guests?

Sorta says it all right there.

This group is even more dysfunctional, the deeper you dig.

Talk about paranoid. Talk about the technology for protecting one's identity not working! Living proof! God, the irony!

No wonder there are such astounding levels of hypocrisy and double speak here.

What a cynical, manipulative set up.

God. Last straw. The bullies win. You've very effectively driven me out, as I'm sure you will continue to do to many others.

You know, why not just get rid of the guest log-in. Then the sacred fellowship of members will be made safe and cozy in their insular, inbred little cyber-land, with no people of principle and integrity to bother their guilty consciences. For this group to do anything else is hypocrisy.

Good riddance to many of you--to some others, perhaps we might meet again in a better place, with a better clientele.

This forum is the antithesis of a healthy community, and textbook example of dysfunctional tribalism. What a sham.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:39 PM

She keeps saying she's leaving then she doesn't; she just hangs around and insults us and then complains when we take offense.

Hey All Fed Up, I'm glad you're a person of principle and integrity and I'm not. Maybe you could display some? I could sure use an example to learn from, if I'm as bad off as you say.

Alex

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Denise:^)
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:41 PM

What in heaven's name are you talking about? I have completely missed the point, I guess.

(Maybe I don't get it 'cause I'm a GUEST!)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Denise:^)
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:44 PM

...that is,

"'All,' what in heaven's name..."

...since it didn't end up following the post I was replying to...

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 02:17 PM

All, I don't know why I bother but, membership has never (at least not since I've been here) been a requirement for posting here. Guests used to post in the same way as they do now but the word "GUEST" did not appear anywhere so there was no visible difference between Member posts and Guest posts. Unfortunately, someone abused the GUEST priviledges and impersonated a member.

Hapgirl, a workaround to this problem would be to keep the system pretty much as it is but to drop the Guest tag and check through the list of member names before accepting a GUEST post, rejecting the name if there was a match.

There are several problems with this, the first and most obvious would be the cookieless member who would not be able to use his Mudcat name unless further changes were made...

All in all, it seems to me a lot of work for what is in reality a trivial problem

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 02:28 PM

All, putting a "policy" in the FAQ is not a structural change in a cyber organization, as you must realize. In this organization, a change in how the operating system of the forum works is the only way to solve the problems of "dysfunctionality" to which you refer. I hope I can persuade you that structural changes are needed.

The change Jon is refering to was not enough to solve the problems which are ongoing in interaction which are related to fears about providing operational feedback, reluctance to stand behind unpopular views, human misunderstandings, the tendency people have to attack unpopular views with tangential reasoning, and "bad days."

Our bright people could address these problems effectively, I believe. harpgirl

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 02:37 PM

I think that if we want to evolve with our technology instead of having it prevent our evolution, we have to work harder at it, Jon. You're so smart. Why don't you and Max continue to modify the forum structure? Then I would be more assured that our technology will not halt our evolution as enlightened sentient beings, as it appears to be doing when we don't modify it on an ongoing basis in response to "dysfunctional behavior in the tribe." haplessgirl

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 02:46 PM

Jon and harpgirl,

I appreciate your efforts on behalf, to help me understand the structural side. You are likely right, harpgirl, that some tinkering would work fine.

However, as long as anonymous posting is allowed, if you don't address the hostility towards anonymous posting here, all the structural tinkering will be for naught.

We all know the problem here isn't about technology not all. Its about a small group of rude, obnoxious people dominating the forum, and a larger group following their example in hopes of becoming a member of the inner circle controlling the group dynamic.

If enough of the membership is hell-bent on maintaining this dysfunctional tribal dynamic, no amount of structural tinkering will cure their atrocious behavior.

Nonetheless, I wish you best of luck trying to make this a better forum.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 02:57 PM

I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but I would like to make one more attempt.

GUEST,Fed up (or All, I assume you are the same person), I have no problem in general with people who post anonymously. If a person doesn't wish to divulge his or her identity, that's their right and privilege. For me, anyway, the problem comes when a GUEST is here solely for the purpose of trying to stir up trouble. Recently someone identified only as "GUEST" started a thread for no reason other than to make insulting remarks about the physical characteristics of a Mudcat member. This was disgusting and completely uncalled for, as I think we can all agree.

It's been said several times already, but I guess it needs to be said again, because I believe it's the core of the matter. Please bear with me:

GUEST posts something that is obviously intended to cause trouble.

GUEST asks for information.

GUEST posts something that is a serious and insightful comment.

GUEST posts a snotty and insulting response to someone else's question or comment.

GUEST posts a remark that is ambiguous and indecipherable as to whether it's a serious comment or a flame.

Now -- is GUEST five different people? Four? Three? Two? Or is it one person suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder? Or worse?

Most GUESTs are newcomers. Some ask a question or make a comment and never return, some join, and some don't join but continue to stay around and post, usually adding some identifier to the GUEST designation (i.e., consistently signing yourself "All," so I know it's you and -- hopefully -- not some verbal mad bomber). That's fine! I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. I know that I would like some way of telling the GUEST with a question or serious contribution from the GUEST who is fixated on the size of other Mudcatters' posteriors.

When I see GUEST in the "From" line, my next question is "Friend or Foe?" Should I read on, curious to know what the person has to say? Or should I steel myself for some kind of assault? That, I believe, is where the problem lies.

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you look like, where you live, where you work, or what part of the world you live in. That's fine. You don't need to divulge any information about yourself that you don't want to. I chose to use my own name because some years ago I achieved a little notoriety as a folksinger in the area in which I live, and if anyone recognizes my name, I want them to know that it's me and that I'm still around. I'm approaching geezerhood -- I lived though the national paranoia of Fifties and the ravings of McCarthy, I survived unscathed, and I still survive. I know how to defend myself in any eventuality and I am not afraid to identify myself. But that's me. I don't know what your situation is and if you chose not to give out your name, rank, serial number, home address, e-mail address, phone number, Social Security number, and bank account number, then that is your choice -- and, indeed, a wise and prudent one.

The Lone Ranger always wore a mask. Nobody knew his real identity. But at least when he rode into town, everybody knew he was the Lone Ranger.

My earlier question was not intended to be an insult; I'm just curious. Are you a singer? Do you play any instruments? What kind of music are you interested in? If none of the above, then what is it that you find of interest in the Mudcat? I'm not being snide, I would just like to know -- but if you don't want to answer, that's your privilege.

I'm trying to extend an olive branch here. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 03:02 PM

Harpgirl, I don't think technology can solve this one. Mudcat could be changed to make the Guest a little less obvious but while Mudcat continues to allow Members and Guests (which I hope it does), there will always be a danger of this sort of trouble. Really and honestly, the only solution I can see is for the more experienced people to learn how to cope with it.

BTW, I don't work with Max on the forum structure. If anyone does, I'd think it is Jeff/Pene Azul - depending on your definitions, he already is.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 04:29 PM

Jeri,

Try something a bit more recent, like McInyre V. Ohio. 1995 US Supreme Court decision reaffirming the First Amendment right of anonymous communication.

Although, if you like the idea of going back to a Founding Fathers thing, you could also try the Federalist Papers--written anonymously with psuedonyms.

Historians are still arguing over *their* identities. Doesn't change a word they said, though. Wise guys, actually. Without a known identity, their ideas can't be so readily dissmissed with remarks like "well what did you expect from Alexander Hamilton, he is just a federalist pig."

Also, a tidbit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

"FBI Dir., Louis Freeh, and president of Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Ernest Allen, testifying before the Commerce, Justice and State Dept. Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, at a hearing on FBI efforts to catch child pornographers and molestors who use the Internet. Freeh reveals that FBI agents are paid to pretend to be 13-year-old girls in online chat rooms, and attacks online anonymity and privacy, saying that while the FBI should be able to hide its agents' identities while they pretend to be naughty pubescents, the rest of the world should be identifiable to law enforcement agents automatically. Freeh suggests mandating (or possibly allowing for voluntary implementation of) Internet Service Providers call-tracking all of their users, including with Caller-ID and permanent logging, so that police can immediately ID a suspect. Nevermind warrants or anything like due process. Yet another attempt by the FBI to wrangle new surveillance powers over the new medium. (Mar. 10, 1998)"

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 04:56 PM

Don Firth,

Thanks for the olive branch. I love olives!

Having revealed that private piece of information, I think I'd like to maintain the right to privacy I've been defending here. I'm sure everyone would like to know more about me. Its a natural curiosity we all share. But it isn't innocent.

It is always part of the old ways of creating human communities. The Internet is about new ways of creating human communities. I'm just more comfortable with the latter than the former. Why?

Being surrounded by known quantities makes it easy to cooperate, so the psychologists and sociologists claim.

Yet, they haven't yet figured out that pesky "familiarity breeds contempt" part which results in faction fighting, ethnic cleansing, religious wars, wars for turf between neighbors, etc. And now, here on the Internet, flame wars.

There is always a point where things break down. Ambiguity is often a destabilizer of the known, yet it is something all of us must come to terms with in our lives, just as Jon suggests. It is the grey areas where people feel uncomfortable. The older you get, the more you learn to live in those grey areas with ease. Unless yours is a personality that doesn't tolerate ambiguity well, and there may be some with those intolerances here.

The problem here, it seems to me, is that there are a number of people who believe their opinions and identities to be so important, that they need to be recognized by others for just those things--and who wish everyone to know it is THEIRS. Accountability is important to people like this. They are the people who have problems with ambiguity, and were the ones contantly trying to expose the identities of the Lone Ranger, Spiderman, Superman, etc. They are all known "mystery hero" identities. Yet, we also know they also had their anonymous ones too, which they guarded with their lives. Sometimes we never know the identity of the masked man, the great and powerful Oz, the superhero know only as ___________.

They are also fictional creatures. We are real human beings. We aren't mythological heroes and heroines.

As someone said in another forum once about masking of identity, because somebody robs the local convenience store in a Richard Nixon mask, doesn't mean we need to ban Halloween to make the shoppers safe.

I'll grant you, there aren't many who feel a joyous sense of celebration and freedom when encountering strangers with masked identities. But I'm hopeful there will be more of us all the time who don't need to be so stridently and strictly identified as "me" and all others as an easily identifiable "you" or "them". We can learn to contribute without the need to be recognized for it--it is much easier to do altruistic work when your ego isn't always in teh way.

To test that theory, get a copy of a book of photographs done by a Native American photographer recently--can't remember the name. Anyway, he went around to all sorts of Native American luminaries, and asked them to put on the Lone Rangers mask. Title of the book has something to do with Lone RAnger and Tonto. Anyway...

Pow! Astounding transformations. Deeply disturbing images. Really agitated people. Putting on the Masked Whiteman's face really did a number on everyone's thinking who participated.

Fascinating read. Might enlighten a few folks here, and unsettle their certainties a bit.

Again, best of luck to those of you looking to improve the forum. It can be done, even with the destabilizing influence of some people choosing anonymity.

And please try to remember--unless and until you've had your anonymity violated in a really serious way (and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, so I hope it never happens to any of you) you may not be able to understand why some people have such strong feelings about it.

Thanks for the olives!

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From:
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 05:18 PM

One thing we here at the Mudcat seem to do well, is respond to the "trollers" like this "Fed-Up" who seems to think that posting anonymously is a "right", inherent in the use of the internet.

IT isn't! Never has been.

He or she may think they are anonymous, but the people who want to track him/her CAN and probably are. It doesn't matter.

What I wanted to address is the thought that if you are using a computer at the office, you are obliged to be given "privacy" by the owners of the business. You AREN'T. The computers are theirs, the software was bought by them. The internet access is being paid for by them. You are being paid by those people. If you are using their "paid for" equipment and products, then they have EVERY right (not a priviledge) to monitor the usage of the very same items.

Even if you are using during lunch, the fact you are using this equipment is still subject to monitoring. I fully agree with them.

If someone uses this equipment to
a - Do illegal acts
b - Download pornography
c - Harrass others

All items which could and should cause the equipment to be confiscated in even the more liberal countries. They would be quite within their rights to limit access if such activities were to be discovered.

I have NO problems with monitoring in the workplace.

We, as users and employees, should be there to work, and enhance the job, not our play time.

I do use the office computers for my own purposes, and the boss is certainly free and welcome to monitor any of this activity. None of it is illegal, and as long as I do it during my own time, lunch or after work, and my productivity is not impacted negatively, he can't complain.

And has not, to this point.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 05:42 PM

All, the only way to actually test my hypothesis about making structural changes to help people with the issue of hostility aimed at "unrecognizable posters" is for Max to try it. I do appreciate the fact that you have addressed these issues, however.

I would like to see better anonymity for all of us on the site, in spite of the fact that there is really no such thing once someone begins to use a computer at all. harp

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From:
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 05:43 PM

Here's what "Fed Up" is talking about

Workplace Privacy Issue

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 06:25 PM

Just a thought:

There are two kinds of censorship:

1. A government or some other agency can prevent you from saying diddly squat.
2. You can refrain from saying diddly squat because you're afraid of the consequences.

In either case, you don't say diddly squat, and those who don't want you to say it have won.

There are two kinds of oppression:

1. A government or some other agency can lock you away in a dark cell.
2. You can cower in the dark and refuse to come out for fear that if someone sees you, they will lock you in a dark cell.

In either case, you are imprisoned in the dark, and those you are afraid of have won.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 06:33 PM

Or perhaps worse yet:

You decide to speak out, only to discover that you don't have anything to say -- or that what you want to say has already been said by people far more eloquent than you

or

You step out into the light, prepared to take the consequences, only to discover that the Powers That Be consider you too insignificant to be bothered with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jul 01 - 08:01 PM

All Fed UP...did you read a WORD of what I said about IP tracking back up there? The address (like 210.38.125.32) of the computer you are using IS available if anyone wanted to bother! ...unless you took special steps to hide it.(it ain't easy to track you right to your door, but it is possible).

Whether you type IN that box or not makes little difference 'technically'! Those who are unhappy with you are mostly talking about being friendly and acting like most of the rest of the folks here. YOU have gotten into some wild notion that that box represents "..... is the antithesis of a healthy community, and textbook example of dysfunctional tribalism."...

Quote POOH!
unquote.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 14 Jul 01 - 08:24 AM

Bill D,

I have chosen to address your posting of my IP address in the new thread.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Jul 01 - 12:52 PM

This thread needs a breath mint, 'cause it's talkin' through it's hole, and the wind it makes STINKS!