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