 sj |
||
|
||
Posting anonymously
|
|
|
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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, |
|
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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:28 PM what he said. |
|
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.
:-) |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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!
|
|
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: 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: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:58 AM yup - and that is a useful comprimise.... grazie |
|
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! |
|
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: 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: Lox Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:33 AM Sorry about that folks, connection difficulties. Very annoying. lox |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Gary T Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:31 AM All--thanks for the clarification. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:15 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: 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: 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: 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: 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) |
| Share Thread: |