BS: GUEST posters who start fights

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:29 AM

damn, missed again!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:30 AM

How come no one has posted (yet) - to request that someone closes this thread down?

Does this indicate signs of a little progress?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: el ted
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:42 AM

Close this thread down now! I got 100, this thread no longer has any worth!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:49 AM

My name is Harry Worth

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 09:00 AM

"How come no one has posted (yet) - to request that someone closes this thread down?

Does this indicate signs of a little progress?"

For the members, perhaps. The fact that the thread exists rather contradicts the idea of progress, however.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 11:29 AM

Notice how there's never any indication by a nameless GUEST of any reason for the namelessness (aside from getting up the nose of people who don't like the practice)?

Sometimes a mention of "anonymity", which is completely irrelevant, sine using a name in no ways detracts from anonymity, sometimes "If I choose to, so what - it's legal", which is equally beside the point. Frequently "you people hate all GUESTs", which is quite untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 11:47 AM

Well McGrath I hope you understood what you have just above, I doubt if others will !

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:38 PM

I got it quite clearly...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 02:03 PM

I understood. What part did you not get?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 02:14 PM

Once again then. In a version which is slightly less contracted:

I draw to the notice of people reading this thread the fact that there is never any indication given by any nameless GUEST of any reason which they have for choosing to post without any kind of name, however temporary, attached to "GUEST". (I leave aside the motive of causing irritation to people who dislike this practice, which on occasion some nameless GUESTS have implied they find enjoyable.)

Sometimes a nameless GUEST has mentioned "anonymity" as a reason for not using a pseudonym of any kind along with GUEST; however this appears to be completely irrelevant, since the use of a name or pseudonym in no way means that the user is any less anonymous. Sometimes the response has been of the form "If I choose to, so what - it's legal", which is equally beside the point, since the fact that something is legal is not in itself a reason for choosing to do it. Frequently the response is of the form "you people hate all GUESTs", which is quite untrue. (Most GUESTS are happy to use a name or pseudonym.)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 02:38 PM

I agree that we are anonymous, whether we use a handle or not. However, this perception is evidently not universally shared.

Every now and again, a poster will go nameless on a certain subject, i.e., "I'm a long time member but it would be too embarrassing to reveal my name in connection with this problem", etc.

And what about those threads where it is quite obvious that a member is weighing in on a controversial subject? Are we really that afraid? What do we fear?

I respect the impulse to put a 'real life' name onto an opinion that one knows not everyone shares.

Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM

Real evidence of progress among members would show they had matured as internet chat room/forum users, and hopefully as adults (though I'm not holding my breath) for there to never be another whining thread in this forum again.

That would show that, despite their displeasure about the forum rules, the membership had decided to accept the process for posting, without any more complaint.

What are the odds of that happening, considering this thread is now well over 100 posts, the vast majority of which are from members who just want to gripe about this particular rule that they so dislike?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 03:04 PM

Split infinitives, not personalities.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 03:18 PM

Gee Guest, I never would have suspected you were a Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:07 PM

GUEST Date: 15 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM,

One of the factors that keeps this a present issue is that new folks join and don't know this is old, old ground. They start out trying to be helpful and ask a question or make a suggestion, sometimes trying to be funny about it, and then the oldtimers' old feelings get brought back to the fore, and they pile on trying to make their points more clearly each time.

Included in these rehash cycles are the old familiar flames about people's feelings, feelings about feelings, and feelings about feelings about feelings.

So whining about the threads like this isn't exactly helpful, either, then, is it?

Guess it just indicates that people are people and tend to do things over and over, even when they've been proven not to work! And that for all the type and hype, a practical solution that will please everyone has not yet manifested.

I wonder what would happen if, everytime one person here disrespected another one, the whole forum would crash for, say, ten minutes. (Of course this is magical thinking because who would we have define "disprespect" and adjudicate the cases?)

If we realized what it costs us all to slow each other down with bad feeling, would we tend to do anything differently?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:15 PM

What gets me about people who just post as "guest" is that I feel some are in their regular "identity" when they want to put on the image.

When they want to criticize, name call, or anything else that might spoil their reputation, they do it is a Guest.

I feel these types of people generally:

* Have no balls (or in female cases, ovaries)
* Are cowardly
* May be split personalities in real life
* Are closet cross-dressers

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:19 PM

You can't stop debate, and you can't expect everyone to accept "the way things are."

Threads like this had better continue if Mudcat is to survive and grow.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 05:14 PM

Well, I say we vote on whether or not to eliminate the ability to post as GUEST. Or wait, this is not a democracy, I forgot....It's a Maxocracy!!!!

I do not think that accepting things as they are without voicing discontent is a sign of maturity, however GUEST. I believe it is a sign that people still disagree about whether we should eliminate the ability to post as GUEST and have to use a membership name.

And hey, Max made a huge structural change when enough whining happened the last time we addressed this issue. Intermittant reinforcement is a very powerful reinforcement schedule. It guarantees that people will still whine to try to get Max to change things, again.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:34 AM

The change that was made was to keep BS out of the music threads. As I understand it, Max felt that was a legitimate complaint.

As I understand it, Max also shares many members feelings about guests posting without a consistent handle, but he isn't willing to change the log-in because he wants this to remain an open forum where anyone can post without registering.

I don't see that guest posting is a problem at all, now that members have settled down and seem a little less paranoid about guests as bogeymen. I don't know what caused the shift, although I attribute it somewhat at least to the few guests who consistently post without using a consistent handle, or any, who behave far better than many members.

The obnoxious and belligerent, once they realize they can get away with behaving badly so long as they become members, soon fit right in with the other obnoxious and belligerent members, and the members who tolerate and/or encourage them. But first they must show they are "on the right side" of membership, ie that they can flame guests with the best of them. It is one of the tests of becoming a member, though I'm quite sure this goes unnoticed by the members.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:52 AM

And really, is anyone here truly dumb enough to think that if there were no guest log-ins, that members would suddenly start behaving better?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 11:17 AM

I'm sure that if we look hard we could find someone who IS that dumb...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 01:05 PM

There are all kind of perfectly good reasons why a member might prefer to post on some occasion as a GUEST with a different name.

On the other hand I can think of no good reasons why anyone would choose to post as GUEST with no name (leaving aside when it happens by accident or inadvertance). And I note that none of the nameless GUESTs on this thread (or is there only one?) have chosen to suggest one.

"...if there were no guest log-ins" - this isn't ever about guest log-ins as such, it's about guest log-ins without any kind of name, however temporary. I know I keep on repeating this distinction - but it's one that keeps on getting blurred, because it is quicker to say "GUEST" than "nameless GUEST."

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 03:29 PM

This is such a non-controversial subject that for one of the first times, I'm agreeing with Martin Gibson :).

There was a thread not so long ago expounding the view that Bush brought people together by uniting them against him.

Nameless GUESTS starting fights seem to serve the same purpose (only without bloodshed).

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 03:34 PM

That's true, Shlio. Amusing, isn't it? Amazing as it may seem, there are people out there for whom quarreling with this forum is an ongoing emotional obsession. If the forum disappeared they would have to find something else to be upset about. (And I'd have a lot more time to devote to various of my other pursuits...)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST,lurker
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 03:44 PM

Psycho Member

I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax
I can't think 'cause my screen's on fire
Don't touch me
I'm a real live wire

Psycho Member
I hate GUESTS


Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Leave, leave leave leave leave our Mudcaaaaat
Psycho Member
I hate GUESTS
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Leave, leave leave leave leave our Mudcaaaaat

You start a conversation you can't even finish it
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
Say something once, why say it again?

Psycho Member,
I hate GUESTS

Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Leave, leave leave leave leave our Mudcaaaaat
Psycho Member
I hate GUESTS
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Leave, leave leave leave leave our Mudcaaaaat

We are vain and
We are blind
I hate people when they´re not polite

Psycho Member
I hate GUESTS

Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Leave, leave leave leave leave our Mudcaaaaat


Talkingheads got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 05:28 PM

Not bad...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 05:37 PM

Except NOBODY "hates GUESTS" as such.

It's when people insist on posting without any labels, (unlike the ones posting with pseudonyms - for example, "GUEST,lurker") that they invite criticism, and get it.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

GUEST posters are chicken-shit people. If they had belief in what they say about others, they'd sign their real names. I have two of them aced for who they are--one gal and one guy. Ya can disguise lots, but some are so stupid as to use little-known words and then wonder why they are easy to 'find'. Gee, ya think?

On occasion, Guests will post under the guest label because an issue is very sensitive or so personal that they cannot sign their names. That I understand and appreciate. The others? No. They suck.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 09:16 PM

Alright, I take it back: Maybe I should have said NOBODY "hates GUESTS" as such, except brucie.   

I don't agree though.

"If they had belief in what they say about others, they'd sign their real names." Well, most people who post to the Mudcat as members don't use their real names. They have all kinds of weird and wonderful pseudonyms. That doesn't matter, they serve to distinguish posts from each other, so that it makes it possible to carry on a discussion. And it means you can get to know people over a number of threads, and build up friendships (and the reverse too, if that's what you are into). Often without having the faintest idea who the people are, or where in the round world they live.

And when people post as GUESTS, the same is true. No reason they should feel any obligation to put "their real names", any more than the rest of us.

For some people they have no choice but to post as GUESTS, because they are using computers that won't accept the cookie that goes with membership. And there are people who don't feel happy about joining anything online, probably because they have been burnt before, and haven't been around here long enough to trust us.

So far as members posting as GUEST with an alternative pseudonym goes, one reason, as brucie says, is because "an issue is very sensitive or so personal". There are other reasons - there are occasions when a post or two from someone such as "GUEST,Albert Einstein" might, for example, be a way of lightening a thread. I'm sure there are other reasons, and I can't see any harm in it. (When people use the facility utmost insults or personal attacks that they would not feel able to make in the open, that of course is quite a different thing.   But most GUEST posting by members is not like that.)

But what is never acceptable is to use the name under which someone else posts - and that is really why posting without any name at all is so unhelpful, because that is a "name£ which has been used by a great many people.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Peace
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 09:13 PM

To quote Bill Fields, "On second thought, fu#k 'em!"

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 11:35 PM

Here's a reason: maybe some GUESTs don't like pseudonyms, cutsie, clever, distinguishing, or otherwise. The date/time stamp serves well to distinguish one GUEST post from another. It doesn't do well in distinguishing one GUEST from another, but some GUESTs aren't too worried about that. Some members are.

If a benevolent GUEST is only concerned about the content of his/her post, then s/he often will not bother with a pseudonym, real name, or any other distinguishing moniker because, in most cases, the date/time stamp will take care of that for him/her.

Some responders don't like using the date/time stamp to distinguish between posts because it's tedious, clumsy, awkward, or otherwise inconvenient for the responder. Some GUESTs don't care about the responder's inconvenience, because the date/time stamp still serves a useful distinguishing purpose, regardless of its inconvenience. If a responder finds the date/time stamp too inconvenient, the responder can choose to forego a response.

If a GUEST wants to establish an historical reference, s/he can take credit for his/her posts by laying claim to a post via the date/time stamp. If a member doesn't trust this method of establishing a history because a member might argue that becoming a member is a more efficient way to establish a history, then we are pretty much back at square one regarding the member/GUEST issue, and "what we have here, is a failure to communicate." Some GUESTs invoke the Groucho Marx credo in this matter: "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member." (perhaps not a direct quote)

Some benevolent GUESTs realize that some malicious GUESTs use nameless GUEST postings to attack members or GUESTs. If a member chooses to deem all nameless GUEST postings as malicious, for whatever reason, this doesn't bother some benevolent GUESTs because they don't sweat being lumped in with malicious GUESTs. The benevolent GUESTs' posts are obviously not for them.      

Bottom line, it's all about personal choice. Some choices we make don't sit well with others, but thankfully, we don't have to live up to each others' expectations. We can choose to exercise a little personal freedom over some things. The bigger issue is, sadly, the list of things over which we can exercise freedom of choice is dwindling, but perhaps this last comment is more appropriate in another BS thread.

Best wishes, and a fruitful future to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: John P
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 12:58 AM

I tend to treat folks in on-line forums the same way that I would treat people in the real world. At Mudcat I usually imagine that I'm at a meeting of the local folk club. I fall into conversations with people who are discussing things I'm interested in, and I don't much care whether or not I know their names. Anyone who is being an asshole gets walked away from, whether they are known to me or not. Someone who refuses to give a name when asked is behaviorly outside the lines for our society. If they are outside the lines at all, it is hard to tell how far outside the lines they are. I walk away from them. People who interrupt conversations with rude remarks get talked to sternly by the folks who are having the conversation. If they refuse to give their name, they are a wierdo and everyone tries to make them go away. If they refuse to go away, everyone else goes away, knowing that we can continue our conversation later when the wierdo isn't around.

Whenever I find myself in a situation like this at Mudcat, I just ask myself how I would respond if the person were standing in front of me.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 02:47 AM

"What gets me about people who just post as "guest" is that I feel some are in their regular "identity" when they want to put on the image."

Gibson, what gets me about people like you is that for all your high-mindedness, you don't realise that the only difference between you and me is that you are a 'guest' that can be PMed. Maybe you do... and you think we wont notice, or maybe you've forgotten already.
You have regularly stated on this forum that you can sling your chauvinistic ass out of here any time you want, and walk through the curtains back into your idyllic life... and it'll all be like it never happened.

No matter about your user name, you will still only be a 'named guest' here, as far as I'm concerned.

I?
I... an anonymous guest?
Who am I to offer an opinion?

Who are you to offer one?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 06:16 AM

There is one other difference between Martin Gibson and yourself, GUEST: He cannot just be PMed, he can also be identified by name, traced, harassed, thumped on the nose. In other words, he takes full responsibility for his postings and offers his name and reputation to back them. So do others like Harvey Andrews, Clinton Hammond, Richard Bridge, etc. So do all the regular members who have posted their profiles, so they can be identified.

I have no problem with anyone coming in as a GUEST to post a genuine query, or to offer an opinion. I do have a problem with anonymous attacks and slander aimed at anyone. It reminds me of kids who ring the doorbell and then make a run for it. It has the same annoyance factor. But their words can never carry the weight of an eponymous poster.

So, in the full knowledge that you can look me up in the Members directory and PM me or even email me, harass me, come to my gigs and heckle me etc...:

...Piss off you little rascal...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 06:34 AM

Just a few days ago, I posted a message as a GUEST on another thread. It was soon after I had posted as myself, but found I wanted to say something that I knew would be thought rude and I realized I didn't want to say it under my name because I didn't want the people involved to get angry with me.

It was very strange, really. I didn't feel any better afterwards, even when I got back the kind of response that would have floored me if it had been directed to my real name, and ultimately I've decided that being anonymous to say something really felt cowardly. If I didn't want to be known personally for having said what I said, I think the better reaction would have been to re-phrase my posting under my name in a way I could live with...I dunno, just my own thought on the subject, and under my own name!..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 07:16 AM

From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 04:49 AM
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 09:00 AM
GUEST 15 Apr 04 - 11:47 AM
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 11:35 PM
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 02:47 AM

Is that one, two, three, four or five unnamed GUESTS?

If someone were to write a post responding to something one of them had said, would there be any way of knowing whether a subsequent poist from an unamed GUEST was a reply continuing the conversation, or an interjection by someone else?

Bsically, posting in the name of another person is anti-communication, and posting as an unamed GUEST is posting in the name of all the previous unamed GUESTs.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 07:27 AM

Ellenpoly, your thinking - and the fact thay you were honest enough to tell us about your little "cowardice" shows integrity. Bravo sou.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST,Jean Phillips. Very nice, well behaved GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 07:38 AM

I've noticed that whenever guest posters start fights, regular mudcat members are more than willing to don boxing gloves and join in. If guests are submitting posts that are designed just to irritate, annoy and be rude, for crying out loud just ignore them. Anyway, mudcat members (with real names or pseudonyms) are capable of being obnoxious and insulting to each other without the help of guests :-)

For those who really dislike the idea of guest posters you could:

Ask the site owner to get rid of the guest facillity
Leave this site and frequent ones without guest posters
Learn to ignore deliberately annoying guests

This is a very informative site with some real characters who can write well put together and witty posts, don't let annoying guest posters spoil it and don't think it would be all sweetness and light without them (and try not to put on the boxing gloves so readily ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 08:35 AM

"For those who really dislike the idea of guest posters "

Once again - virtually NOBODY dislikes the idea of "guest posters". It's the people who post as GUESTS, but who don't add any kind of name or whatever to distinguish them from other people posting in the same way in the same threads who invite and receive criticism. Most people who post as GUESTs don't do that.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 08:35 AM

Voicing a differing opinion is not starting a fight. Although it is often seen as such on here. This is an open discussion board.

I wouldn't join a 'club' if I didn't agree with the rules. So why did you?

Some examples of guests starting fights would also be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 01:00 PM

GUEST: You can do the reasearch as easily as anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: John P
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 01:22 PM

I was recently involved in a discussion here that was started by an anonymous guest. At first everything went along as normal, and no one seemed to mind that the person who started the thread and took a large part in the discussion was anonymous. As the conversation progressed, however, the guest became increasingly strange, leveling personal attacks against those who disagreed with it, not responding to reasonable points made against its arguments, and just saying the same thing over and over again in progessively strident and unpleasant terms. At that point, the anonymous nature of the guest became an issue for several of us, and we expressed that. It wasn't the fact that the guest was anonymous that caused everyone else to walk away from the discussion, or the fact that it was rude (although rudeness never works to get your message across), but the combination of anonyminity and rudeness. The guest decided that we were reduced to flaming anonymous guests instead of continuing the discussion. It apparently didn't get the message (even though it was spelled out clearly) that folks were walking away not because of its anonyminity, but because it was rude, and its anonyminity raised its rudeness to the point of indicating the presence of a wierdo.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM

"He cannot just be PMed, he can also be identified by name, traced, harassed, thumped on the nose. In other words, he takes full responsibility for his postings and offers his name and reputation to back them."

Absolute hogwash!
There is no such person... just a bigoted asshole who likes guitars.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 05:48 PM

Aw, heck, GUEST of the 17 Apr 04 - 11:35 PM

By the time I've read your comments, thought of a useful and sensible response, and read the rest of these fine posts, the date and time's gone clean out of my poor head. Names are so much easier to remember than numbers.

Plus, I can't respond to any of the other, more recent, Guests now, 'cause I can only copy one date at a time.

I realise this is not your problem, and I should be clever enough to remember a stream of times, but I'm not. I doubt many others here can either.

As to the last GUEST - "There is no such person... just a bigoted asshole who likes guitars.
Yes, maybe, but we all know that he's one consistently...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 06:18 PM

If you are discussing Martin Gibson, I will speak to that. You are wrong. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:13 AM

"There is no such person... just a bigoted asshole who likes guitars"
Now who's the bigot ! ;-) Martin's liking guitars proves your point, GUEST, does it? Please do continue with your well-reasoned arguments, we are all eager to read the next installment of unattributable wisdom.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:27 AM

Ah, John P, but how do you know whether the nameless GUEST who screwed up that thread was the same one as the nameless GUEST who started it? That's what's so stupid about the practice.

Just because something isn't actually banned is no reason why other people don't have a reasonable right to ask people not to do it. It's perfectly possible to post as a GUEST using a handle someone else has been using, but that doesn't mean that if, for example, someone else started posting here as "GUEST,Shlio", it wouldn't be reasonable to object to that happening. Posting as a nameless GUEST is just another way of doing essentially the same thing - it is posting in such a way as to confuse different people's identities.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:57 PM

"Just because something isn't actually banned is no reason why other people don't have a reasonable right to ask people not to do it."

No McGrath, you don't have a "right" to make such demands in a forum that doesn't require anyone to do it. Now, I'm quite sure you and some other people feel strongly that your *expectation* of people filling in the From line be met, and maybe you do honestly believe it to be a birth right of some sort. But your expectation isn't even realistic, considering that Max has said he has no intention of changing the log-in and registration to post here.

BTW, it is quite simple and easy to open a second browser window, copy and paste the date/time off each post one wishes to reply to, and use that for the purpose of showing which post the current poster is responding. Everyone also has the ability to simply cut and paste the text they want to comment on in their own post. Not all that complicated, or difficult. You can respond to what is written easily, instead of to an real or pseudonymic identity.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:07 PM

Of the dozens of people who were members when I joined only a couple are still around these days.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST posters who start fights
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM

Hmmmm I'm back from a weekend trip.

The Guest who addressed me as "Gibson" you at least could have called me Mr. Gibson.

The probable same guest who referred to me as just a bigoted asshole who like guitars, you are nothing more than a skidmark in a toilet who has no life, and, is quite right that I do like guitars, but is quite wrong about me being a bigot. Please go off in a corner somewhere with your pathetically underdeveloped genitalia and take your life's frustrations out elsewhere. I just want you to know that I enjoy being as rude as I possibly can to you.

And that, John P. is what is so fun about a forum like this and it's difference in real life. I can if I want be so fucking rude to nameless, faceless jerkfaces when it suits me and not worry if they have a gun.