BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: GUEST,TempAnon
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 10:56 AM

Yes, I did ask this question anonymously at first because I didn't want to reveal that about half the people answering another question of mine had made an incorrect assumption about me that I hadn't corrected because it didn't matter, at least not to me. It doesn't make sense to ask Should I correct these errors in the same sentence that reveals the error, right?

And it is because I don't care what people think I am, most of the time, unless there is a possible mating ritual involved, that I didn't feel the urge to "come out" since it is INTERESTING to me what people assume, and how their answers differ based on those assumptions. Also, I don't know jack about security and protecting my hard drive from hackers and so on, so I do feel "safer" the less people know about me individually. I don't care if I bare my soul in threads that would tell people what kind of thoughts I have or what I find important and so on, my opinions on things, but I don't see the need for them to know that these thoughts are being voiced by a woman or a man, or what race I am, or what my sexual and erotic orientations are, or how tall I am or how much I weigh or anything else NOT GERMANE TO THE DISCUSSION.

I also wish that these categorizations were less important to ANYONE outside of mating, which is the one place that you are allowed to have preferences that aren't bigoted, like only women, or no Asians, or whatever. It isn't sexist to be heterosexual, but it is to care if it's a woman or a man who just said they like k d lang. Or whatever. BUT the reason I asked if this was rude is that someone (someone I like, that is) was embarrassed that they jumped to an incorrect conclusion and thought they'd offended me. I wouldn't have minded them being embarrassed, after all, incorrect conclusions can be embarrassing but you learn from them, but I didn't want them thinking they'd offended me. And I wasn't sure how to reassure them without getting into what I didn't want to get into, if that makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From:
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 01:59 PM

McGrath ... the reason people post under pseudonyms is because there are creeps on the internet and the mudcat is no exception. Having been stalked by a mudcatter, my opinion is educated on that score. The reason I recently gave out my real name is because I am no longer fearful of this person and, frankly, don't really care much anymore who knows my name.

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 02:34 PM

The name we use online is usually the first one we find that the site will accept. One that is not already in use and we do this because the site asks us to.

Jeri's point about not posting under your name or handle raises some interesting questions. Especially when she (or he, this is getting too silly), points out that when she has done this, her post has been largely ignored. Should The Mudcat forum not be more about what is said rather than who is saying it?

If all contributions were made anonymously I feel that the responses would be made to the points rather than to the individual making them and the discussions would be better as a result. The downside would be that the forum would tend to be less interesting and possibly more insulting? It is about reaching a balance, I suppose?.

I generally just read the posts and having read them will move on to the next one. I only very occasionally even look to see who is making the point. I feel those that those here who say that they look out for and respond to certain other posters, possibly miss out on the full potential of and may limit the forum to some extent? I feel however that this may represent the minority view?

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 03:10 PM

The handy thing about names of all sorts (includiong pseudonymns, nicknames and handles) is that if someone says something interesting, you can click and find if they've said something else interesting that you'd missed. Or if you think someone is contradicting themselves you can check up on them - that's a bit sneaky.

Anonymity proper - ie posting as GUEST doesn't allow us that, And there are times when there's a fair enough reason why that, like this thread. But it gets annoying when it gets confusing to tell whether two unadorned GUESTS on the same thread are the same person or not. Partly that is because you tend to know that they are just trying to be annoying. And if you want to annoy people there are so much mmore interesting ways of doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 06:49 PM

Right, McGrath. When posting as Guest (as from work or while traveling - Can't miss the 'cat for more than an overnight) I call myself Mrr, which is still my mickname, short for Mrrzy; at first I called myself Mrr-at-Work, or Mrrzy-at-work, but then I figured there aren't two mrr*s out there and people pretty much ought to know it was me. Wonder how many did...
For as long as I can remember (but only while in English-speaking countries, it doesn't work in French) when writing paper notes to people I tend to sign them Mrr, even at work. Eventually anyone I hang out with for any time starts calling me Mrr anyway. That is why I was surprised, for instance, that AllanC didn't recognize me when I joined the Mudcat.

I am getting the feeling that people don't want to know who Temporarily Anonymous is... Other thoughts on that?

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 07:31 PM

I aspire to view a posting by what it said rather than who is saying it. Whether the poster offers a name to identify themselves or not, what matters most are the thoughts contributed.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 08:24 PM

I like to know who I'm disagreeing with or agreeing with in a discussion. By which I mean that I want to know if that person who said that thing that seems not to make sense has actually said a lot of things before that turned out to be pretty wise, so that maybe I'd better try and puzzle out if what they are saying this time really makes sense after all.

Essentially it's the difference between a bunch of people having a discussion, and a bunch of people heckling each other.

But there's times when keeping schtum about who you are makes perfect sense, and we've every right to do it without being hassled. So I wish people would stop badgering Temporarily Anonymous to take off the cloak of invisibility. It's a perfectly appropriate garment for the thread, and has enabled things to be discussed in a less cluttered way.

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 08:35 PM

When I let go of my assumptions about people completely it is amazing how life opens up and I find aspects about that person I never realized. If I assume things about a particular poster and then base my perspective of them on my assumptions, I have limited my reality.
There is a magnificant treasure box to be found within people. To find it, you just have to let go of the frame you have placed them.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 21 Jun 00 - 08:37 PM

....the frame you have placed them in.

Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jun 00 - 02:27 AM

We can hide behind lots of things if we wish to. Clothes for example. I read an article on how The Queen and Lady Diana Spencer were dressed when they met at Balmoral. Casually dressed as those people do, to enable them to recognise each other.