BS: GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:44 AM

well.. Jim, it's what I proposed off the top of my head on another recent thread,
and an idea I continue to see as a viable working suggestion.
Seems to me the only positive practical suggestion offered so far on this thread ???

Too me the issue is consistency of name within a thread, not anonymity.

As I also said on the previous thread;

"The other alternative is multiple guest IDs depending on the thread and subject matter;
but we've already been there and agreed it is not positively conducive to mudcat community cohesion...??? ]"

but maybe in some circumstances that could be tolerable to distinguish one 'anonymous' [blank name box] guest from anther ???

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:49 AM

As a botanist, I will not countenance stigmas being applied to anthers. That's just sexist. It must be the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:52 AM

The problem is, Terribulus, that rather than give a view, you bombard the website with irrelevant nonsense and dubious sources to back up your opinion on the basis of trying to prove, wrongly as it happens, that your view is fact therefore everyone else is thick.

Intelligent people don't need to do this, their views have merit without claiming them to be the only one. Only shallow people and liars need to do that.

And of course they then need to be ridiculed.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:57 AM

"Too me the issue is consistency of name within a thread, not anonymity."
Makes sense to me.
Meanwhile, back at the kicking match......
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 09:01 AM

"you cannot sit in your corner at all while getting involved in arguments."

Ehmm Gnome this is what GUEST said at 06:56 AM:

"If this was a real life pub, I'd guess you'd be the bloke at the bar holding forth, ranting on,
and I'd be in a corner somewhere supping a pint and reading a paper,
avoiding eye contact UNTIL YOU GOT OFF YOUR HOBBY HORSE AND CALMED DOWN A BIT".

Now that last bit that I have highlighted if read and understood would seem to indicate that there would be no getting involved in any discussion let alone argument.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 09:04 AM

Sigh!   How many times have we been through this. The problem is not with anonymity the problem is with ad hominem posts. The only effective solution is zero tolerance ie. no reference to the poster whatsoever. This works on other forums. Any reference to the poster is removed with a note stating the reason. Persistence results in a suspension of posting privileges for a period. Persistence after removal of the suspension results in removal from the forum. This works.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 09:06 AM

"...as a fellow Liverpudlian used to say, "Calm down, Calm down lads".' writes Jim above. Indeed; or as my cousin the late Michael Winner never quite put it: "Calm down, dear. It's only an internet forum".

≈M≈

Subject: BS: RE Apologies to Shimrod
From: GUEST,That guy who started the hate speech thread
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 03:21 PM

Each time I start a response to a thread, I take a break and come back to find it closed. Rather irritating, I must add, but such is life.

First of all, I would like to add that I have been meeting your requirements of consistently posting with a recognizable name. So you can't blame other GUEST's posts on me.

But, as I was going to respond:

Shimrod, that was my bad, and I apologise for any libel I have caused you. My memory's not perfect and I didn't feel like checking. But I was correct in blaming Mr. (or should it be Dr.?) Steve Shaw, the psychoanalysis expert. He thinks he has my entire life figured out from one post. Fancy that. Under my real account I make no political/personal posts, so that disproves your entire point from the get-go. Again, I haven't referred to any alleged stabbings, because i don't make political posts--I don't even know what stabbings you're talking about. And of course i would only selectively chose hate speech--the point was to bring to light what you don't think of as hate speech. You already identify anything the other side as hate-speech. It wasn't made to showcase all hate speech, just what's not often seen as it. ANd the difference between me and you is that if I mis-speak or say something I didn't mean, I'll actually own up to it, like I did with Shimrod above. I'm an honest and fair person.

The second offender was actually Acme: "the first guest doesn't see his own conservative environment." What do you know of my environment? If you actually read what I wrote you would have seen that I said I was liberal. The environment in which I live is liberal--the school I attend is extremely far left. So I'm glad you can make more incorrect assumptions. That contributes oodles to the conversation.

In response to Steve Shaw's post at 6:50 AM of Feb 1st on BS: GUESTS?, the point of the anonymous guest posting is to protect ourselves from you and your posy's ravenous onslaught of hatred. As we have seen in response to in particular MGM Lion, because of the views he holds/held on certain things you refuse to respect him ever again, even if he "sees the light" and changes his views. I prefer to keep my real account respectable, and if I was to earn some sort of disrespect, I would hope to earn it for some real reason, not some McCarthyist witch-hunting shouts of racism because I am for or against one thing or the other.

But I've digressed. I'd like to apologise to Shimrod. I will make no further responses to this topic--on "stars", racism, or GUEST posting--from any anonymous GUEST account, this GUEST account, nor my real one. I was wishing to appologise for my mis-speakings against Shimrod.

Have a good day.