BS: Anonymity

Subject: Anonimity
From: GUEST,guestguestguest(intruder)guest.
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:38 AM

watching the various threads lately, and i'm reminded of something my not-quite-sainted-but-very-often-correct mother said to me...

"it's easy to be civilized when someone is watching, but it's more important to be when no one is."

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Bert
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:50 AM

Nice thought guest, but unfortunately some guests seem to think

"it's easy to be an asshole when no one knows who you are"

We're glad that's not you.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 12:06 PM

Well, my Mom, sainted to me, always told me I could say and do what I wanted, but I always had to be prepared to back it up, to have the courage of my convictions, but to always challenge what I believed. to do any of that required that I stand up and stand behind who I am. Anonymity just doesn't figure into that.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 12:21 PM

Unfortunatly anonymity is used often here for the purposes of flaming and getting people all worked up. I can't respect that. It takes a special kind of weasel and/or coward to use that method. My guess is that your average anonymous flaming poster is a male, owns a computer and has a very, very, tiny pecker. And has a complex about it. But that's just my opinion. Wesley Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Kim C
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 12:25 PM

Well, I agree with all that... but also in the past there have been members who had legitimate questions of a sensitive and personal nature, which were posted anonymously, usually with the disclaimer "You all know me but due to the subject matter I can't tell you who I am." Of course that's a far cry from somebody who doesn't have anything better to do...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:13 PM

As you may have noticed, there are a few of us who always use our real names. Joe Offer, Art Thieme, Dick Greenhaus, Jon Freeman, Clinton Hammond, Don Meixner, Don Firth, Rick Fielding, Malcolm Douglas, are a few whose names I could find in recent threads. (Funny, they're all male. And no doubt, that's not just a coincidence.) There are quite a few who use a first name and middle initial, and these include some women - I presume these are genuine. And I suspect there are some who use a nickname, but are known by the same nickname in real life.

But more important than a real name - as far as Mudcat is concerned - is a consistent name. That's the main thing you get when you become a Mudcat "member." I wonder if most "guests" understand that. I posted for a long time as "GUEST, Jim Dixon" mainly because I didn't realize that becoming a "member" was SIMPLE AND FREE. I just didn't bother to investigate, and that was my loss.

My impression is that people will take you more seriously if they know you're a member - not that members can't be flamers, or that non-members can't be serious - but IT HELPS. And who doesn't like to be taken seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:18 PM

Really? well, I'm a member, I use my real name, and no one takes ME seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Skeptic
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:26 PM

kendall,

You mean you've been serious all this time???? Troll told me it was all a put-on. *BG*

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:35 PM

I agree Jim, I hadn't noticed that before but I do tend to take someone more seriously when they use their "normal" mudcat name. Maybe we just get jaded by the flamer guests that are here for just that purpose. On the other hand I do understand the need for occassional anonymity depending on the subject and I appreciate a member letting us know that is what he/she is doing.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:38 PM

It's like my Sainted-while-still-living Mom used to say "Stupid is as stupid does". Or was that Forrest's Mom? I always get us confused. I try to judge the content of the message on its own, regardless of whether it's anonymous or otherwise. Of course, intent is a lot easier to figure when you have previous information about the person posting. Sarcasm, humor, and irony can look an awful lot like flaming when you don't know the intent.

I have been Jim Bartholomew since I figured out that Jim Wisniewski didn't read well on a marquee in the 60's. It's my confirmation name, chosen when I was a mere slip of a weird lad. I always use it. I figure if you're not willing to stand by what you say, why say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:46 PM

I've been anonymous when I needed to... but (thread creep) the best advice my mom ever gave me was back in teenagerhood, when I asked for a raise in my allowance as I was starting to go out to clubs with friends, and wanted money for drinks. Mom said, and I've never forgotten it - that anyone who buys their own drinks in a club isn't doing whatever it was that they went there to do, well. In other words, no, you can't have a raise in your allowance. (Creep off)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:54 PM

When is it ever needed to be anonymous?!?! If ya haven't got the stones to put your name to a statement or flame or troll or whatever, then don't do it!!!

easy as that!

Anything else is cowardly, wet-blouse, nancying around...

again, another reason this place needs to step up it's Moderation... have them clean the place up of obvious flames, trolls, and off topic garbage... which is not to say that we can't go off topic at all, but you know the threads I'm talking about...

---

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: harpgirl
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:58 PM

Clinton, are you breathing that Downriver air again??? You should watch that!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: John Routledge
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:59 PM

JIM DIXON You have the essence of the problem.Lack of consistency. Yours Hopefully a consistent Geordie Broon

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:05 PM

Downriver air? HUH?

LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:20 PM

CH, you can't count the cost for someone else and say how they should conduct themselves. I mean, if you want to come and run my WHOLE life for a bit, maybe.... but to look at one part and think you know what someone else can and should do... nah.

~S~

Subject: Anonimity is BS!!!!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:27 PM

Huh?? what the hell are you even talking about Wysi??

Not having the stones to have the courage of your convictions is pathetic... I don't care who you are...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:35 PM

CH, It's not so much not having the courage, I may just NOT WANT you to know. As long as I'm not flaming, trolling or genrally pissing people off, then it's my choice. which is my opinion. I'm sure I'm allowed one of those.

And by the way, Nancying around???? Hmmmmm, why don't I throw you a rope and we'll try pulling you into the 90's. If that works we'll bring you into the new Millenium....

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:50 PM

Nope... "nancying around" is a great descriptive, colourful phrase!! You can have it when you pry it from my cold dead middle-finger!! LOL!! Political correctness is the language of conformity, and conformity of language equals conformity of thought! Keep it... I'd rather think and speak for myself...

As far as the anonimity thing goes... I guess it's like cell phones... I don't really understand the urge to be constantly 'in touch' any more than I understand the desire to post anonimously... but yer right... as long as it's not a troll or a flame,there's no big thing, posting that way... and if you'll read my posts above, you'll see I said exactily that! I'm not concerned that, for instance, there was the goofing around thread a couple of weeks ago, where everyone logged off their cookie and got silly... I'm addressing the issue of blatant flames, trolls, and off-topic garbage, like Porn chains and such... Most MB on the net have Mods to deal with that kind of stuff... and don't give me any of that "We're not like most MB's on the net", because this place is no different than any other online community...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:55 PM

Clinton, sometimes you have the sensitivity and empathetic ability of a loaf of bread.*BG*

Particularly in regard to women and children. If you don't think stalking and harrassment has occurred in the real world as a result of real names being revealed on the Net you're sadly mistaken. It might be considered by some, to be cowardly not to say "I'm Joe Blow", when you're six foot and weigh over 200 lbs., but I can assure you that there are many women and children, where not giving your real name might not be considered cowardly, but a "*Good idea......" (*Farley Mowatt)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:55 PM

"When is it ever needed to be anonymous?!?! If ya haven't got the stones to put your name to a statement or flame or troll or whatever, then don't do it!!!

easy as that!

Anything else is cowardly, wet-blouse, nancying around..."

Guess I had to read between the lines...... :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:58 PM

Shall I tell about the time I started a thread as an anonymous guest? I started the thread called "Who is Hunter Thompson?" last summer.

I posted it as a guest because I was new to the Mudcat and I didn't know what kind of response I would get if I asked a question to which everybody seemed to know the answer (and I didn't). Everybody was very kind on that thread, and that kindness got me off to a good start here in the Mudcat. I think there are probably other people who post as guests for that reason.

Unfortunately, there seem to be a far greater number of people who post anonymously for the purpose of causing trouble. I wish these people would realize the extent to which they hurt the Mudcat when they do this.

I think it's also important for the rest of us to remember that the way we respond to these types of anonymous guests also has a big impact on the wellbeing of the Mudcat. The Mudcat is what we make it. Literally.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Justa Picker
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:02 PM

The bigger picture here is that we are all guests in Max's house. It's his time invested in creating and maintaining this place, his computers, and his forum.

Those of you who don't contribute any of your time to help improve or enhance this place; or contribute towards the ideals that this place is founded upon; or share useful or helpful knowledge from time to time; or even contribute financially once in a while....are in my opinion nothing more than free-loaders and therefore have no right to complain about anything that goes on here.

If you're going to be a free-loader whether as a member or as some GUEST-ANON, have some class, respect and a little empathy for the other human beings on this forum who do make valid contributions in their own way or at least through their actions have demonstrated consistent well-meaning intent.

Freeloaders who complain here, to my way of thinking, are analogous to attending a Mudcat gathering at someone's place who's opened their home to all, and they show up with nothing in their arms (whether a case of beer, a bottle of wine or single malt Scotch, a food dish, flowers or plant, an instrument or a voice to share music with....whatever) and all they do is whine and complain about the food or lack of this or lack of that, or how much so and so annoys them and what are THEY doing here?.......and that basically the world owes me! The world doesn't owe you squat. You reap what you sew.
We've already got moderators here. They're called Joe Clones. Moderation is a form of censorship. I'm in favour of it here, and I think it could even be taken a few steps further. I think that members who abuse the privilege of being a guest in this house, by inciting hurtful, belligerent and malicious content (as GUESTS) directed through a cloak of secrecy should be warned once privately, and if this behavior continues un-checked they should be outed.

Given the fact that Max knows precisely the IP addresses of all who visit here, there is no true anonymity here (as he mentioned in a previous thread recently.) And he's entirely justified in having this information at his disposal in exactly the same way that you would want to know who's in "your house" at any given time.

Divisive anarchy, if left unchecked and unmoderated here, could ultimately destroy what one Catter recently and so aptly referred to as "the best place on the Internet".
I know from what I speak and I'll leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:04 PM

Metchosin... learn to read would ya!?!? go back and review the thread, and you'll see that people posting for safty reasons are NOT who I'm talking about...

And well, I'd be really interested to see stats on the number of 'cyber' based stalkers... to see if it has any more creedance than say the urban myth of needles in halloween candy and such... There's safty and there's paranoia...

6 foot and over 200 lbs?!?! I wish! LOL!! I'm one of the wettest girls blouses I know!!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: nutty
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:16 PM

Justa Picker - I've been trying to find the words but you found them for me - Thank-you for voicing my thoughts.
However,I would like to add that whatever damage might be done by anonymous GUESTS, far more is done by those well known to Mudcat who (for whatever reason ) assume various persona - as they are very aware of the damage they are doing

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:17 PM

Ya mean I missed something other than you saying "or make a statement?" sorrry.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:18 PM

Metchosin,
don't forget "or whatever"..... :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:19 PM

Justa Picker, JoeClones are not moderators. Although we have the ability to delete posts, we don't necessarily do any such thing.

When Max first asked me to join the ranks of the volunteers, censorship was mentioned and I was asked (correctly IMO) not to take any action without first discussing the matter with him or Joe Offer.

My own JoeClone stance on censorship is that I do not get involved in any discussion over censorship. I use the edit and delete functions to fix problems and tidy up and leave the sensitive issues to Max.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:33 PM

Sorry, Metch... that came off harsher than I wanted it to...

I'm still keen to see actualy stats regarding cyber stalking... to see if it's more prevalent than I think...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: GUEST,guestguestguest(intruder)guest
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:02 PM

i've always wanted to start a thread.

thank you for your participation and support.

Up the REBELS! (or some such)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:18 PM

Well, I take pride in posting things under my own name, but there are a few times that I thought it was right I posted under a pseudonym. I posted as "Mudcatroid" when I needed information about a couple of places I was going to travel to, and I didn't want the world to know I was going to be away from home (and I also wanted to surprise some people with a visit). I also posted anonymously a couple of times when I spoke of past romances - it behooves one to be discreet in such matters.
I've also posted lyrics anonymously on occasion. I remember one night when somebody worked very hard to answer three lyrics requests, all with lyrics that were horribly incorrect. I thought the person might lose heart if Joe Offer showed him up on three threads in one night, so I posted the lyrics under three different names. There are a few of us who are quite prolific and quite accurate in our lyrics postings, but I'd hate to see people feel like they should leave the lyrics posting to just a few of us. After all, Mudcat was originally a lyrics forum - everyone here should feel an obligation to contribute lyrics, at least occasionally.
But generally, I don't like the idea of posting anonymously. Too often, the anonymous posts have a leering, nasty quality to them.

-Joe Offer, and proud of it-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Matt_R
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:25 PM

Up yours!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Stewie
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:44 PM

When I first joined Mudcat, for some reason my full name was rejected and so I opted for what most of my friends have called me over many years.

--Paul Stewart.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:52 PM

One of the things that can be a bit of fun (Gawd knows dealing with anonymous nasties is NOT) is trying to pick out when a member "goes underground" temporarily. Writing style is writing style, and although someone can "dumb down" when they've changed identities, they can't "smart up". We all have little quirks (punctuation, phrases structure, spelling, and agendas) and if you're small detail minded you can pick up on a style pretty quickly. My fave is when someone changes sex, but forgets and occasionally uses a male (or female) expression, when they're trying to be the opposite. It's funny how minds work. I can watch a movie, and notice the most minute details (funny edits, a 55 Chevy in a 54 film, a boom mike shadow, a watch that goes missing in the same scene) but am always asking Heather what the plot's about!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:31 PM

You too eh Rick? why does that stuff bug us? I understand why women might post as guest. There have been cases of stalking right here on the mudcat, and, women feel vulnerable. Personally, I'm near 6 feet and just over 14 stone. Furthermore, I believe in the 2nd amendment. Of course, the stalkers are too cowardly to mess with men.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:45 PM

As a JoeClone, I don't believe in censorship. I can't see myself deleting any post because of content, although I might alert the Powers That Be to particularly vile ones.

The way I see Mudcat, is that it's a place that Max created which has come to be a community. Max is not our daddy. He makes no attempt to control what we discuss or how we discuss it. Why? I think it's because we're the ones responsible for what goes on here. A flamer here and there doesn't do the damage to Mudcat - it's the members of the community who CAN'T LET IT GO without commenting. You know - the ones who keep the flame alive and often escalate the arguing. The way to stop this from happening is not to eliminate the provocation, but to eliminate our response. How many of the past "gutless coward" started flame wars would have been flame wars if no one had responded? NONE OF THEM.

The answer is not to ask someone to moderate us, but to learn how to moderate ourselves. There are assholes in all aspects of life. We don't ask authority figures to make them go away, or leave us alone. We leave them alone.

We will either learn, as a community, how to ignore flamers, anonymous or not, or this will go on forever. My prediction is that there will always be a large number of people who respond - either because they just have to say something, or they don't know any better - and this will go on forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:53 PM

I use my real first name, and my surname is easy enough to discover. I've been using the whole thing since I got on the internet in '95. People leave me alone because I'm just flat-out nuts. 'Least I think that's it...

Hey Rick, did you catch me posting anonymously at all? (I never flamed anyone.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bert
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:55 PM

Nah! it's 'cos you're SCARY Jeri.

Bert (tee hee)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:59 PM

No, Max is not our daddy.
And it bugs the hell out of me that I've got a kid who's as old as Max!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: wdyat12
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:11 PM

Is there an age limit to becoming a member of Mudcat Cafe Radio Forum? I'm not so much worried about it for myself (I never get carded anymore.) If there is no age limit, then shouldn't there be a policy for protecting the kids?

wdyat12 aka Peter Woodruff

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:12 PM

SCARY?!?! You talkin' to me? I am NOT scary! I'm a perfectly rational human being, and I'll beat the crap outta anybody who says otherwise!

Subject: Censorship & Kids
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:25 PM

Hi, Peter - Check out this part (click) of the Mudcat FAQ. No, there's no age requirement here, but we're not billed as a children's site. I doubt that you'll find anything on Mudcat that's worse that what you can find on "Temptation Island" and other television shows. Nope, we're not going to get into the sort of censorship that would be needed to make this a "G-Rated" site. On very rare occasions, Max or I or one of Max's employees will delete an offensive post, but we stay away from censorship as much as we can.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: wdyat12
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:39 PM

Joe,

Thanks for sending me back for a refresher course in Mudcatiquette. I surely needed that after last night's antics. I never did find the disclaimer for age limits in there, but maybe that was your point. Point taken.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 08:58 PM

Jeri is absolutely right. As Shakespere said "Nothing is bad or good, thinking makes them so". I've been in a few "Pissing contests" and, I kick myself for validating some air head, but, it's testosterone poisoning. Most women dont have enough of that to make them want to "mix it up" So...men are closer to the apes than the angels...so, sue us!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 09:08 PM

about being anonymous..there is one form, which is simply using a 'handle'...catspaw, or Pseudolus..etc...or even a partial name like Bill D....those will usually provide all the safety necessary to prevent someone from figuring out exactly who & where you are, if that seems important to you.

But the sort of anonymity that we grit our teeth over is just 'guest' with NO handle...not even a fake one! If you feel a need to discuss an issue without using your regular Mudcat handle, then pick one..'guest..Rumplestilsken'..for the duration of the thread, or for future posts about that issue!!! It is totally maddening to have what seems like several 'guests' going at once, and being unable to have even a FAKE identity to reply to...or NOT reply to...

I truly wish Max would change the software so that a message would not be allowed without entering something after 'guest'......and I, for one, will NEVER again reply to anyone who can't pick a name. Wouldn't it be fascinating if everyone did the same and stupid, divisive, trolling 'guests' got NO response to their trouble making crap?!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 09:10 PM

I can imagine lots of very valid reasons why someone might now and then want to post something here without it being directly identifiable as from them.

For example someone might want to tell a story about something that happened to them that was too personal - maybe something bad that had happened to them, and they don't want to have people coming on all sympathetic, because sympathy can be hard to take.

In those circumstances, a pseudonym is the way to do it, maybe as a GUEST with the pseudonym tagged on. That makes it possible for other people to respond to it, and for discussion to carry on.

But anonymous, just plain GUEST - that's like writing on a wall. Who wants to talkto a wall? And most of the time it's an indication of hostility to other people here. It breaks the bond of fellowship. And as William Morris said "Fellowship is life and lack of fellowship is death".

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 10:29 PM

'Picker:

The only professionals who always reap what they sew are undertakers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Troll
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:12 PM

I use a 'handle' because they would stop me if they knew what I was doing.
Well Angie wouldn't but Freddie would and so would the others. Chuck would break the computer. He's like that, you know. He breaks things.
And Skeptic would just laugh.But he's not one of us, you see.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:36 PM

So how's Freddie working out for you, troll? I know he's new and all... does everyone trust him yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Troll
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:43 PM

He's sneaky. But I know things about him that he wouldn't want to get out so he'll behave.He has some of us fooled but he doesn't fool me.
I'm the only one who can type.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Katcina
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 12:22 AM

Clinton, My true ID, address and phone number were found very easily by someone about a year ago and it made me very careful ever since. I have given my real first name both here and in the Pal Talk Mudcat room but I will go no further. If that is seen as cowardly, then so be it. I do not flame but I am a single female and live in a remote area. I know that it is unlikely that there would be any more of a problem in cyber space than in real space but why add to the chances? As for stastics, I doubt that it would be possible to obtain accurate ones. I do know of several females that learned the same way I did to be much more careful about the information they allowed on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 12:55 AM

I came to Mudcat because I seriously wanted to find the lyrics for a song. Before posting that first thread I looked around and noticed most of the postings were from people shielding their identity behind a psedonym of one sort or another. Or so I thought.

I had a father who enjoyed a modicum of notoriety from being a radio entertainer starting in 1923, almost before there was radio. His 'monicker' was 'Yankee Mac.' He headed a group called 'The Sierra Ranch Hands' and his broadcasts originated from KFBK in Sacramento and sometimes KFRC in SF. He was sometimes confused with 'Haywire Mac' McClintock, a regular on KFRC at that time.

He started me singing and on the fiddle when I was seven and he paired with me occasionally until I was old enough to play with the orchestra. He gave me the handle 'Spud Murphy.' He probably got it from 'Spud' (Lyle) Murphy who was an orchestra leader in the big band genre but is probably better known as an arranger for Jan Garber, BG, and several hollywood studio orchestras. My dad would have known him from his earlier years in vaudville and Chicago.

My dad is my hero. I didn't realize that until it was too late. I chose to call myself by the nickname he gave me to honor him. My name is George R. MacClanahan Jr. I am seventy-five years old and I live at the California Veterans' Home at Yountville, in the Napa Valley with my wife of 53 years. I am writing a story about the depression and the war years and growing up with music. Thus the occasional need for the lyrics of one or two of the old 'cowboy songs.'

I am not anonymous and doubt I ever will be. Drop in and see me any old time you're in the neighborhood.

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 01:02 AM

Damn, Spud! You sound like my dad and I know he and I would both love to read that book! Wish we could get the two of you together to swap stories!(he's in Utah) Sure glad you are here and please share as often as you feel like it! Welcome to you and your lovely wife!

katlaughing aka kat

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 01:03 AM

vaud-e-ville, you idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 03:10 AM

Hi, Katcina - I don't think any woman should use her own name on the Internet. I suppose that actually, nobody should use their real name in any public area of the Internet, but I refuse to be that paranoid (but you will notice in the FAQ that I take other precautions). You may want to take a look at the Privacy section (click) of the Mudcat FAQ.
Wydat 12 is suppose to look at this part (click) of the FAQ, but he may need to scroll down one screen to the bold red print about our lack of censorship.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Katcina
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 03:18 AM

Thanks Joe!!

I clicked and read both; and as I said earlier, I learned my lesson well about a year ago and now follow those rules very religiously.

Katcina

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 07:33 AM

It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I'm right. -- Moliere

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Wavestar
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 08:04 AM

I'd just like to take a minute to point out that this guest, who actually has a consistent login, not too difficult to recognise, has always been polite, civilised, and even helpful. He's been civilised when no one can see him. Or her. Behaviour like that deserves recognition, at least as being different from the behaviour we've come to expect from Guests.

Another voice of a woman on the net - no one knows my last name, phone number, or things like that. I always give out my secondary email address. Here, most people could find out what state I live in, and likely what town, they could find out where I live in Scotland, but not my specific address. I SPECIFICALLY don't give out my last name, because that's all it would take for someone to know all of those. It's not common, and I'd be easy to find. Even if I don't get stalked, or have my identity stolen (it does happen, to someone I knew) It would make me uncomfortable to know that someone could call me, or some and find me. Frankly, I don't trust the world that much most of the time. Maybe it's the guys on BBS boards who asked me when they first met me 'how big you boobs?' or the man who sent me an ICQ message out of the blue saying he needed a willing s***. I'd just rather these people didn't know the real me, and that means that outside of email, no one else will either.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Gervase
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 08:48 AM

Maybe it's being a bloke wot does it, but I've never even been asked for a compliant cormorant!
Seriously though, the extreme weirdness and downright rudeness that some people display online when they think they're anonymous never ceases to amaze me. You only have to look at weblogs to see what bloody strange people there are out there. For example.
(Warning - may be offensive to some people)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 08:59 AM

I do not post using my real name for a number of reasons. I think they are very good reasons. One of them is privacy. That precludes my discussing the others. I have what I think are very good reasons for my "obsession" (if you will) with privacy. But I don't want to discuss them in a public forum.

Russ (no evil intentions, just legitimate concerns)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 10:32 AM

Thank you, Kat, for the welcome.

I'm glad I was born when I was. I'm sorry all of you couldn't have been born then, too, and know what it means to share hardship that really turns out not to be hardship in the end.

I couldn't spend my life hiding. I have a right to walk this world in freedom, and that means freedom from whatever so long as I don't infringe on someone else's freedom. I volunteered once to defend that right and I would volunteer again, regardless of my age, if it became necessary to do so. I will not allow anyone to cause me to walk in fear.

To the ladies: I feel for you most. I understand, as best as any man can.

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 10:55 AM

I guess lots of people here know my legal name, it's difficult to send out tapes and xeroxes if I don't have a real address, and the PO gets a little sticky about just "Sorcha" for a return addy. My e mail is on the resource page, and a person could find my town faily easily by searching the Cat. It wouldn't be difficult to put it all together if some weirdo wanted to, but--

I live with a cop and a 160 lb. wrestler, so I'm not too concerned. Phone calls don't bug me at all. I kind of like getting calls out of the blue from another Catter! If they get crude, I would just hang up, and call the FCC!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 11:52 AM

I posted once on some thread as "Guest, God", then immediately afterward posted a rebuttal as "Guest, Satan". The intent was entirely humorous, in a farcical sense, and had to do with various other rather amusing comments on the same thread, where people had said that God said this or that, as I recall.

That's the only reason I would post anonymously (as other than "Little Hawk")...just to be funny.

There is a place in this world for humour, after all, and I often enjoy the crazy sense of humour of other regulars on Mudcat, Spaw being the absolute king at that. A good laugh is a relief from the pressures of the day.

Sometimes I might appear to be flaming flattop or Spaw...but that's just goofing around with people I consider to be good friends.

Okay?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 12:02 PM

I sign every post (well, ALMOST every post; I slip now ant then) with my full first and last name. As you can see from looking at it, below, it's a bit cumbersome to expect others to deal with, so I have the "handle" DaveO. I have no idea (nor do I wish to) how to assume a different handle for a particular message or thread. Read one of my posts and you KNOW it's from me.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 01:25 PM

Katcina et al...

Yer not hearing what I'm saying... people using 'handles' on the net are not the people I'm even remotely talking about, for the Umpteenth time!!!! What I'm talking about is the gutless flamer, troll, or spam merchant flinging thier crap all over the net... If yer on ICQ I know you know the sort of stuff I mean...

On any other decent MB on the net, that's the kind of stuff that Moderators worth their salt take the time to delete, just to keep the place uncluttered... and it's not censorship... it's housecleaning!!

Given the wonderful creature that the human race is, I can fully understand why some people (To say 'women' would be incredibly sexest, but no one here seem to mind that little tid-bit!!) want to remain behind their avatars... but at least use it consistantly... Have a 'created ID' that you use online... that's one of the fun things about the net... the chance to 'reinvent' yourself...

Mudcat isn't really an 'avatar' MB though... Mudcat is first and formost a tool for song, tune, lyric ect searches... the 'community', the Mb, is not, as far as I can see, the major thrust of Mudcat... and I've met plenty of people who don't even know there's a MB here... They come here, like I used to, to use the DB from time to time, and that's it...

Ya, know.. some days I wish I'd never set cyber-foot into this place... this "nest of vipers" to quote Basil Faulty...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Katcina
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 01:48 PM

Clinton,

Thanks for the clarification. I stay invisible on ICQ, only allow a very few people to see when I am on, never more that 1 or 2 at a time and I still get the garbage stuff. It is irritating to say the least and I usually respond with "Get a life" or something much more graphic then I block them. It's not as bad now that I learned to stay invisible but they still come on an average of once a week. Since I am never seen on~line I consider that spamming but I guess that's okay with ICQ. There are draw backs to every program I have used but Mudcat has the best set~up I have run across yet. BTY, I block all on MSN unless I want to talk to one of them; I stay invisible on Yahoo IM; and I refuse to use AOL. I guess I'm a bit of an hermit at heart. I do love this place and the Pal Talk music rooms but a general chat with total strangers will have me sitting off to the side just watching what goes on.

Anyway, thanks again for the clarification.

Just got through a 2 hour de~frag session and wonder why I ever got this darn thing at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST,guestguestguest(intruder)chuckling
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 02:25 PM

this is more than i ever expected...

::grinning:: and some of you even got the point i was making, which is...

one must always be civilized, even in those rare instances when you are exerting deadly force.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 02:33 PM

(In humble appreciation of Wavestar and people like her) .......

It's always under-appreciated when people act kindly and compassionately in the absence of any reason to do so - and perhaps as equally misunderstood when the caustic posts by other guests supply justification in some minds to do exactly the opposite. Any words typed here will not rectify either situation. It's enough knowing that occasionally one finds heaven's soul here on earth. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: wdyat12
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 02:48 PM

Thanks again GUEST,guestguestguest(intruder)chuckling.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Mooh
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 03:05 PM

When I first got here I thought it was virtually expected that everyone use a handle. I discovered otherwise almost immediately. My real name appears here in other discussions as does my general location and my e-mail addy. Btw, Mooh is pronounced Mike, and that story is here on a related thread also. Many of you know alot about me from my postings, just as I do about you. I think anonymity here only goes so far, eventually we give up too much of ourselves.

If I wanted total anonymity, I couldn't have friends or exchange information about events, two of the reasons I'm here.

Peace. Mike Crocker (my real name).

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 01 - 08:44 PM

It seems fairly clear that in America keeping a modicum of secrecy is seen as necessary for a lot of people. Fortunately it doesn't seem to work that way back here, so far anyway, not for most people. "The right to bear names" still seems to hold, most of the time.

But in any case, pseudonyms, noms-de-plume etc aren't in any way complained about by anyone, so far as I can see, and they shouldn't, because it can be fun. The made-up name can represent the person more clearly sometimes than the "real" name.

But I still can't see the point of signing in as GUEST without an added handle of some kind, except when it's a way of being unfriendly. Most of the time it's done by people who are clearly pretty hostile, and I can see the point there - it's a way of adding insult to injury.

It's the difference between someone who goes to a party in fancy dress, and someone who chucks a note wrapped round a brick through the window of the place where the party is under way.

But every now and then you get some friendly soul who does it, like the GUEST on this thread (who may or may not be the same person at various appearances, but who can tell?). And no one has ever explained the reason for that. I have seen the suggestion that it's to focus attention on the message rather than the person, but the effect is completely the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 08:09 AM

My alter ego wears a suit to work. And we are not schitzoid. Anonymous idiots are still idiots. We don't have to engage.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 08:47 AM

Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. -- Starhawk, The Fifth Sacred Thing

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:43 PM

I went back to mostly posting anonymously as my ego was getting battered at the frequency with which my extreme wit and wisdom was being ignored or trampled (another poster making exactly the same point and getting acknowledged).

It's one thing to know how things work here-- That most posts are ignored, that the nature of the threads is the showering of thoughts, not thoughts and replies, even that most kindness and helps go unthanked.

It's quite another to be strong enough at a weak point in life--like middle age--to take being ignored.

posting anonymously is just a safer way to participate. It's easier to accept the rejection of your anonymous offering than the rejection of your person.

If I write something controversial I still use my name. I'm not ashamed just a little fragile--and for that, I do not blame the mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Hawker
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:53 PM

Hey,

Whats all the worry about being anonymous - look how many GREAT songs were penned by Anon.....

Really, having read most of this, does it really matter if you say who you are or not? if you were kind, that's nice, if you were offensive, you offended, and even if I know your name, you are still just a name to me, I haven't met you. Its noice to think we can trust each other, but life isn't that simple!

Live life, don't worry about it, you're a long time dead as some scottish chappie once said....

Nice thoughts, Lucy

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST, Dropped Cookie
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 12:41 AM

What I am still astounded by is that peope think they can make some kind of accurate assessement of one anothers' motives from whether there is a name indicated or not. Yes, I KNOW there have been problems in the past. But ya know... that was THE PAST. People with entirely aboveboard reasons for posting as guests get treated like they are the ones who did some horrible unspecified past harm... the message is, WE KNOW WHY YOU DID THAT.

You don't! You can't! I don't care how smart you are, people can't even really know what others are thinking and feeling in 3D. HERE??? Are you kidding???

You don't know when my computer is on the fritz, or when I forgot to sign in and haven't noticed the name missing in the From line, or when I might have used a name as a guest in one post and then just was so eager to say something later that I forgot to stop and tag on a name... or when I might have a hundred other reasons.

And does anyone remember that in some cultures, to give one's name is to grant an earned privilege? Some days, the tone of this place (and the posting habits of some who start threads or invade perfectly civil ones to derail positive engagement) says to me quite loudly that the privilege of addressing me by name has not been earned. On those days, I wonder why the regular Mudcatters aren't all dropping cookie for the day (like drop trou) just to indicate their distaste!

But the reality is so much simpler than all the assumed reasons. The reality is, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why there's no name sometimes n a post. You can't control what someone else does, and you can't pin your discomfort on them and expect them to take responsibility for it.

One day I was cruising around without a cookie and a McGrath thread caught my interest. I posted and submitted, engaged in his topic, before realizing I had not even said hi to him, and he's a freind. And I had forgotten too that he has a policy of not responding to unnamed guests. But what I wrote attracted him to reply, and his graciousness caused me to go on to say why I had been cruising namelessly. And that was all there was to it.

The things some people read into what others do.... you just don't have to WORK so hard. Take a post, or leave it. So what!!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 01:22 AM

Guest: I'm only a chechako here myself, so I well recall the eerie silence that greeted my sparkling repartee the first time I posted on a non-music thread. Fortunately, I first came here to find information I needed, so I was already appreciative of the prompt, courteous attention that is a standard Mudcat response to serious inquiry.

After following some BS: threads and doing some thinking I have come to the conclusion that my purposes are served by what I say here more than by what I hear in response. I think that may be true for at least some others who are frequent posters.

Post for yourself and enjoy it. It's fun. If others don't react to your gems, tough on them. I know a lot of people that go through life, immune to all the snazzy stuff that surrounds them, never open to new ideas or viewpoints. A man (or womqn) having fun is hard to resist for long. And after a while, if no one else acknowledges us, maybe Joe or Mac or somebody will give us a thread of our very own, that nobody else can post to and we can just spend eternity acknowledging each other.

Have fun, my friend, and get a name.

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:13 AM

GUEST

Wanting responses is normal. Communication is a two way thingy. Send and recieve with acknoledgements in between. If you are a songwriter you will know that others infer, interpret, and put words in your mouth based on there own context and influences. Then they judge you. ANd then they tell you what you are thinking.

But not all of us. It helps us "names" - gives fluency - to know which guest we are replying to and if we already have.

Mr Red is not my real name you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Firecat
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 08:14 AM

I sort of use my realname, it just so happens to be spelt slightly differently and has "Fire" in front of it!! :-)))

Love, Kat

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 02:12 PM

Picture all of us logging out and coming in again as 'Guest'. The Mudcat wouldn't last more than two days, and it would be a very acrimonious two days at that. It would be so boring. Obviously, it isn't just seeing one's own posts that keeps us here.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 02:50 PM

I'm still at a loss - I can quite understand not wanting to be tied in with the other things you've said on other threads. But I can't see the reason not to have what you could call a "thread pseudonym", a use-and-throw away name just for the thread, to make it easier for people to respond without misunderstanding.

I mean, it can get confusing already, even with names. A post annoys someone, and they draft a cutting response and post it. But in the meantime some innocent third-party has posted some inoffensive musing - and the next time they look, there's this angry reply that appears to be tearing them limb from limb, but is actually intended for some nameless person further up the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 03:27 PM

McGrath, sometimes there just isn't that much thought going into what you see. People are just being however they are in that moment, and to try to wring reasons out of it or impose change upon it is to try to influence it. Sometimes people are just thinking about something else entirely. Often, whatever they are thinking about is more important, long term, than what we might like them to focus on.

We can choose whether to evaluate what we see, or just sort of accept and deal with it. And I think our more accurate evaluations, if we choose to make them, are based on long-term interaction rather than short term. This is a good thing, since it allows us to make room in our thinking for the reality that all people are changing all the time. If someone chooses not to tag one moment of time with their name, then we just can incorporate that as one small piece of information about the universe on one short day.

I guess it boils down to intentionality. That's not a high value for everyone. But even among those who hold it dear, we don't always get it perfect. Nor do people looking on always "get" what we try to do from our intentionality.

Does it really matter in the big picture if I say I am WYSIWYG right now or if I say I was Droppped Cookie last time I posted? Because ya know either way, I am still just one meatball on a particular day in my life and yours, and though I change every day, I am still just:

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:04 PM

Some people are just born to flame. It's just an automatic response to almost everything. Even when they pee it comes out napalm. It gets especially dangerous if there's a lot of sewer gas around.

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 06:11 PM

"Picture all of us logging out and coming in again as 'Guest'. "

Yes!...there's my point! Even two or three 'guests' in one thread can get crazy!....PLEASE...PLEASE...pick SOME name (for the duration of a thread, anyway)

whoever you are "my ego was getting battered "...if you are "Gilgamesh" for one thread, you ARE anonymous.....I know that posts from 'famous regulars' are more likely to get answers...have had MINE ignored, (or at least not directly replied to)..but I am still who I am, and **I** know I want it to be me who is quote, replied to, or ignored....(why, I was ignored in print, just the other day! ;>)
)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 06:32 PM

Hi, Bill!

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 06:41 PM

*grin*........

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 06:53 PM

Hey!!! LOOK ....... ITS MR. BILL!!!!! Glad to see you Bill. We know its you from the .*grin*.... So how's tricks? Don't feel ignored here.........CAUSE ITS BILL!!!!

billbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbillbill

We love you Bill!

Spaw -- Resident Smartass

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 07:41 PM

The problem is, we read the message for what it says, or we should, but there are human beings behind those words. Most people like to put some sort of identity to the words - it matters. If the personality isn't volunteered by the poster, we fill in the blanks. We're apt to be wrong about a person who has a consistent identity sometimes, but we're apt to be wrong about the ones who change all the time or don't bother with any most of the time.

On one hand we can argue that we shouldn't read anything into a message. On the other, we are people with personalities. The people who jump from identity to identity seem to not want us to know what those personalities are. Plus, it seems like an awful lot of work to have to think up something new to call yourself all the time.

I think for some people, it's a game like hide and seek. It's too big of a pain for me to want to do it, and I can't really understand the fun in it anyway. I kind of like meeting Mudcatters, saying "I'm Jeri," and having them reply "Oh, yeah - I've read some stuff you wrote."

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 10:27 PM

Ah, and there's the rub. The constant identity I used seemed to CAUSE people to ignore it. I can only draw the conclusion that, at least at one point I must have offered up enough inane commentary that the very sight of my name heading a post CAUSED people to scroll to the next.

I suppose if one wears out one name he can always try another.

Oh yeah...hi Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST, WYSIWYG
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 11:25 PM

(Hi Bill)

Jeri, in my case, part of it was that no matter what I did most people mis-saw me so badly that I just got sick of it for a bit. I didn't think UP names.... I just had names pop into my head every time I posted, when I ran the thread on my name change. It was a way of unplugging from all the expectations... and a way of indicating the mood in which I was posting. I've said this before, it's a lot like flinging off your bra on a day when it's TOO DAMN TIGHT. Know what I mean, girls?

But I do know people like pegs to hang their hats on, and I am trying to remember to add a name when I am cruising around... and I would hope that people know I am no flamer, regardless.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 11:59 PM

This thread is about to get too long for anybody to read or care about, but, Praise/Susan/WYISYG....I am always Sorcha,even if the name my mother gave me is Mary. There are lots of Marys in the world, and damn few Sorchas. There are lots of Susans, but most of us know that it is always you.....~S~ and that is the point.

I have never changed my name here, and never will.So what if somebody gets mad at Sorcha? That is WHO I AM.THAT IS MY NAME. For whatever reason. Don't you realize that is not really the issue here? The real issue is:

Guests who intend to flame, take a new Guest name for every post, so that he/she/it is intentionally a different person with every post. Or, It never takes a Name at all. Guests who change the name with every post can also change arguments with every post, just to keep the game going.

Said Guests see this whole thing as a game, not as a learning or growing exercise. Said Guests don't care if any of the Real People here get angry or upset, or they just laff, that is the whole point to their exercise. I am NOT talking about Guest, sorchaout @hotmail. com and I think you know that.....I really do think you know what kind of A Nonny mouses I am talking about......

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:15 AM

well, I have been here long enough to sort of notice who is NOT posting much under names they once did..(and a few who seem to not be here at all....so I can hazard a guess or two about various 'guests', based on style and issues. I just wish they didn't let it get to them so badly.

Problem is, once you get into the 'anon' mode, you are sort of trapped there, as it become harder & harder to be someone again, and much of the response TO your posts begins to revolve about 'identity' rather than the supposed issue, whether you like it or not!

"Oh what a tangled WWWeb we weave, when first we practicedto deceive"

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:22 AM

Yes Bill, and that is why I am always Sorcha the Searcher. With no response expected, but always appreciated. The One and Only Sorch the Scorch........all issues duly searched, and some get scorched!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:25 AM

Hi Bill...Hi Sorch.....Hi Praise/Susan/Wizzywig/etal....

Okay....takes care of that group........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 06:51 AM

Well the moral seems to be (I found this on another thread) :-!

If you want an answer - post a message to the effect that you never get an answer. Seems to work every time from what I've seen. It does help to address just one person, they are flattered to know they are being listened to. Well I am!

Once done you shouldn't need to do it again, but I may just as the magic feeling is wearing off........

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 07:42 AM

Susan, you've changed your user name here, but you've always been the same person, if that makes any sense, and I usually knew it was you (I think) writing the message. With you, for me anyway, the name hasn't been all that relevant. If you keep going to parties and wear a different wig each time, it's still you under the wig, but it can distract people who have to try to figure out what's so familiar about you. Now if you add sunglasses and an exotic accent, it might be more effective and more fun. :-)

I was mainly talking about the guest, no-fixed-name posters anyway. They seem to expend a lot of effort avoiding identification. I've think some of them may say that identity doesn't matter, it's the content of their post that does. If they think identity doesn't matter, why do they go to so much effort to mask it? Just say what you have to say and type in a consistant name. Otherwise, your posts in a thread come across as verbal strikes, not part of a conversation. (Swoop in, drop a message and go away, never to be seen again.)

HI BILL!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 01:34 PM

Sorcha said:

"...with no response expected, but always appreciated..."

Yeah!!!

That's what I tried to say in a previous post to this thread.

(I wonder why I didn't?)

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 02:51 PM

So far six posts from GUEST on this thread. Is that one person posting six times? Six people posting once each? Two people posting twice and two posting once? etc etc etc.

Does it matter? No. Everybody loook at me!!! I'm invisible!!! Hee, hee, hee...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 05:12 PM

Spud, I'm still thinking about what you said earlier:

After following some BS: threads and doing some thinking I have come to the conclusion that my purposes are served by what I say here more than by what I hear in response.

I noticed the same thing. Is it because no one ever asks a question? Everything I say is because I feel a need to say something (can't keep my mouth shut). Is it that no one really wants to know my opinion?

When I first saw this thread, my immediate response was: There are no circumstances which justify anonymity. Now that I've thought a bit, I still say the same thing!

Yes, I'm a hypocrite because I posted to the silliness thread where we all imitated somebody. But I felt so dishonest I wrote to the person I was teasing and told him/her it was me. Also, not using my last name is just another small layer of security which (like locking your car doors) doesn't really prevent deliberate crime, but in some cases makes stealing identity or stalking just a little more dificult.

I've always lived in small towns where your reputation tells who you really are. Sometimes it takes ten years to really see a person's true colors. I don't put much stock in what a person says but rather what they do over the long run. Some of the debates here are just unpleasant persons making a stir.

PS Hi Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 05:21 PM

hi, everyone...I feel SO recognized and acknowleged, I can barely stand it. Why, it's almost as good as having the railroad engineer wave to you as the train passes! Or having Mr. Rogers look right into the camera and tell me I am so special!...

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST, WYSIWYG
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:00 PM

Yoo hoo... Bill.... over here... HI BILL!

I just have a suggestion. For those of you who are frustrated about not being able to address an unnamed Guest. It's simple. Just do like they do in newgroups-- where names may appear but are often just e-mail addresses, or the post is so far back that ya wantna bring the words forward. In YOUR post, copy and paste, italicized, quoted, the material to which you wish to respond-- and go ahead and respond to it.

Por ejemplo.

RE Guest post: "The constant identity I used seemed to CAUSE people to ignore it."

I can relate!!!

~Susan

(Hey. Bill? Bye!)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Troll
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:53 PM

'Spaw, who the hell is Bill?

troll *heh heh heh *

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Katcina
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:07 AM

Oh yeah, hi Bill. You're so quiet over there in the corner that I keep forgetting you're here.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 02:29 PM

Yup WISY, you can always do that, like you can with a normal post. But with a normal post you can also put the name down, and anyone who's interested can check back and see if what you've quoted means anything different in context, which it sometimes can.

So I'll just stick with scrolling right past unadorned GUESTs, since most of the time they are in fact just trying to stir things up in an unfriendly way, in my experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 03:35 PM

I think it's the "guest" thing that might be at the heart of the occasional "inner clique" complaints. Ya see, after reading post after post by a certain individual they seem to take on a personality (in my mind) and I feel like I'm getting to know him/her. Consequently, I tend to respond to THEIR posts more often, calling them by (mudcat) name, etc., and sometimes it becomes a conversation. Not as many people responded directly to me when I first became a member but then again, no one "knew" me yet. Now, it's very different....I even got flamed in the flame thread a while back...I was so proud!! Anyway, it just occurred to me why we might occasionally hear the clique thing.....just a thought.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 04:06 PM

Let's see...I have posted at least twice under a "guest" moniker. Once as GUEST:Wynton Marsalis to post a humorous (I thought) comment on different members' posting styles, and once as GUEST:The Man from MCIC in a parody on a folk-version of the Man from Uncle. Therr may have been other times. Sorry, don't see a thing wrong with it, and I'll do it again. I have come down hard on people posting as guest in order to flame or take cheap shots, but that's another thing entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: GUEST,Matt_R
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 04:18 PM

Is this the real Matt_R? How can you tell? LOL Cuz I'm listening to "Feel To Good" by The Move and basking in the glow of spastic woodwinds.