Posting anonymously

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:12 PM

Lox: Oh! "...when asked"! I get it now. *enlightenment dawns* But the persistence of the anonymity already answers the "What's your name?" question with "I'd prefer not to say". I guess the heart of the debate here is whether that's a polite/legitimate/acceptable response. IMHO it's less polite than actually TYPING "I'd prefer not to say", so if GUESTs can type those words without being badgered as to their reasons for their preference, maybe that's the solution.

All: I like "see below" too (especially the fact that it's got more characters than "All") – hee hee!

SharonA

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: IanC
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:19 PM

Guest, See Below

Names are a 2-way affair. They're what people call you ... what they understand when they see you. People can address anyone as they like (they often seem to have done so to you far more rudely). My teenage children have all gone throught the "Don't call me ..." stage and grown out of it.

Please don't get all excited and upset, it isn't necessary. If you want us to call you "All", why don't you just use "All" in your From: line? Doesn't seem all that hard to me. Or oppressive.

I seldom do what I'm told (but then neither do you).

Cheers!
;-)
Ian

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:24 PM

Sorry "all" - I haven't ever seen a post from Jenny Bellamy, nor can I find any with the search, nor do I know which "other" thread she posted upon; so I have no idea how frequent a poster she is nor how often she has "been" here, therefore I cannot comment on double standards.

My "standard" is that for more then one shot questions *I* would prefer to see some kind of consistant name following the "guest" in the from slot. It DOES help communication to know with whom you are interacting. I have experienced this over and over again working a telephone support desk. Though I have met very few of my clients - but I have a name for all but a fraction of a percent. And rarely do I get two calls from the same person without getting a name.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:36 PM

Whaaa? I say to myself. What are they talking about.

She (or he) still doesn't get it. Or possibly one of our regular trolls. Who cares?

You're right, Spaw.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:50 PM

I really dont understand this thread at all, I am very confused

John in Hull (puzzled)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Noreen
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:58 PM

MMario, Jenny Bellamy posted once to the thread-which-must-not-be-named, as she had relevant information to contribute. As far as I know she has not contributed before or since.

There is the difference, GUEST/All. When one wants to continue a relationship/conversation, it is wise to try and fit in with what is expected, as I am sure Jenny would. Another irrelevant point.

Noreen

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:07 PM

All.

Initials: A-l-l.

Sorry for exasperation IanC, have tried to be reasonable. Initially embarrassed by scrutiny of the way I posted as a GUEST, went straight to message box and started typing, didn't go back to From line before "Submit message"

A few haughty sniffs later, some point finger: "fill in all blanks properly, or submission automatically rejected by those scrutizing GUEST messages with magnifying glass."

Response to finger pointing:

Bad All.

Bad, bad All.

Give sheepish explanation: didn't fill in From: line because I just didn't.

Met with more hostility.

Resolve to do better next time.

Next time: give anohter, hopefully polite explanation.

Not good enough, All.

Do it our way, or else.

Try to find a humorous, happy compromise for all.

"See below" in From line.

Keep signing All at bottom as I had been.

Then told "All" was a bad name to begin with, should just go with "See below" (NOTE: All's interpretation)

Harumph she says.

Can you imagine the next scene:

{Why is she typing initials A-l-l? Why doesn't she use caps?}

{To GUEST See below: We won't talk to you until you type the initials in all caps! Go away you troll!}

Not See Below.

Fed up GUEST.

Think I'll just leave it at that.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: IanC
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM

Guest, All (or whatever)

I think some of the hostility was generated not by you, but by some other unpleasant people using GUEST only appellations to do unpleasant things. I, for one, am sorry if this has caused you pain.

People (myself included) find it easier to talk to others if they know it is the same person. I know you have signed all your posts and I respect that. However, the use of your name on the From: line enables us to go to posts by a particular person by clicking and makes it easier to make sense of what they are saying in a non-continuous communication like a thread ... makes it less like spaghetti.

I have been avoiding posts by GUEST alone because of the unpleasantness ... I'd rather not read it and can avoid it this way.

Once you started posting with a name (or whatever) in From: which identified you, I started to read, then read backwards, then responded.

No punishment. No oppression. Just welcome. Would you like to join, give yourself a name? If not, you're free to leave of course.

We have just spent 2 days doing very little simply because of unpleasantness directed from person/people calling themselves GUEST alone. I for one would like to get back to the really fascinating thread discussions.

:-)
Ian

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:28 PM

what he said.

Subject: Will that be the 5 minute arguement?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:40 PM

(I'm sorry I don't have time to read all of this. From what I've seen so far (including my own posts) one thought comes to mind)

Or the full half hour?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:48 PM

Life's too short to head back and forth through threads trying to put quote into context etc. Especially when there's no easy way of knowing which are the quotes and which are not - and when half the time references are being made to other unidentified threads of various sorts.

If people want to stick their name or pseudonym at the bottom of a post rather than a thread, that's not a big deal. At the top makes more sense, because then when you read it you can put it in context with the last post that person made, and it's easier to find it again, and to pick it out from other GUEST posts. But it's not a big deal.

The characters who screw things up are the ones who just come in as unadorned GUEST, without any kind of name or whatever, even a temporary one. And the reason that screw things up is that there's no way of sorting them out from each other. That buggers up the process of person-to-person communication. It also means people get blamed for things someone else has done, and then take umbrage, because they probably haven't even seen the offending posts that are being laid at their door.

And don't take all this so personally All - this is an issue that has come up time and time before.

Maybe this will illustrate what's been going on if you think people have over reacted. PG Wodehouse wrote a Jeeves story in which the plot hinges round an amateur concert. A number of people all get advised to turn up and sing the same song, unbeknownst to each other. A harmless enough song, Sonny Boy. The first one get's a good reception, the second less so - finally when the last one in the sequence turns up and sings it, he gets almost lynched. Which was the idea in the first place.

It's the same reason why a normally amiable enough person will sometimes erupt at having the same merry quip uttered to them for the twentieth time that day. The last straw.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 01:57 PM

But . . (and by someone else's count this is at least the fourth time of posting) . .

The subject line of this thread is Posting anonymously, yet the head article has absolutely nothing to do with posting anonymously, as far as I can work out . .

Still, it's clearly not going anywhere so I'm out of this one, folks . .

G.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:15 PM

Have said all along, I've no interst in joining. Have used GUEST log-in for my convenience, which it seems was the point of Mudcat providing it for GUEST use. Been here, engaged in extremely limited posting to linked threads on one subject: anonymous posting.

Used a name by which I could be identified on all posts, as netiquette requires.

Didn't fill in all the blanks--initially inadvertently. Shamed by forum cops.

Gave lame explanation, said I didn't think it mattered because I was just passing through, didn't intend to join.

Kept posting the way I had.

Finally, relented to critics, filled in the blank.

Sighs of relief from members. Finally!

And then: horror!

Members, who had made such a huge issue over my identity, which had always been there, now decide to ignore my self-selected identity, adding further insult to injury.

Demean me and my contribution further by affixing a pet name *they* feel comfortable with--and oh, think its grand.

Effectively erasing everything I've struggled to say in this and the GUESTS thread.

As if All were never here.

Isn't that what you all wanted? For All never to have come here? For anonymous posting not to be allowed in Mudcat?

Defacto, you've done it, despite nary a word in teh faq.

Proved you don't need written rules. The Lord of the Flies scenario played itself out again, to the desired effect some were so obviously seeking.

Subject of GUESTS and Posting Anonymously threads, safely defused.

There will be no one allowed to support anonymous posting in this forum by God! Blind prejudices. Petty tyranting. Power of the majority. Dissenting views, effectively silenced.

Redirected thread topics: Who is GUEST/All and why the hell won't she fill in the blank?

Quite the homage to Marie Antoinette, catters.

I remain as in the From line,

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,guest in hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:20 PM

John, you're not the only one confused. am I being totally simple here, or does guest All maybe not know that you sign in using the 'from' box, not at the end of your post?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:22 PM

"All" (a difficult name to use since it could also refer to everybody who has posted) you are now repeating yourself - with comments that don't even come close to the addressing points that were made in the posts following your previous post.

People have repeatedly tried to address the issue in you original post of this thread and you ignore those attempts and have conniption fits over how you are addressed - tho it is very difficult for readers to determine whether you wish to be known as "fed-up" "see below" "all" "guest" or some unknown combination of the above.

What does come across loud and clear is that you prefer to be a non-conformist then to communicate clearly.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:35 PM

This kinda' reminds me of the guy who couldn't swim and kept going in the deep end of the pool and damn near drowning. Instead of learning to swim or working up from the shallow end, he kept leaping in and being hauled out. Finally he decided the problem was with the pool and demanded that the deep end be filled in. 5oo other people were using the pool and most of them had the good sense to figure that it had a deep and a shallow end and there were some basics that made it practical to learn to swim. But the other guy kept ranting about the depth of the deep end..............

Hey folks.......Just let it go. We all know that this kinda' crap accomplishes nothing, least of all to appease the non-swimmer. In the meantime, we miss all the good that is going on elsewhere. "All" doesn't seem to get it and wants this site changed to fit the image expected in their mind.

"All".....feel free to keep bitching; Call Max and tell him you hate the place and we're all rude and a bunch of dorks and you can't stand the way you've been treated. Give him a call and make your suggestions for improvement and tell him all the folks you think are rude and should be banned from the forum and the site. Make sure you have all your complaints detailed and give him a call. There's a toll free number and everything....go for it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:39 PM

I concur with George in being puzzled at the thread title. Also at why All seems to assume that any cutting remarks about anonymous GUESTs are directed at her, since she isn't one, having never (well hardly ever) posted anonymously here.

Pretty well every post I seem to have read by her seems to end up saying she's off out for good. And then she isn't...Mind, there've been a few more like that.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:45 PM

But then again.

Just reviewed GUESTS and Posting Anonymously threads.

Spot checked some others.

Sometimes, GUESTS are referred to as: GUEST (their From line).

Sometimes GUESTS sign differently at top and bottom: Pseudolous/Frank. Referred byu users in follow-up as one or the other. Sometimes both.

Sometimes GUESTS sign at bottom, leaving From line blank. Sometimes referred to as GUEST, but also by name at bottom. Sometimes both.

With nothing in faq instructing GUESTS how to use GUEST log-in;

With no standardized way of member and guest users using the GUEST log-in, being easily discernible by new users;

With no standardized way of users responding to those using GUEST log-ins;

Could perceived GUEST problems (from both members and new users perspectives) be the result of sins of omission from faq/permathread?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:05 PM

Mary from Kentucky

You are absolutely right. Don't "get" the program for GUEST log-ins here, and the hostility hurled at me for being dense.

Apologies for not getting the well-disguised Mudcat "unwritten, informal rules" for using GUEST log-in.

Didn't understand the uproar over anonymous postings, when so many member users and guest users were using pseudonyms, and anonymous posting was so common (hint: click on the GUEST clickie and see how many are doing it acceptably and unacceptably). Point being, its been done A LOT! <:O

Sorry, no time to sift through all 500,000 postings to establish "general forum practice" before I post!

Nothing in the faq or permathreads explaining "the way its done here" for newcomers.

Been around on-line long enough to know exactly what net abuse looks like. Not that slow a learner.

Realizing it might not be just me. But you and other catter regulars who just don't see the difficulties of sorting this all out before posting messages.

I feared that might be just the point. Offering GUEST log-in at site, but not supporting it with faq/general practice guidelines.

Then, a paradigm shift: this is so easy to remedy!

Add guidelines for GUEST log-in to the faq for all users pleasure. :)

Could even make it like a whole new forum! Much nicer!

If so many members and regular GUEST users are so miserable with it, why not try something new?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:17 PM

"All" - yes, you are correct - and maybe "we" should add something to the FAQ about that. (The FAQ is a voluntarily maintained piece of information administered by a single person - so please understand that "we" is more or less rhetorical in this situation.)

Additionaly - please understand that sometimes the difference in name use is that some posters know each other in 3D, some do not. Some "know" each other through extensive off-forum correspondence of various sorts, others do not. And sometimes it is just random. it occurs with longterm and short term members and regulars as well as Guests.

There are people posting here I know - and address both here and in 3D by their posting names; others whom I know and address by posting name here and by another name in 3D; I am addressed primarily by my posting name, but have never hidden my real name nor objected to it's use, but most people use my posting name because that is what others see, and also what I routinely use on the internet, and in a lot of 3D interaction.

the "guest" posting is available because neither Max nor most of the users of this forum wish to make this forum inaccessable to the casual user/visitor. It also allows for travelers, borrowing computers, work/home differences, etc. Very few have had problems with it.

A few people - (and understand it is only a few people) have used this allowed anonymity to deliberately stir up hostility - which has made some of us very sensitive.

For a parallel example - if you had recieved a series of anonymous harrassing phone calls - then recieved a call from some one and asked for a name, but got inconsistant responses from them, would you not suspect the motives of the caller? (Please note I am not ascribing such to you)

anyhoo. *deep breath* just so you might get an inkling why you are getting some of the responses you are getting.

And to bring this back around to the subject of the first post; what you are called or not called here has no bearing whasoever on the success or failure of tracking/monitoring by employer or ISP. They have other means at their disposal, many built right into the very software that allows the communication to occur in the first place. Even the so-called anonymity software that is being sold would not hide your identity from the administers of the local network or ISP your message originates on.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:19 PM

In this case, A-L-L isn't the "stain-lifter", but the stain itself. Seems to me that the use of the short statements seperated by a blank line seems very familiar.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 04:17 PM

Sorry, I'm retiring from this thread with a headache. I applaud your ability GUEST/? to be pedantic beyond the call of duty. You remind me of my grandmother, who started everything with the expression 'Well actually, I think you'll find....' May you never find yourself buried without a headstone -goodnight and God bless! Linda Kelly

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 04:45 PM

(click)when so many member users and guest users were using pseudonyms

Forgive me while I shout: THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE USING PSEUDONYMS AND NEVER HAS BEEN. "Anonymous" means no identity at all, so that it only becomes possible to tell one GUEST from another by textual analysis. "All/Fed Up" -whatever you may think, you are not anonymous.

That doesn't mean I've the faintest idea who you are, but, for example, I know you are not the same as the GUEST who posted at 3.19 pm. You are All aka Fed Up. (Fed Up is a better pseudonym than All I reckon. All in all.

The FAQ is a fairly recent innovation, and very helpful too. There wasn't any when I drifted in a couple of years ago, and I never had the least problem in finding out how things worked. If I needed to know, I asked. Maybe if I'd stormed in telling everybody they didn't have a clue about everything it might have been different. But it takes all sorts, and there's no big problem in adjusting to that style, if we have to - still it tends to get reciprocated, which is a bore. (Though there have been plenty of friendly and helpful responses which have been ignored. Which again is par for the course.)

Anyway I hope everyone lightens up. I imagine they will - they always do when this kind of confusion has burnt itself out.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:30 PM

In this post (click), our antisocial, multinomial guest continues to insist that he/she is quite innocent in all this, and thinks the FAQ should spell out how people should behave. Sorry, but that's not the purpose of the FAQ. I've stated in the FAQ that the rules of behavior for Mudcat are the rules of common courtesy and common sense. You can call them "unwritten rules" if you like, I suppose. In case the guest does not understand, let me state unequivocally:

If you behave like a pain in the ass,
You will be treated like a pain in the ass.

This is a basic rule of human interaction. If you have trouble understanding it, then perhaps you need to seek professional help (actually, I suspect that you know damn well what you're doing...).
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:54 PM

Guest All/Fed up-Are you taking the pi**? There is a box there, all you need to do is put a name in it(it does not have to be your REAL name). I am considered thick by some people, but even I had no problem with this at all!

John in Hull (just wondering)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:22 PM

The entire point apparently trying to be made by GUEST All is facetious as anyone can post as THAT GUEST. The argument was flawed from the start. I am surprised any of you gave it the time of day.

kat

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:50 PM

I've got a lovely bunch of cocoanuts
there they are all standing in a row
big ones, small ones, ones the size of your head

Is this trad? It's not in the DT.

Alex

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Snuffy
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 07:37 PM

It's here, Alex, with the ^^ to show it will be in a future version of the DT database

Wassail! V

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:05 PM

Herself says, reading over my shoulder "are you going to go on with this nonsense?" Everything that needs to be said has been said, several times over. This is a thread that deserves to die. Why don't we all let it go away...which is apparently done by not responding any more.

BTW, my name is my name, if its important to anybody.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:08 PM

Im not telling you my name, its a secret!

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:18 PM

What "people skills" the Mudcat site adminsitrator has.

Never seen anything quite like *that* sort of conflict resolution on the Internet. Site admin yelling at the users, slapping people down, publicly shaming them.

Sure, that'll solve your problems with trolls.

Wishing you just the sort of users you deserve, and continued interesting times with your forum.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:38 PM

We'll get along fine, thanks.

Appreciate your thoughtful input. Let me know if you come up with some constructive suggestions or valuable information on folk music!

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,NoName NoCity
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:47 PM

This is thread creep, I know, but...

Malcolm Douglas:

You have posted here and in other threads about personal use of the internet while at work, and that the company has this right ; that you should leave that to be done on your personal computer. Then, according to your argument, there is no need for secrecy in posting. However, in the real world, things are seldom as clear cut as you try to make them appear. I ALWAYS advise persons who work for others to NEVER post anything personal or surf the internet for anything other than work-related items.

BUT

I also warn them that if they think their computer use is being monitored while at work, that they should never say ANYTHING about the company in any way, shape or form from their personal computer unless powerful (and I do mean powerful) encryption protocols are in place. Why? Because that company may also monitor your home computer, or nearly any other computer you use if certain bits of information can be attached to your transmission. Your company knows all about you - hundreds of details like credit cards, bank statements, social security numbers and on and on. That information can be used to form a profile that can identify you almost anywhere on the internet.

How do I know that? Because I've written such a program. (Sold well, too)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:03 PM

All - just to clarify - Joe is a volunteer - and a contributing member. He has voluntarily taken on some additional duties - but like us all is a human. It takes quite a bit to make him lose his cool, but it can happen.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:20 PM

Geeziz Guest All..........You don't know crap about who's who here and yet seem to have all the answers. If you'll just go back to my previous post, the site owner/admin is Max and I suggest you call him directly, toll free and list all of your grievances and super suggeestions. Or you can write him a letter or e-mail him...anything you like and tell him how mistreated you have been. Tell him about all of these nasty-ass folks and how we should change things around and all. Tell him that Spaw called you a miserable little pissant and bestowed the Order of the Golden Shower upon you. Have at it and be sure you are comprehensive in your suggestions, complaints. and other such crappola.

Just click on the jumping catfish at the top of the page and scroll down for the phone and e-mail info. Until you do that, let me pass on my favorite suggestion for miserable pissants........"Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."

To the rest of you piddling around with this simple ass.......Let's all go back and do what we do best.....Answer requests, have some fun, research some songs, tell a few lies.....all the usual Mudcat good stuff. This doof has no interest in understanding as you all know so why bother, let him/her/it take it up with Max.

Guest All.......Have at it and have yourself a truly good time and a mediocre day!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:22 PM

Spaw:

Jeez, man, get it off yer chest!! You don't have to hold back with us!!

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ralphie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:23 PM

Just to cut through the crap........Guest-All/Fed up, has to be the same person who made a complete mockery of the Dave Bulmer/Celtic Music thread.......Having just read through this pile of poo....(for that is what it is)....Who was the first person to mention Dave Bulmer???.....Guest-All.........Who was the first person to mention Peter Bellamy's widow...........Guest-All.....
Need I go on?? As someone who has been intimately involved with all that has happened to various people in the UK for at least 25 years.May I beseech you........Whoever Guest (make up your own name here) is.......This person should be avoided....Not for the continued ridiculous anonymity...and just for the record......my name is Ralph Jordan.....there....that didn't hurt....I felt no pain.!
but, for confusing, obfuscating (I made up this word!!), and generally bewildering a bunch of people whom I consider to be pretty decent...Enough Enough...Guest All, or whoever......As we say in these parts....PUT UP, OR SHUT UP.....Cheers Ralphie......(Oooooh, I did enjoy that!!)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:44 PM

Fine Ralphie....Now move on and back to all the good things you came here for and are now enjoying. We're glad to have you and if I was gone and didn't get the chance before.......Welcome to the 'Cat!

Amos my friend, I appreciate your concern and I'll try to do better!!! At least I maintained an even strain and didn't say that Guest All could suck the valves out of a Chevy small block did I? Or that they'd suck a root as long as a rake handle....Didn't say that now did I? I'm trying to get in touch with the kinder, gentler, Spaw........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ralphie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:09 PM

Mr Spaw....Yes, I'll do what you suggest, but, I Really(!) enjoyed that bit of spleen venting......In the past month or so, I've discovered a lot of info from the good people here that may have taken me months to find elsewhere.
. But the odd Prune has got in the way, sadly. So, I might just hang around for a bit longer, if that's alright with the "Mafia" (lol) that runs the place> Hope you're feeling well...Best wishes from the "Auld Country....Ralphie x

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:32 AM

Ralphie,

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. You didn't make up the word "obfuscating". You will find it in any decent dictionary.

The oxford concise dictionary (tenth edition), defines obfuscate as follows:

It is a verb, and its meanings are 1, to make unclear or unintelligible, and 2, to bewilder.

To make matters worse, it seems that your usage and spelling were both perfect in every possible way.

Either you are a subconscious academic, or you were born with an intuitive vocabulary, but I'm afraid you didn't invent that word. (unless you are very very old ....... how old are you?)

lox (nyuk nyuk)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:36 AM

No Name, No City,

Thanks for mentioning the very points I was trying to make when I initiated this thread.

The point of this thread, for those who were wondering, was to offer, from a GUEST user's perspective, some legitmate reasons why people have concerns about using email accounts as website log-ins. My apologies for not being more articulate.

There is a strong, mainstream point of view that anonymous Internet posting should be banned. I pointed to two cases, both involving government actions, where the intent was for governments to ban anonymous posting: one in France, one in the US.

I realize that many Mudcatters are opposed to anonymous posting in all circumstances, or extremely limited circumstances (which they have failed to spell out, I might add). Therefore, I would presume this is the position being most stridently and vocally defended here.

I just wanted to point out, in the contributions I was trying to make here, that banning anonymous posting in newsgroups, discussion forums, and chat rooms is being opposed internationally in courts, in government legislatures, and in the court of public opinion by free speech advocates.

I support the positions of free speech advocates. I believe that the "personal accountability" issue is a smokescreen, which, if legislation is enacted, will result in widespread violations of right to privacy laws outside of the Internet, and to widespread abuse by governments with strong interests in carrying on with secret campaigns against citizens expressing dissenting points of view.

We've seen the violations of rights to privacy and free speech in the US in the very recent past: anti-dissident campaigns against communist, labor, civil rights, gay rights, environmental, human rights, and other left leaning movements by the FBI and CIA. Anyone who believes this *is* somehow a thing of the past, and something the US government no longer in engaged is, I think, sadly mistaken.

Especially because of the historic relationship between the US and British folk revival movements with many of the movements targeted for goverment surveillance of their members I mentioned above, I believe anonymity is extremely important for anyone who wishes to express views freely in any folk music Internet forum.

Others may disagree. I note that the membership of this forum appears to be pretty conservative poltically, despite rhetoric of progressive attitudes being regularly expressed by many members.

But they shouldn't be defacto silencing the debate by burying it under a bunch of meaningless diatribes over "cowardice" among guests and "hurt feelings" of the Mudcat "clique". That ends up demeaning the importance of the issue of anonymity, rights to privacy, and free speech.

Again, thanks to those posters who did comment on the issues raised intitially in this thread, and attempts to keep it focused on the topic, rather than on individuals posting about it.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Kjell
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:07 AM

I have been reading threads here for about a month before I joined. I never once posted as Guest, not because I thought I would have bad treatment, more to find out about the place and get a feel for it. I think I did the right thing. The argument for privacy etc. does not work, you can call yourself "paperclip" if you want - no person will know who you are. I think you have dug a bit of a hole for yourself "Guest" Unless this was the intention - just to stir up the forum. I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I use my own name as I feel quite safe here
Kjell

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM

If free speech were an issue at Mudcat, then you would see a lot of deleted postings and a moderated forum. The fact that your posts and mine are not deleted and that you and I are still free to post should say something. As a card carrying ACLU member, I can also state that rights and freedoms all have certain responsibilities attached to them and abdicating the responsibility eliminates your right.

Again, take your complaints to Max. Let him read them and your postings here and see how he feels. He has tried very hard to provide a place of truly open communication. Or, you can continue to harp on your worn out diatribe here and please have some cheese with your whine.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:20 AM

This thread is entitled "Posting anonymously". Not "employment security & civil rights on the internet"

I never argued that you were a coward "all", I pointed out that your concerns regarding employment security were irrelevant to the question of whether or not you had a nickname by which people could recognize you on THIS forum.

You never once responded to my point because I'm right and you know I'm right.

Equally, your concerns about civil liberties have little to do with the mudcat cafe. If you don't want to give your real name, you don't have to (check back you will find I have been consistent). You are free to discuss anything you want here, under any pseudonym you choose.

You have been spending a lot of time here lately. Do you have any desire to know with whom you are discussing individual points? I do.

There is a genuine feeling amongst many of the regulars here that they know each other. Why? Because they have been coming here for a long time.

I don't know what most of the people here look like, and I don't know many of their real names, but I am able to recognise who is posting by their nickname. I know some people to be funny, some to be learned and some wise.

I also know some who I think talk a lot of unconnected shit. I think you are one of them.

When you demonstrate, clearly, how being recognizable on the mudcat forum has anything to do with job security or civil rights, I may begin to reconsider.

I am less reminded of the monty python argument sketch here, than I am of the abuse sketch.

Do you have a masochistic streak? If not, why must you set yourself up to be abused. And why would you come back?

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,No name and not much else
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:37 AM

Sorry

Me again

I am a nutcase

Please Ignore all my previous postings

All

Or someone else

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:44 AM

Sorry Max, Joe, everyone else. It was me above without my cookie. I would not normally do such things but it does serve to point out the major advantage of being joining. No-one can send messages as you.

I guess our anonymous guest(s) may now send messages using 'Guest: Dave the Gnome' but I think I have made the point.

Cheers

The one and only original Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Noreen
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:47 AM

MUDCAT HEALTH WARNING:
Trying to reason with this guest may seriously damage your equanimity!

I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that so many good, reasonable people have spent a great deal of time, energy and logic, attempting to reason with this unreasonable "GUEST". The effort spent is admirable, and it says a lot about the wonderful people who come here (guests and members alike) that they keep trying to be reasonable when the goalposts are constantly being moved- not just in this thread.

Enuff is enuff, friends. Time to get back to the real Mudcat!

Love,

♥ Noreen

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:48 AM

Spaw,

As a card carrying member of the ACLU, its seems a bit odd that you would hold the views you do regarding anonymous Internet posting, considering the position of that organization on an issue you obviously feel so strongly about, although I can appreciate one need not agree with all official positions taken by the organization of which one is a member. However, the ACLU's position on anonymous posting on the Internet is very clear, your membership notwithstanding.

To suggest that forum moderation is censorship is specious. Any forum can, and often is, censored by those who control access. Which was, in fact, the issue I was responding to initially in the GUEST thread: limiting access to GUEST users as a means of silencing views which are not in agreement with the Mudcat mainstream.

I have no desire to take up anything with Max. My initial contribution to the GUESTS thread was in response to the suggestion--made by others, not myself--that Mudcat should change the GUEST log-in policy. The justification given for those changes mentioned two threads: the CM/DB saga thread, and the (name deleted) thread. The original post to the GUESTS thread suggested that the forum was being abused by GUESTS in the CM/DB thread in the same way the forum was being abused by GUESTS in (name deleted) thread.

I suggest they were used by the GUESTs in each instance quite differently. In teh CM/DB thread:

1. Guests in the CM/DB thread were choosing to post anonymously to express a dissenting, controversial point of view which was at odds with the views held by a majority of people participating in that thread.

2. Guests in the (name deleted) thread were clearly abusing the GUEST log-in feature to engage in troll activities.

IMO, teh two are not equivalent.

The former is about free speech in this particular forum, and the rights of anyone, member or guest, to voice unpopular opinions anonymously in this forum.

The latter is about Internet abuse by trolls.

I disagreed with original poster's assertion that GUESTs in teh CM/DB thread with "abusing" the forum by choosing to post anonymously. As long as the site owner chooses to allow anonymous posting, I believe all users, whether members or guests, should respect the site owner's decision to allow anonymous posting, even if they disagree with it.

For those who feel so strongly about anonymous posting that they are willing to start flame wars over it in this forum, I would respectfully suggest that the burden for getting it changed lies with you, and not those who support the Mudcat status quo.

Anonymous posting is currently allowed here. It is my opinion the membership should stop harrassing and flaming those who choose to avail of that option to contribute to Mudcat.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:49 AM

ARSE.

I thought it meant that this would all be over. I wish you hadn't done it.

Never mind.

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:07 PM

All that said, I submit that what brings out the nasties in these parts is not anonymity. It is the refusal to communicate or the actual effort to undo those who wish to. The forms of this impulse include complaint without suggestions for improvement, a refusal to acknowledge others, carping criticism, and the kind of hateful littering of others' communication we occasionally see from the very young in brain. These are communication destructors, and they bring people to arms because the only treasure of the Mudcat is its communication, and its historical data.

I notice "All" is communicating here, not just sniping, or bleating piteously, or making generalized negative statements without specifics. I think this is great,

My perception is that we have no drum to beat here for knowing who anyone is or is not in the "real" world, but we do have a drum to beat for people standing up as genuine communicators, not snipers or vicitims.

A