BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 05:42 PM

In the past I have come to the defense of GUEST's and will make no exception here. Like one of them pointed out, if you don't want to read 'em you can filter 'em out with doing the "memebers only" thing. I enjoy as many of their posts as I do the posts of members. Membership doesn't necessary exempt one from sayin' dumb stuff. Heck, I've been known to say some dumb stuff.

I guess in a perfect world, folks wouldn't have their reasons for wanting to maintain their anominity (sp) but this ain't no perfect world...

Now with that said, ttr, yer still the man when it comes to rhymin', no doubt, but jus' 'cause stuff rhymes don't make it 100% correct.

I loves arithmaticee
It's the best as far as I can see
And so helpful in my life
Knowin' one and one is three

See what I mean..

But, yeah, I know you was jus' opinionizin' an' all that's all I done here but...

... I like GUEST's 'cept...

... the real jerks.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 05:58 PM

Could just be a jerk, Bobert.

And one person could have several Mudcat name identities.

It's not worth getting all het up about. "It's just the internet", as my friend Clint said.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:13 PM

"the picture in my mind of Clinton as a female has put me off my feed"

Oh admit it Rick F... yer just a LITTLE bit curious!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:17 PM

We're all guests here... but some of us are more equal than others... We all have our cup o tea... our mudcat personality... enjoy! Woof! Woof! Baa! Baa! Ah for one and one for Ah!

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:20 PM

But a female what?

You shouldn't be picturing stuff like that, RF! It can't be good for you. Close your eyes and go to your Happy Place... go to your Happy Place...

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:20 PM

How many threads about GUESTS have we had in our time?
This one was different, for Thomas commenced it in rhyme.
It slows down the posting, but that's not a cause for dismay,
If the tussle with words makes us think more about what we say.

Perhaps it's too hard, or it's just too much trouble to take -
But to post in a hurry can easily be a mistake.
When we feel we must say what so often has been said before
Why not say it in rhyme? At least then it won't be such a bore.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:36 PM

When a thread had commenced
Wherein posts were in verse,
I felt to add my two cents
Would not make things worse

So I put in my time
And at the end of the day,
I had worked out my rhyme
But had fuck-all to say

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:45 PM

Ahem, calling a Dog a Sheep might lead to severe lacerations of the male member, but to continue in the best traditions of South Wales.

"Anon guest went to post,
His message to the Nation,
But he could not write his own name,
All he got was inflamation !"

"Have you ever saw etc...."

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 07:40 PM

Thread veer: One might not be able to make a sheep bark like a dog, McGrath, but I have been barked at by a deer. Amazing thing to experience. She was standing on the other side of a deep, narrow gully, obviously warning a young'un that there was an unknown afoot. She knew I was close by but because I didn't move, she couldn't locate me. The sides of her breast and belly went in and out like a quick bellows and her mouth opened as the hoarse bark sounded.

This was soon after I quit smoking and I've never forgotten that it would never have happened in my smoking days. That was enough reward right there.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 07:47 PM

A Nameless name's as much a name
As a nickname, if you'd druther
But namelessness obscures the souls
Who speak, from one another!
This adds to all their rhetoric
A factor most distressing
Not knowing who is sending spite,
Or who deserves the blessing.
When venom comes from no-one known
And none can say who sends it
It seems to come from all the world
And blacks the hand that pens it.
Who thinks in cleverness and guile
His missives to be sending
Does never gain his wanted smile
But ends, instead, offending
Thus Guest, I prithee, an' thou wilt,
An end to put to scandal
Give o'er with this nameless guilt,
And find thyself a handle.

Aloysius Codicilius Modemus,
1939

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 08:03 PM

Bravo! Amos... Bravo! Crafty and creative...
And my immensely manly poet's ego has just been proved unsated...

Write On, Dude!

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:23 AM

Some hide behind anonymity and shoot poisoned darts. I've met Thomas the Rhymer and although his off-the-cuff poetry is pretty bad, his guitar playing and singing are jaw-droppingly good. Thus regardless of the fact that "Thomas the Rhymer" is a pseudonym, he is not anonymous and, by the fact of showing up at at least one Mudcat Gathering, he puts his identity where his mouth is.

Poetry that rhymes can be pretty bad, but at least ... you can tell it's poetry.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 01:55 AM

There once was a GUEST from the Azores
Whose c**t was all festered with sores.
The dogs in the street
Used to eat the green meat
That hung in festoons from her drawers.

No wait! This should be in the Dirty Limerick thread.

Sorry.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 03:56 AM

Aw Shucks, Mousethief... You are certainly well intended in your exagerations, and you can sing and play wonderfully...

There once was a member named Seamus
Who's limerick was sent for to ream us
In Pocapagian ways
The donkey whistles, the master brays
But still nothing could come quite between us... ;^)

The third and fourth lines are from "The Count's Beard". ttr

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:42 AM

You can't make a sheep bark!, that's not right.
And I'm certain that I have the proof.
You douse it with petrol, and then add a light.
And that's when you hear it go WOOF

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:27 AM

This whole guest thin is getting to be a huge bore..I post here often as a guest, I do not insilt people or rant about political issues. I used to come here just to enjoy the winderful and knowledable conversation about all sorts of thins. However, this forum has become increasingly narrow and self important of late..I certainly feel unwelcome and will perhaps just stop cheking in. It seems to me That a lot of the ranting here is against guests, not by guests. Perhaps some growing up is in order, this is a small music forum, not the centre of the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:35 AM

I count to ten, then say again,
that GUESTS as such are blameless.
In general GUESTS are far from pests,
- it's the odd ones who are nameless.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST,Termagant
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:18 AM

"In other words, the bully pulpit that unaccountability on the net offers to the cronicly stupid is far more destructive than we are willing to acknowledge."

Really? How so? It would be ever so helpful if you could be specific. As another guest has noted, these generalized sorts of 'I hate anon guests' rants are not only counter-productive, but a bore.

Except for those who wish to draw attention to the fact that they've been insulted by someone they can't call names (and so tar and feather an entire class of people instead) for purposes of getting their revenge against the insulter, just what is it that is so destructive that is happening here?

Last time I checked, I'd never heard of one single person ever having been killed or maimed by an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:41 AM

You can't have checked very thoroughly.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:17 PM

I would have titled this thread "On the cowardly nature of some Guest postings", but the word 'some' didn't fit into the little thread title box... so I had to risk insulting all the billions of GUESTs in the world... sorry 'bout that everyone... ;^)

C'mon... don't mince, and don't split hairs... just for a moment here... and get the obvious notion... Don't be rude dude. K?

later...! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Art Thieme
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:19 PM

Somehow, Guest postings on some numerous occasions feel to me like someone just gave me the finger from their speeding car. It's hard to take as serious criticism, but they do manage to piss me off on a visceral level more often than the folks I know and have come to enjoy and admire as real people here.

ART THIEME (my John Hancock)

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

The heading maybe caused some people to see
This thread as more angry than it set out to be.
And then they jump in with a shout and a roar,
Without waiting to read what's been written before.
And sometimes they rage about things no one said,
Or perhaps they just got out the wrong side of bed,
And in words so prosaic they lay all about -
Soft words carry better, there's no need to shout.
No, there's no need to shout and there's no need to scream. -
Lewis Carroll wrote truly - "What is life but a dream?"

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 01:01 PM

I can't write good pomes, but I can Google purty well...

I found this musing on anonymity

for those who don't wanna click, it includes this:

"...Another point raised as a negative aspect of anonymity is that if we are anonymous, we are not accountable for our actions. This, too, is a red herring in my opinion. Since nobody can have any knowledge of who we "really" are anyway, without meeting us, since I never would have known that Jerry was Jerry if he hadn't chosen to reveal it, in what sense does the name I choose to represent me in Erato impact my accountability? Assuming that staff has never considered the option of actually hunting down and physically punishing people who act like idiots in the forums, then whether or not I reveal my true identity herein is irrelevant.

The name I go by is accountable, and that's as accountable as it will ever get, on the net. It doesn't matter what name I use: the name is "me" in here, and you may hold the name accountable for my actions, it's one and the same thing. If you ban me, by banning my name, you've held me accountable. If I manage to get back in by putting on a new name, we start the dance all over again. That's the net. Who I "really am" is irrelevant: I am what I do, in here, and that's the great thing about the net, and also the worst thing."

**MY** point in posting this is that, as most complaints about "guest" posts have noted, the major issue is keeping various 'guests' separate, and NOT in knowing their true identity. I can have a debate with "Termagant", whether I agree with him/her or not...but it is really hard to debate or reply to a set of words at "X" o'clock, and it is rude to expect us to keep track. Calling US rude and 'unfriendly' to guests, when the guests created the problem begs the question.

There are indeed reasons to not be a cookied MEMBER, and we have a number of regular posters who adopt a regular nom de plume and participate in 'almost' all the functions of the forum. I can live with that...I'm disappointed that I can't PM them, but I can shrug if that's the way they feel.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 03:27 PM

And then they jump in with a shout and a roar,
Without waiting to read what's been written before

and before and before and before and before.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 03:55 PM

People who use their real names here are no better, knowledgable, or interesting than ones who do not. I really don't give a rat's ass who anyone here really is. There is truly no real celebraties here that I can say make this place any more cooler. "Real" names of musicians and fans in other parts of the world other than America BORE me. I am interested in American folk, country, and bluegrass music. If you have something interesting or informative to say, I can dig that.

Actually, what us guests really know, is that this place is not such a big part of our lives as it is to the regulars. We are obviously not as dependent on a place like this forum to make our lives have fulfillment. We meet people in person and talk to them face to face. Some us GUESTS absolutely prefer to stay a complete mystery to you, love music as much if not more than you, and have a better time keeping our reality and vitual reality separate.

I am only Martin Gibson here and that is just fine with me. I have been a musician for 40 years, know a lot about music, and am willing to share what I know with you.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:13 PM

your choice. Many who come here (both members and guests) DO meet face to face - or know each other outside of and/or BEFORE Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:16 PM

"I really don't give a rat's ass who anyone here really is"
Here frigg'n here!

"what us guests really know, is that this place is not such a big part of our lives as it is to the regulars"
As I said before... it's JUST the internet... nothing to warrent getting yer knickers in a knot over eh...

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:30 PM

Bill D's clear summary once again:

"**MY** point in posting this is that, as most complaints about "guest" posts have noted, the major issue is keeping various 'guests' separate, and NOT in knowing their true identity. I can have a debate with "Termagant", whether I agree with him/her or not...but it is really hard to debate or reply to a set of words at "X" o'clock, and it is rude to expect us to keep track. Calling US rude and 'unfriendly' to guests, when the guests created the problem begs the question."

I copied that in here again, from Bill D a couple of posts back, because I get the impression from Martin Gibson's post that he might not have read it, and be labouring under the mistaken (but often falsely asserted) impression that there is some sort of antagonism towards GUESTS as such:

I repost that, it puts it all so fairly,
and Martin Gibson's post reads like he missed it.
The trouble isn't GUESTS whose labels clearly
identify when him or her has posted.
"Non-cookies"? Why, they're welcomed here, sincerely.
Though not so welcome those who have persisted...
But why repeat what's oft been said so clearly?

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:34 PM

Why? Because we like you!   M O U S E

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:18 PM

Yes?

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:10 PM

Take a bow, MT. LOL

BTW, saying that it's "just the internet" rings falsely. One can say "just my wife" or "just my two-year-old" or "just my past" or "just my world" but each of those things has validity whether one will ever know them or not. People meeting via the internet are "meeting" just as truly as by mail or through catalogues or even on the telephone. MO

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:18 PM

If you give it more importance than it deserves you're setting yourself up for a big fall. It's best to have a healthy sense of humour and a bit of perspective when surfing, even in an open forum that some people consider a "community". You can make it a gated community but that's no fun and not very instructive. Or you can leave things open and not get so bent out of shape and hooked in everytime someone tries to yank your chain. It is "just the Internet".

And out here, we is all stoned immaculate...

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:45 PM

What a crock
Or is it a psycho-ceramic?
Here we go again
All het up in a panic.
To quote BillD, *sigh*

brucie, caught me LMAO, again, with another one-liner! You, too, Rick!

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Art Thieme
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 11:10 AM

Thanks for the middle digit, MartyG. I, too, have learned to consider the source. You maintain and retain an intersting level of admiration from me as well.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 11:20 AM

Cluin

You absolutely DO get it!

So do I!

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 01:10 PM

the phrase "just the internet" is fascinating. It seems to imply that there are no real people behind it. I refer you to Ebbie's post above....
If you get a letter from someone which insults you or belittles your religion, mother or school, is that "just a letter"? How about the same remarks made in a telephone call? What about if they are on stage and see you in the audience and make the same remarks over the PA system?

Yeah, it is possible to 'not open' a thread, but sometimes you have read the upsetting stuff before you realize what it is about...is it any less real because you can't SEE the author?

Quite apart from whether one should allow one's "chain to be yanked", it is fascinating how some people USE the internet to unleash aspects of their personality that they 'probably' do not show in **reality**. Why do folks use anonymity or psuedonyms to troll, ridicule, bait, insult, complain, disparage etc., in ways that they would probably not do if they met someone at a party?

I have no problem with 'Martin Gibson' as a guest name, any more than catspaw or SINSULL or Pene Azul. The name could be used either as a member, or, as he chooses, as a non-member. If the name is merely to keep a real name private , he 'could' be a member without revealing that real name, but, as he says, it makes little difference in matters like discussing Bluegrass songs. The issue, and the only real issue is that often, anonymity is used to insult and threaten and hurt.. and to post long, tedious rants (like 'ol "Dreaded Guest" from Texas"). I DO have a problem with THAT!

This is a big world, and we have widely different opinions and VERY different ways of expressing them. We have 'members' whose identity is well known, and couldn't care less if the forum knows what they think, and we have NON-members with names who do care...and several other combinations...but it soon becomes evident who has a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude and disdain for the opinions and feelings of others. Can't stop that, I guess, but YOU are real, whether we know who you are- or not, and what you say DOES affect folks in whose company it is said--VT or RT. If you wanta make lots of those comments negative, sarcastic, hurtful ones, expect replies in a similar vein.

Bill Day...Wheaton, MD.,USA ...come by and we'll PLAY some music (or debate, if you'd prefer)...I play autoharp.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 01:39 PM

(I do need to acknowlege that in print, whether it is handwritten or cyberspace, it can be tricky to 'see' how a comment was meant...some folks are just more 'blunt' than others.

I like to be understood in the spirit I post. For this reason, I pepper my posts with italics, underlinings, UPPERCASE, *grins*, smilies ;>), and other things, in an attempt to 'sound' like I would speak....I LIKE to appear real, even in this environment)

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:06 PM

"...it is fascinating how some people USE the internet to unleash aspects of their personality that they 'probably' do not show in **reality**. "

Some people are nastier than they ever would be in real life - and some are probably nicer than they'd dare to be. The way drink often seems to bring out the real person.

Are the false selves on the Internet actually the true selves?

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:21 PM

"It seems to imply that there are no real people behind it."

In your opinion. In my opinion, the phrase "it is just the internet" means that it is silly to waste life's precious time and energy thinking/believing that you can hold individuals accountable in chat forums like this or Usenet. It is akin to saying "life is too short" or "don't sweat the small stuff". Those are good pieces of advice if you are going to post in open chat forums or Usenet.

"If you get a letter from someone which insults you or belittles your religion, mother or school, is that "just a letter"?"

Yes, although I assume (you didn't specify) you are referring to a letter that is either anonymous, or pseudonymous. Why would it make you feel safer or more at ease, knowing the name of the person who insults you?

"Yeah, it is possible to 'not open' a thread, but sometimes you have read the upsetting stuff before you realize what it is about...is it any less real because you can't SEE the author?"

It is no one's responsibility but your own to edit what you don't want to read online. Don't like it? Don't read it. Period.

No "And sometimes..." or "what if..." or "but what if someone says...". That is just childish.

"Why do folks use anonymity or psuedonyms to troll, ridicule, bait, insult, complain, disparage etc., in ways that they would probably not do if they met someone at a party?"

Same reason people who use their real names do it.

"The issue, and the only real issue is that often, anonymity is used to insult and threaten and hurt.. and to post long, tedious rants (like 'ol "Dreaded Guest" from Texas")."

Members do this quite often as well, and a person's proclivity towards such behavior has nothing whatsoever with real names, pseudonyms, or anonymity. That is YOUR bias and misperception

"I DO have a problem with THAT!"

But it is YOUR problem, not everyone's. Nor should you try to make YOUR problem, MY problem.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:22 PM

It's not just particular to the internet. People are equally filtered when they write a letter to the editor, or a column, or a group letter for Christmas or whatever... and it's not just particular to print, either-- phone messages can be somewhat artificial, too.

What makes it less than a full representation of the person is one's awareness that one is speaking in a public setting where people may actually be paying attention.... one communicates with a different sense of awareness than might occur in a private communication.

Not so different from how one might dress in public.... vs. how one might dress in private.

And the misunderstandings can happen similarly.

For instance, say Hardi (who owns the debit card) goes online to get me some lingerie. Ya'll know I'm a big 'un. Are they gonna see the man's name as purchaser and assume he's going to wear the stuff???? Three years later, will he still be getting spam from the cross-dressers' vendors!? I'll let you know how it goes-- we have our first purchase pending now! :~)

Not sure "cowardly" applies as much as one might assume. But I do think some people especially want to make use of the opportunity to hide what they are really about, and that the internet environment draws them into a deeper involvement and practice of that, than might other media.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:30 PM

Scary thing about poison pen letters by snail mail is that it means the creep knows where you actually live. At least, that applies in places where the mail come to our front doors, rather than to some Box Number. Stuff coming through the Internet may be equally distasteful, and indicate the same kind of nastiness at the other end, but it's not quite the same.

You know WYSIWYG, there's the makings of a great comic saga in that example you gave. Perhaps a monologue rather than a song...

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:34 PM

Why would it make you feel safer or more at ease, knowing the name of the person who insults you? Why, yes, logical as that may seem, esp. in the case of a threatening letter, phone call, etc. Difficult to protect oneself if one cannot name their enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM

MGoH...

I hate to tell you... but if you're online, and posting on a message board or visiting a chat room... just about anyone with the intelligence of the average brain-damaged monkey can find your IP number, trace it to your internet provider and find out exactly where you live...

That's what I meant when I said above that internet anonymity is an illusion... and not even a very good one at that...

---------------------------------------

GUEST 06 Jan 04 - 02:21 PM...

I grock ya... I really really do!

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 03:02 PM

I understand all that, BillD. I just think you have the choice to not let an attack (from either an anonymous GUEST or a named member) derail a thread. Because it really doesn't matter all that much. It's all just words on a screen--typed by real people certainly, but they don't "live" here 24/7. Neither do you. It's just not that big a deal; take the good that you can get from it and forget the rest.

I've watched concise, constructive posts (both by GUESTs and members) pass pretty much ignored in worthwhile threads, while spurious one-liner attacks garner far more attention than they deserve, with the result being that the thread turns into one long bicker. Then the "anti-GUEST" rant resurfaces.

Remember when your mom told you to ignore a pest or bully and maybe he'll get bored and go away? Well, that could actually work here.

And my name is Rick Deevey and I live in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and I'd like to play music with you too (or anyone else here) some time. And I'd consider that time spent far more valuable than any time spent on the internet at all (although this is a very good place to come... one of the best I've found. Thanks, Max).

Have a good day, all!

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:25 PM

I wrote:

"Why would it make you feel safer or more at ease, knowing the name of the person who insults you?"

and a member responded with:

"Why, yes, logical as that may seem, esp. in the case of a threatening letter, phone call, etc. Difficult to protect oneself if one cannot name their enemy."

First, I can't even agree with you that someone insulting me is my enemy. Your choice of the word 'enemy' reveals a lot about your personal level of paranoia, though.

Many years ago, while I was an adolescent, our family received threatening, obscene, anonymous phone calls for months. Yes, we were frightened. However, the police were able to finally trace the calls, and found the perpetrator. I never for one instant, wanted to know the man's identity. Nor did any of my family members. It was enough for us to know the creep was caught.

I note that no one here has even suggested that level of threat is being made against anyone here, so why the defensive, paranoid attitudes of so many members about identities?

I don't expect it to change, because the behavior is no different than the mass meida obsession with identity, ie the cover of this week's Time magazine cover asking accusingly "Who is the REAL DEAN?"
Or the current obsession with 'foreigners' identity that the government has (ie the fingerprinting, photographing, jailing and holding foreign nationals incommunicado without charge, etc) in this paranoid era, where everyone we don't know is immediately suspect.

Xenophobia drives a lot of the anti-guest crap here. But that doesn't make it right or rational.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:33 PM

Xenophobia, penophobia. The reason people don't like anonymous negative posts is because they are FAR more upsetting than similarly negative posts attributable to an identity. You keep trying to twist this into something it ain't and you just don't get the point. It has nothing to do with being private. It has everything to do with being rude. You are very fond and defensive of what is, in the final analysis, simply obsessive ill manners. Do grow up!

A

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:50 PM

"The reason people don't like anonymous negative posts is because they are FAR more upsetting than similarly negative posts attributable to an identity."

PROVE IT. Come on, Amos. How about you give at least 5 examples of each that proves this belief you are stating as if it were incontrovertible, uncontestable fact.

There is PLENTY rude, threatening, hostile, disturbing member posting done around here. As to "obsessive ill manners" how about you talk to any number of members about their, instead of your CONSTANT haranguing of guests?

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 05:07 PM

Dear Guest:

I am not haranguing guests -- I am responding to the topic. If a named participant acts out of bounds in my opinion, you can be sure I will tell him so, and often have. It happens often enough, but is less upsetting in my opinion than the nameless ones. No, I won't "prove it"! The proposition is silly. The obsessive ill manners of which I spoke is your adamant and obdurate insistence that being anonymous and critical is perfectly respectable. Well, it simply ain't so, pal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 05:10 PM

now, you see, I have no idea whether 'Martin Gibson' is replying to me, or someone else..it resembles Martin Gibsons remarks, but could be one of several...so I don't know who I am replying to, and this complicates what I might choose to reply.

"Members do this quite often as well..."

no...members do NOT do it to the degree that anonymous "guests" do it! Members sometimes have flamed each other and disagreed and bickered, but the serious, nasty, hateful, hurtful remarks are usually from people who are not using a member ID. In a couple of cases, members who did cross the line found themselves NOT members, I believe. In a couple other cases, people 'hiding behind the curtain' were surprised when Toto pulled the curtain aside (IP adresses) and they were (privately) unmasked.

"It is no one's responsibility but your own to edit what you don't want to read online. Don't like it? Don't read it. Period."

...and how are you supposed to know it is unpleasant crap BEFORE you read it? We have had threads where someone was discussing the loss of a loved one, or their serious health or weight problem...and getting helpful advice...when some idiot drops a truly nasty remark into the thread and really hurts a good person.(there has been one ongoing example of this for years!)
Don't give me BS about "don't sweat small stuff" just because YOU don't take it personally or feel threatened or insulted...YOU are not 'everyone', and evidently YOU have no idea what it feels like to be hit with nastiness when you are vulnerable!

"Why would it make you feel safer or more at ease, knowing the name of the person who insults you?" It is not a matter of "safer" in most cases, but it would sure give me a better idea of whether I needed to respond, ignore or call the cops! If I know poster "X" is usually just a smart-alec loudmouth who flips off remarks he 'thinks' are funny or cute, I might shrug and ignore; but if I realize this person is not only serious, but knows me or lives near me and knows my friends and is trying to do damage to my reputation (yes, we just had some posts like that!) then I'd feel a bit different.

Human beings, as we know them today, have been around for about 35,000 years, 6000-7000 with a written language, but the ability to make remarks this widely, and with almost total anonymity is only 10-15 years old, and many of them have not figured out how to adjust to it yet.

(oh, and I beg to differ, Clinton, about your claim...."just about anyone with the intelligence of the average brain- damaged monkey can find your IP number, trace it to your internet provider and find out exactly where you live..." That requires at least a savvy Orangutan!

They might get your bank account, find your credit rating, and discover what brand of guitar strings you buy, IF they know who you are to begin with. (you and I make no secret about where we are-- 'Martin Gibson' chooses a nickname, and I'd find it a LOT of work to idenitfy him...so I wouldn't bother without good cause, and being outspoken is not 'good cause')
----If you do nothing to protect yourself, you can be traced by some means, by those with **access** to IP numbers, but you surely know that it is possible to post either here in Mudcat, or in USENET, or to send email, so that it would take an enormous effort to find you! Spammers and hackers do it everyday, and they are only identified when someone thinks it is serious enough to spend LOTS of time poring over ISP logs (IF you get a court order and have the computer time). Serious death threats and national security 'might' get the attention; hateful remarks to a folkie wont.

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 05:17 PM

well, Amos said it much shorter while I was madly composing, but in my post there were a couple of examples of the kind of proof 'guest' was damanding..(no, NOT details, but real, nontheless) There HAVE been obscenities and threats posted here...not like calls to your house...but...