Why anonymous posts are allowed in this forum ?

[R K Singh]

If everyone hates so much receiving responses from anonymous poster then why not ban it?
What is the use of repeating same thig again and again

At least those you are being critical of, had the guts to post using their names.

Well, normally I try not to avail myself of the "honor" of attempting to hold a conversation with someone who doesn't take themselves seriously enough to post using their normal screen name.

etc.....
Ban it

[Thomas Paul]

We did for a little while after 9/11 when things were quite hot here but... some people use anonymous names playfully and with humor. Some people may not want their views known in their office. The problem becomes when you start attacking other people while hiding under the cover of the anonymous id.

[Rob Ross]

I think it's good to have a forum where people can post things in relative anonymity...sometimes you want to say things that you may not feel comfortable having associated with you by the general public, and sometimes you just want to be silly and again not have to worry about people associating you with that silliness.
It's true that occasionally this priviledge gets abused by people. But I also think more often, it's a matter of exercising free speech, and there's no guarantees that speech isn't going to offend people. It's a fine line trying to maintain an open forum, and nip personal attacks in the bud, but I think the moderators and sheriffs do a pretty good job balancing these conflicting goals.

[R K Singh]

I have no problem with anonymity.
But as you said that some might not want their name to be known. We have lot of anonymous names here like Sona Gold, N-----, Chumma fun.....
So saying that views of a anonymous is not worth as per me is not good else wish is your.
Actually yesterday I was going through "moussaoui" thread and just reading views suddenly I read these comments .. so...
AW I think view is more important than knowing name.

[R K Singh]

as that thread is close now, I am replying here.

I have no interest in discussing anything with anyone who has nothing to say and needs to have their posts edited because they can't control their mouths.
-Thomas Paul

And I also have no interest in discussing anything with anyone who has nothing to say and needs to have thread deleted/blocked because they can't control their mouths.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Thomus and rob
I want to be silly at times, when I am not discussing work
?

[Anonymous]

Hi who am i remember me

[Anonymous]

how about this type of anonymous names

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Joining AG (Anonymous Group)

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

some people use anonymous names playfully and with humor.
Some people may not want their views known in their office.

When you are that intelligent then why did you say those words.

[Michael Ernest]

Anonymity is offered in this forum, in one sense, because it is one of the things that can be offered. In a forum intended for amusement and diversion from technical banter, one area of play is pretending to be someone else or no one at all. People can "be" who they want or no one at all, in the fine spirit of a costume party.
Altering one's identity is liberating; cool. It's also apparent that this liberty for some comes at the expense of others, and that's where the fun of it starts to wear thin.
Also, anonymity is available, not enforced, and there's no rule that says you have to like it. Some people want to know, to the degree possible, who they are talking to; I'm sure you'll sometimes find people annoyed at pseudonymous users even when they say nothing provocative. That's all part of using a false name.
Most of us admire a person who takes a strong position on a serious topic. We may not agree with them, but they have taken a stand, and implicitly they intend to defend their position to others. So attaching an identity to a view isn't a matter of arbitrary view. It's a very real and very important connection in furthering debate.
So I don't understand what Ravish could mean by expressing preference for hearing a view over knowing who expressed it. If a a view has no concrete point of reference, is it a view? Or is it just some regurgitated opinion recited for the sake of saying something?

[Corey McGlone]

One thing I've noticed is that anonymous ID's can be used by anyone. Therefore, if I post something as <Truth>, someone else can say something entirely different as <Truth> and everyone is left scratching their heads as to what the heck is going on and why I can't get my argument straight.
Even if you don't use your real name, at least having a registered name adds some degree of sanity to a discussion.
Sometimes, being able to post anonymously is goofy and fun (in fact, I posted as <Moose> in this thread). However, in a more heated debate, posting anonymously usually does more harm than good.
That's my 2 cents, anyway.
Corey
[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Corey McGlone ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
So I don't understand what Ravish could mean by expressing preference for hearing a view over knowing who expressed it. If a a view has no concrete point of reference, is it a view? Or is it just some regurgitated opinion recited for the sake of saying something?

Michael, there is no way to know if a person who express a view is registered under his/her "real" name or not. If not, it isn't really different from expressing a view as <JustSomeGuy>. Why people would make serious posts unregistered? My guess is, because it is typical on many other discussion boards, (Sun's for example. "SomeJavaGuy", mind you.)
The problem, how I see it, is that for historical resons we have developed certain kind of expectations, or better say, preconceptions about anonymous posters inclinations. When you expect somebody to be hostile, they mysteriously become hostile, you know. After that, we feel in our full right to insult them, delete all their posts etc.
In this situation, it's better to disallow unregistered posts in this forum.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I'll bet this forum get's a lot of hits. Seems as if I see mostly ads for JR here. What would be a good target advertiser for pathological arguers?
What comes to my mind is:

Just taken diazepam 5mg, lorezepam mcg, trifluoperazine 5mg (or stelazine) and benzhexol 2mg (or archtane) at midnite. Now 1 and a half hour later am feeling gay and happy with a bit of running nose. I take stelazine be chewing it down. Now my tongue feel a bit numb. Feel light. Hope to be able to sleep soon.

[Anonymous]

I just want to say that you should respect an anonomous poster also as you have given this facility to him, AW its your wish.
Like I have said 100 times, I can not force anyone to do anything.
Does it matter that whether I am real Ravish OR someone else is saying above things ???

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Michael, there is no way to know if a person who express a view is registered under his/her "real" name or not. If not, it isn't really different from expressing a view as <JustSomeGuy>. Why people would make serious posts unregistered? My guess is, because it is typical on many other discussion boards...
In this situation, it's better to disallow unregistered posts in this forum.

I disagree. The political principle of free speech is that some person with courage and conviction can speak their mind without fear of reprisal from those who execute real power. Ticking off a moderator in MD on JavaRanch does not, in my mind, qualify as messing with real pwoer. We are no particular authority from which an individual cannot escape.
Some people claim they fear reprisals for what they are saying. I find this threat more imagined than real. It's too often used by people who simply don't want to be associated with their own ignorance or inexperience. Ever hear any accounts of monitoring or blocking internet communication from the Middle East since 9/11? Me neither.
I probably disagree more with Thomas Paul and Jason Menard on just about anything, from the correct temperature for serving a Guinness to how the global economy will shape up. But I do not doubt I am talking to them because they put their opinions out there.
Could they still be using false names? Sure. Would it be a big joke on me if they were? Fine, whatever. Come to think of it, is 'Michael Ernest' my real name? How do you know it isn't some fabrication started years ago, a persona/avatar cultivated for almost a decade? Hey, wait a minute: how do I know my real name? Oh man....wow...I never really thought about this, but....How do we really know anything?
Ok: so much for just about the most retarded conversational gambit you ever heard on every internet bulletin board ever.
The philosophical issues around identity and reality, I think, are never more profaned than they are in the casual practice of internet pseudonyms. I admit it, I take forthrightness at face value. It helps me to ignore a bunch of yahoos trying to say "nothing is real," except of course for their ideas, which themselves exist outside our illusory world in that firmament of enduring, unassailable truths. I for one find no greater illusion perpetuated in cyberspace than the idea that ideas are devoid of context.
Call me naive, but I trust "Thomas Paul" is he who he says, and on serious, controversial political matters (which I think don't much belong here anyway), knowing who said what does matter. Furthermore, when he says something I find unpleasant or obnoxious, I'm assured he is who he says, because he opens himself to challenge. I do think that counts for something.
Pseudonyms and their impact on how people relate to each other is a realm lots, lots older than telecommunication. And there are "truths" that emerge in one context of two people talking that wouldn't emerge otherwise. The Western tradition for that notion goes back thousands of years.
That same tradition says less flattering things about hiding behind a mask to get away with some ugly or provocative business. That so many of our 'Truth' types in MD resort to straw-man argument, condescension, and contempt for the opinions of others, I think, shows that the form offers little more than a way to rile people up. I find that there is generally very little to learn, for example, from accusing a person of saying something they didn't, other than what they are like when they are perpetually teased and frustrated.
I don't think we solve this issue well by denying everyone some playtime. We can remove the players who can't play nice (or the plays they make that aren't nice), and that's a reasonable and fallible process. We can worry that deleting posts will have a chilling effect, and I'm sure it might, a little. So is the only alternative to enforce a chilling effect by denying the privilege to everyone?
Banning pseudonyms to me only makes it possible for the people who suck to goad us into making the people who don't suck pay for their actions.
[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by <Ravish>:
I just want to say that you should respect an anonomous poster also as you have given this facility to him, AW its your wish.
Does it matter that whether I am real Ravish OR someone else is saying above things ???

Respect is earned, even in the simplest of exchanges. I think it's simply the case that people are quicker to believe that sarcasm from an anonymous poster might be disrespect in disguise. Again, that's part of the tradeoff. In explicitly asserting a false identity, you risk being misunderstood. Why is anyone surprised at being misunderstood while they call themselves 'Truth' or 'slacker' or 'God'? How can a person assert ideas have no owners in one breath and complain they've been misinterpreted in the next?
Asking if who said what is relevant is a popular recitation on the internet, but I doubt if anyone who says it has thought about it. Our most widely-held truths are well-known as much by who said them as anything else. If they weren't, we wouldn't bother citing who said it, would we? The speaker makes a difference. Consider the following:
Thomas Jefferson: America is a land of freedom.
Abraham Lincoln: America is a land of freedom.
John Kennedy: America is a land of freedom.
Donald Trump: America is a land of freedom.
George Bush, Jr.: America is a land of freedom.
Robert Mapplethorpe: America is a land of freedom.
Sammy Sosa: America is a land of freedom.
Oliver North: America is a land of freedom.
[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Ravish>:
I just want to say that you should respect an anonomous poster also as you have given this facility to him, AW its your wish.

Like Michael said, respect is earned. People are judged by their actions, and IMHO the initial action of choosing to post anonymously automatically is a strike against the poster that says a lot about him and his opinion(dpending on the context of course).
I'll assume you were directing this question at Michael, but why should *I* or any other user repsect an anonymous poster just because the moderators chose to allow anonymous posting? The doesn't lend the poster any kind of instant credibility.
If an anonymous poster comes on here and overcomes his anonymity through his words and actions, then he will most likely earn himself some measure of respect. Of course anybody can decide to pose as that person and undermine this rapport he has theoretically established.
I would argue that the message itself isn't always of the utmost importance. Consider this message:
"I would like to meet you for lunch."
Let's say you receive this message in a nice greeting card that you find taped to your front door when you get home one evening, and it is signed by this attractive woman you have been admiring who lives a few doors down the street.
On the other hand, let's say you arrive home to find a partially eaten human heart stuck to your door with a large knife. On a slip of paper, between the knife and the partially eaten human heart, is written the same message, apparently in blood, and signed by "An admirer".
So ya see, it's not necessarily what the message is, but often how that message is delivered.
And one more question: What is AW? Anyway? It's certainly not an abbreviation that is in any widespread usage, so please forgive my ignorance.
[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Like Michael said, respect is earned.

<politically incorrect content inside>
This is a very manly point of view.
I always believed that people have some credit of respectability, unless they overcome it with their actions. But from my experience this is opposite for men.
</politically incorrect content inside>
but why should *I* or any other user repsect an anonymous poster just because the moderators chose to allow anonymous posting?
Why do you respect people on the street? (Well, I hope you do :roll: )

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Why do you respect people on the street? (Well, I hope you do :roll: )

Because they may have a gun.
Maybe a more relevant question might be how much respect would you have for the opinion of a stark raving lunatic running up and down the street in a chicken costume jumping up and down while making "cluck cluck" noises?
Seriously though, I understand your point. Everybody should be due some basic level of common courtesy, unless they prove they deserve otherwise. I was just trying to point out what I viewed as faulty logic when he seemed to imply that the users should automatically respect the opinion of an anonymous poster simply because anonymous posting is allowed.
[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Posters should be respected, not opinions. Opinions are here to be challenged, attacked, disproved, crashed - all this stuff. But posters should be respected, unless there are valid reasons not to.
----------------------
"As you probably guessed from the chapters so far, the answer to all our problems is XML."
"Web Service Facetplates". Wrox, 2002

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

I always believed that people have some credit of respectability, unless they overcome it with their actions. But from my experience this is opposite for men.

This is opposite for animals also. The strongest specimen get females (or cheese, for that matter)
Shura

[Anonymous]

Sometimes I post anonymously because I don't want to/don't feel safe signing in at public computers like the one I'm at right now.
On the other hand, there are some posters like Jake the Snake who seems to be exempt from naming rules and have alternate identities for saying weird things.... Hell, I used a fake last name for a while. Then I just decided that none of you were going to come and kill me and changed names -- is that a safe thing to figure?
I have my nice fast cable access with a fixed IP address at home, so they could block me if I did something stupid.
But really, the forum name says it all: Meaningless Drivel. Who cares about reality in here?

[Anonymous]

This is opposite for animals also. The strongest specimen get females

Of course, afterwards, the females get to eat them.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by <David Weitzman>:

But really, the forum name says it all: Meaningless Drivel. Who cares about reality in here?

Clearly everyone who knows they're in a war and coping with a depressed economy cares about reality; some of them want to bring it here. It tends to dampen the frivolity, no?

[Mapraputa Is]

Michael, I know it will upset you but I agree with almost all you said
It does matter who is saying. Words are always said in context of "personal philosophy" and if you do not know what this "personal philosophy" is, misunderstanding is waiting right here. And unfortunately, we tend to chose the worst of all possible variants to misunderstand others. So new people are already at disadvantage, and our preconceptions about "unregisterability" only worse the situation.
Is it better to use your "real" name or at least register with some name when discussing serious problems? Sure. If somebody didn't, does that mean he is up to "some ugly or provocative business"? Maybe, or maybe not. "yes" more often than "not", unfortunately. Should we then automatically treat him like he is up to it? No.
If we cannot overcome our negative opinion about unregistered posters, we should either 1) warn people when they post about this our "feature", so it wouldn't be a surprise to them or 2) disallow unregistered posts, like we do in all other forums. It would be better if we could decide on "per thread" basis, and to mark a thread as "sensitive" as Jim suggested, after which disallow unregistered fighting, but UBB doesn't support it. Maybe we could organize a working group from fans of unregistered posting to add this feature to Jive
Alternatively we could implement this tactics "manually" - after some point a moderator says that since then unregistered posters are prohibited in this particular thread, but this would be extra workload, of course.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by <Anthony>:
Of course, afterwards, the females get to eat them.

What else are they good for afterwards?

[Anonymous]

Uh, mix some vodka?

[Anonymous]

Mix with what?

[Anthony Villanueva]

I'd just like to add something in addition to what Map said (to which I agree). In each registered user's profile, I noticed that there is an "Add to your Ignore List". I haven't used it myself, but I'm assuming posts from the Ignore list will not appear. Assuming I haven't made a gross mistake, is it possible to add an analogous feature similar to this so that anonymous posters as a class can be added to one's Ignore List? It would then be up to the user to decide whether to enable this feature or not, and then the old adage "ignorance is bliss" comes to play.
Or is it "out of sight, out of mind"?
Anyway, where was I, oh...

[Mapraputa Is]

Anthony, "ignore list" works only for only private messages, I am afraid.
There is another idea, implemented at XML-DEV mailing list - filtering/censoring software.
Here is a relevant complain.
Would be to implement our own version and see what will happen.

[Anthony Villanueva]

Yeah, I can see that there was too much explicit textual content in that thread.
I wonder though if robotic prudes would notice this one: http://xxx.lanl.gov

[Anonymous]

with anything...

[Michael Ernest]

Map -- would you not enter into any conversation in person by first listening to what is being said, what the dynamics of the group are, etc.? Why wouldn't a new poster apply that here?
I don't think it's true that we have inherently negative feelnigs towards new people. We certainly do, I think, have negative opinions of people who are new and take extreme, if not merely strong, positions and couple them with attitude (which I at least often construe as attempting to dominate) or such thick sarcasm that it's hard to tell what the speaker is about. Are they trying to be funny, authoritative, divisive, what? All at once? Does that ever work?
Those negative impressions I don't think are pure a priori knowledge. :roll:

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by <Anthony>:
with anything...

This reminds me.
Yesterday I read a story on the Internet told by a R. immigrant in Canada: teacher in school asked my son: is it true that R-s never mix vodka with anything ("dilute" in original)? "Why to dilute it? " - asked innocent child.
According to R. national legend, vodka was discovered by R. prominent chemist D.Mendeleev (the same guy who developed periodic table of elements), in his PhD dissertation "On marriage of spirit and water" (1865). Basically, the discovery was about optimal proportion of alcohol and water, which was achieved at 40�. This proportion was said to possess unique chemical and physiological qualities and is now our national cultural value (like hard work for American people). To mix vodka with anything is a mark of uncivilized, uneducated, anti-social behavior. Only young girls can get away with it, it is understandable that they need some time to become mature enough to drink real thing.
[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Anthony Villanueva]

Ah, that was very nekulturny of me.

[Mapraputa Is]

Anthony!
I already was accused in encouraging posts in R. in this forum, please, do not post in R.!
How are you doing it, by the way? Google translation tool, or...

[Anthony Villanueva]

Tom Clancy. And Marvel comics. Bolzhe moi, as Colossus used to say.

[Mapraputa Is]

Who are all these guys???