🚀 go-pugleaf

"J.D. Baldwin" wrote:
> 
> In the previous article, Joe Parente  <jparente@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > Anyone who uses their full real name on Usenet is whacko.
> >
> > No, they're just someone who has the balls to stand behind their
> > opinions. People who post anonymously are scared creatures who are
> > afraid that someone might actually hold them to their opinions.
> 
> Then you won't mind posting your birthdate, home address, full name
> (including middle name), any other names by which you may have been
> known during your life and -- of course -- your social security
> number?

Now, we don't want to go *asking* for trouble, do we? 

> 
> After all, it's just so that we can verify your identity.  Nothing you
> say can be taken seriously if we can't verify that, right?  We
> wouldn't want you trying to weasel out of accountability later on by
> claiming that was *another* Joe Parente who made those comments.  Oh,
> yes, we'll need a thumbprint, too.

No, I don't weasel out of anything I say. That's me, and I stand
behind what I say. Maybe you have a good idea. Maybe we should 
come up with some groups that you are required to confirm your
identity before posting. 

> 
> This is a stupid argument on both sides.  No one knows, really,
> whether the name in your newsgroup headers has anything to do with the
> one on your birth certificate, passport and driver's license.  (I
> guess it's a safe bet that names like "Erik The Destroyer" are usually
> aliases, though.)  And there's no good reason for anyone to care.

To a point you are right, but can you really take anyone seriously
who posts under an obvious psuedonym? My point is that at least
I have the courage of my convictions to post under my real name, 
whether you believe it is my real name or not. *I* know that it
is. 

> 
> If you're replying to someone's post to argue a point, argue the
> *point*.  Focus on the ideas, facts and logic.  Who gives two shits
> whether his correct middle initial is being displayed?  Concerning
> yourself with that is the ad hominem fallacy in its purest form.

Logical fallacies aside for a moment, I usually only point this
out to people who are flaming, being abusive or otherwise pissing
me off. I like to let them know how cowardly their post is without
at least an attempt at using their real name... 

> 
> For the record, the name in my header is my actual last name, preceded
> by my actual initials, by which nearly everyone I know calls me.  (As
> in, "Hey, J.D., how's it going?")  So it's my "real" name.  I have
> also posted enough details about my life that anyone with two working
> neurons and access to deja.com could, if he so desired, find his way
> to my doorstep in a matter of hours.  In twelve years on the Internet,
> including a few where I put my place of work right there in my .sig,
> I've never had a problem.  (Of course, my heavy participation in gun
> rights forums might have had a deterrent effect in a case or two; no
> way to know, really.)

I don't believe a word you just said. :) 

> 
> On the other hand, I don't give out my actual full first name on
> Usenet, just because I don't want any automated databases correlating
> my identity now or a few years in the future.  I live to thwart
> marketing droids.

Me too. I always alter my name or address in a subtle way
every time I use it in communicating with a company, just so 
I can see who exactly is selling my name and stop dealing
with them. 

> 
> Of course, you have no way of knowing that any of the above is true,
> other than to take my word for it.  And the same is true of anyone
> else whose identity is not known to you personally -- i.e., 99.999999%
> of participants in Usenet.

No, I'm a trusting soul. I'll believe anything that doesn't 
have to do with my health or my wallet. I tend to believe that
people are speaking honestly, even on usenet. Call me naive, 
but I do. Of course, if you want me to invest or use a specific
product, you damn well better believe that I'm going to research
the information for myself first. 

> 
> So what it boils down to is this:  you are mentally assigning a higher
> credibility to someone who simply lies about his name than you are to
> someone who is open about the fact that he wishes to remain anonymous.
> That's beyond stupid -- it's downright perverse.

Do you lend the same amount of credence to an unsigned letter
in your snail mail box that you assign to a signed letter? 
I hope you don't. If someone won't use their name on any missive, 
it tends to destroy the credibility of that correspondence. 
Not that some of the signed usenet posts are rife with credibility 
either! 

Joe P.