Re: OT: In defense of anonymity

[Leon]

[TWS]

Why? Do you plan to sue the person if the advice turns out bad?

Do you suppose Norm Abrams or Roy Underhill would use their real name if they participated in the wreck? Or are they above all this?

TWS

[GregP]

One option is to sign up with a service that is generous with aliases and periodically change the alias you use for Usenet, say Mark101 then Mark102, etc. That lets people get to you that you want to let get to you but kills off most of the spam as well. Then use another alias altogether for vendors.

[Mark & Juanita]

That's good advice. Essentially the concentric account has become the one for vendors and other requestors with whom I may feel uncomfortable regarding their full intentions for my address. I have an account on the satellite ISP that is only provided to those whom I trust.

[Norman D. Crow]

OK, I'm confused. Just what do y'all mean when you refer to a "concentric" e-mail account?

[Dave Hinz]

Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.

And please don't top-post. It makes quoting in context difficult.

[Dave Hinz]

No, but it decreases the value of the advice from "this person I have dealt with for a while and who seems to be logical", to "some guy calling himself " [e-mail]". The thing with the anon identities, is that they've all been used, and they all blur together after a while. It's impossible to build a reputation when you're undifferentiated.

[Leon]

Is that any different from being blured in with all the people that post with their full names? I think the credibility hit would be real if the person reading an anonymous post needed instructions to pour you know what out of a boot. That person would probably be suspitious.

[Swingman]

May be difficultt, but not "impossible" ... how many Matthews, Marks, Lukes, or Johns do you know? Now tell me that some aren't "differentialted".

"What's in a name? The poet is Wilde, but his poetry's tame."

[George]

[Dave Hinz]

If there's someone posting as "John", and there's another someone posting as "John", it is to be expected that people may not notice it's two different people called "John". If some is posting as " [e-mail]", it's likely that people have encountered _other_ people posting as "me@ nospam.com", and it's hard to know (or care) if it's the same one, or not.

When the name, or absence of a name, gets in the way of communication, that kind of defeats the purpose of participating in a medium which has the primary purpose of communicating.

[Dave Hinz]

George, my primary message was that you blur into every other anonymous poster by being anonymous. My note about you top-posting is because that also makes your communication less effective. See, I'd like to include what I wrote, so that your response is in context, but it's down at the bottom and unless I manually re-arrange things, it's all upside-down, sideways, and backwards.

In your case, neither the message, _nor_ the messanger, seem to matter.

[bridger]

I'm not too hard to find, if you really want to talk to me, and I really don't give a damn if my personality stands out here on the wreck. I tried using an unmunged address and ruined a perfectly good email address, so I won't do that again.

[Swingman]

"differentialted".

Not proof of the statement that it is "impossible".

I would say that anyone who lets the absence of a name" "get in the way" is arguably not open to communication, particularly in a medium where there is no absolute means of, or even reason for, "name" verification.

Besides, just who the hell is "Dave Hinz", and why should I listen to him?

IME, and in the final analysis, CONTENT, and the quality, or lack, thereof, is all that counts.

.... this particular argument notwithstanding. ;)

[Dave Hinz]

And I would say, that even if you don't agree with the reasons for the bias about people who don't put a name behind their words, that it still does exist.

Dave Hinz

[Swingman]

And I would say, that that is their loss.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

Sorry, poor grammar on my part. Should have capitalized as Concentric as in "Concentric.net". They are now part of XO.com, but the Concentric.net domain name is still active. i.e., they are an ISP and were my original ISP for dial-up. When I got Direcway, I went with Direcway as my primary ISP, but kept Concentric as a backup and because I do have a number of contacts who know my Concentric e-mail address.

[Herman Family]

One point to remember here is that there are several levels of anonymity and identification.

One can simply not have any return address or name, or choose the same anonymous address that lots of others choose, i.e. noone@noname. Many kill files will knock off the ones without an address, so they really don't matter in this. The common "anonymous" addresses get used by trolls and spammers eventually. They end up in the killfile too. Sometimes responding to a question from one of these is like talking to someone behind a curtain. It just isn't enjoying without at least some level of identity.

Adding a bit more identity makes things a little easier. Nicknames and taglines help others keep track of who asks what questions, and allows for a little personality to be conveyed over time without necessarily conveying externally identifying information. If we consider that membership in a group is often a long term thing, then this is often good. It isn't unusual to develop certain relationships between identifiable users.

There is the issue of people who regularly change their names or addresses in order to avoid being identified. Unfortunately, those folks typically trolls who realize that without constantly changing identity, they will be picked out as impertinent.

Giving the actual names and addresses goes a bit further, and probably represents more than is required. I suppose it could get in the way in some respects. "John" might convey the actual name of a user, but "The workshop dude" or "The Evening Woodcutter" projects an image of more identification without actually giving an externally identifiable name.

Michael

[Leon]

I am not one that judges others by their appearance, Dave seems to be that kind of person.

[TWS]

The value of my advice has little to do with who I am. I think you are confusing anonymity with uniqueness. My newsgroup identity is (almost) anonymous but it is unique. If I continue to use this same nom de web (which is likely since it won't get corrupted by a billion spammers forcing me to change it) then my reputation (good or bad) will be built on my comments and contributions to this newsgroup. That's ok by me.

I've participated in this newsgroup for just a little while and there are already a number of posters that I specifically look for because I know that their advice is thoughtful, helpful to me, and respectful to others - I'm not bothered by the fact I don't know who some of them are. It is *what* they say and how they say it I care about. I might point out that there are also some posters who I purposefully avoid because they are either wrong, disrespectful, or otherwise valueless in content - and I don't care if I know their name or not. In fact, I would prefer that I didn't know their name.

If you have this need to have a real person's name to be able to appreciate the value of their contribution then I'm not sure what it is you value.

TWS