JoM: "ridiculous openness and transparency debate".

An interesting comment, Jay and understandable given your previous comments in support of anonymity online. I'll simply point out that I and many others are not anonymous and we seem to be able to state our views (as offensive as some apparently find them).

Perhaps if you didn't feel your views would be viewed by others as repugnant you wouldn't feel the need to scuttle around in the dark like a cockroach? As you've said, you don't use your real name here for fear of offending people you might work for. As a result, your views are a sideshow at best. They can't ever be anything more than the rantings of a crackpot, even if they are absolutely correct, since they have no credence.

The simple fact is that it is only in the presence of good information that any understanding can arise between different groups. Good information requires that good access to data is available. Good access to data requires that people aren't doing their best to make that data hard to find. It also requires a willingness to hear views we don't agree with and to actively seek them out, not to prove them wrong, necessarily, but to add them to our own store of data.

The ABC does that very well. Only the weakest of political spines would not want them to do that role as free from interference as possible.

Dear "Suse". To paraphrase Foxy, Zacky Mallah bragged that he was "Australia's first terrorist." He obtained a firearm and told an interviewing journalist (who was an undercover ASIO agent) that he intended to storm either an ASIO office and take hostages. When his house was raided the police discovered the now common suicide video, with Mallah dressed in jihadi uniform, posing with weapons, and bragging about what he was going to do. Unfortunately, the jury in his terrorism trial bought the defence's contention that he was just an idiot seeking attention, and he was convicted on a lesser charge. Had the trial taken place after the Lindt cafe seige which involved another Muslim idiot seeking "attention", the verdict may have been different.

One can just imagine that if Man Haron Monis had not yet staged his terrorist attack, old Foxy would be right up there defending him a poor, misguided publicity seeker. Jonathon Green would be defending him as a true spokesperson for Muslim grievances against the evil western world, and Q&A would have had Monis on TV attacking government ministers.

If you think that Mallah is now a reformed Jihadi preaching peace, love and mung beans, then I would like to sell you a lovely, coat hanger shaped bridge spanning Sydney harbour, cheap.

As for your claim that the Murdoch media is biased. "The Australian" newspaper itself has interviewed Zacky Mallah and published the interview. "The Australian" is everything the ABC will never be. It's editorials may have a right wing bias, but it does submit balanced reportage with regular opinion columns by notorious left wing correspondents like Mark Day, Graham Richardson, and Phillip Adams. It interviews people in the news like Mallah to examine their mindsets. In addition, on any contemporary contentious issue, "The Australian" gives more or less equal space on it's "Opinions" page to both sides of the argument.

The benefits of having pro and anti arguments side by side, is that in the battle of ideas, you can usually tell who is talking sense, and who is preaching self interest and/or ideology.

Monis was a regular offender with a record as long as your nose, Pinocchio, including having been charged as an accessory to his wife's murder. He was quite simply, a nutjob who would have gone off the rails whatever his religion.

Mallah is a young bloke who was very angry and acted out. ISIS provides a focus for such young men (and women), much as the White pride and other tribalist groups do for disaffected young men who identify as part of the tribe represented or as online fantasy games do for people like you (the great "student of military history" who's never been closer to a uniform than at the Royal Easter Show Army recruiting pavilion). I bet you're a dab hand at Counterstrike though: the 12 year olds on line must be terrified when they see "LEGO the Legend" appear on the other side...

Stop the immature name calling Craig, if 'having credence' is important to you.

Although much of the time I disagree with you in principal, I do respect your intelligence and generally well thought out arguments. But when you stoop to the silly name calling you basically come across as idiotic as some of the loopiest regulars on this Forum.

As for whether or not using one's 'real name' is important, I don't see how the names Craig Minns, Shadow Minister, Runner, Hasbeen or LEGO mean anything at all. Short of providing your address and phone number, we have no real proof Craig Minns is not just another non de plume.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from; I mean no disrespect.

CH, I'm sad that you think my feeble attempts at satirical caricaturisation are "immature name-calling".

On the subject of anonymity, you're quite right, we might all be figments of each others' imaginations! I hadn't considered that.

I'll tell you what, on the off chance that Graham Young isn't a figment of my imagination, you could try asking him if I'm real and then let me know. I imagine we've met, you see and it would be good to know if someone else thinks he's as real as I do.

On a more serious note, transparency in relation to our identities when discussing ideas on fora like this is a good way to prevent people spouting crap simply to get a reaction (trolling).

Anonymity says "I don't want to be identified with my own views. I'm afraid that people might think less of me if they know I hold them."

It's acknowledgement that one lacks principles worth standing up for.

"Anonymity says "I don't want to be identified with my own views. I'm afraid that people might think less of me if they know I hold them."

It's acknowledgement that one lacks principles worth standing up for."

Does this mean you are opposed to elections being held by secret ballot? Think about it... what's the difference other than taking your idea to the extreme?

Some people may be in professional roles that could suffer from an unfair or exaggerated social media attack if their personal views were made public. For instance a person may not be a supporter of gay marriage and have his words misconstrued into being homophobic; then after a social media attack his business comes under threats of boycott by supporters and the gay community. It's inviting trouble he doesn't need, but that doesn't that mean he should not be entitled the freedom to express an opinion on a forum like this?

The weight of the anonymous opinions on this forum are a reflection of a certain percentage of the general population's views. Polls set out to gauge the public perception but don't reveal the individuals that were contacted. Anonymity offers the individual the opportunity to express themselves honestly without fear of recrimination.

Putting your name out there for all to see is not everyone's bag.

I don't believe anonymity negates the validity of a person's genuine viewpoint or comments, including the so called 'trolls'.