Dear Graham Young,
Sorry I don't have time to search through threads, but I don't think you'd deny your tone, particularly towards Q&A, has often been acerbic if not contemptuous. I'm merely empathising with him. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate that your privileged station gives you a lot more clout as a contributor. There's no denying that your contributions (the ones I've read) are as compelling as anyone's; on the other hand you typically enjoy a degree of immunity from the criticism of would-be detractors (default respect for authority is deeply ingrained in all of us) who are wont to be intimidated, or at least restrained. At the same time your supporters in debate enjoy the kudos that devolves to them merely by virtue of being on your side (though I'm sure stouter confederates are embarrassed by the same proximity and fear the charge of toadying that tacitly hangs over them).
Anonymity is a complex issue. On the one hand I tend to agree that if I'm going to represent myself as an expert I have to be able to defend that area of expertise, which is not easy on AGW because it involves such a broad spectrum of disciplines. Indeed I doubt there are any experts on AGW, per se, except for the self-appointed visionaries (dilettantes) on both sides, who tend to be passionate about the rightness of their respective global views. But I don't think qanda has represented himself as one of these broad-spectrum experts? Of course if one has an area of expertise in the sciences, however humble, it seems s/he may presume/assert a rational predisposition that commands and garners respect whether deserved or not. Scientists are the dodgy secular priests of modernity. But that's another topic.
I don't mean to intrude in your dispute with qanda beyond saying that your position gives you an unfair advantage that obliges you to be more circumspect than anyone, both by way of setting the right example, and not imposing your authority unduly in debates.

Geez Squeers, it would be nice to think that I commanded some respect, but you haven't been paying attention to these threads if you think that I do. Much of this thread has been a diatribe against my alleged interference in other threads and alleged silencing of people I disagree with, none of which is true.

Rather than getting respect I seem to attract more than my fair share of detractors. If people don't like being challenged and want to shut the debate down they pick on me and suggest that I'm biased and therefore the site must be biased and therefore they should be allowed to say what they want, whether they are in line with the site rules or not.

You shouldn't say things you're not prepared to back-up by references. If I made an allegation against you, as you've made against me, I'd be required by posters to justify it. Your refusal to find any evidence because you "don't have time" is pretty poor form.

If you did bother to do any research on the threads you'd find pretty quickly that QANDA does claim to pretty broad knowledge on AGW. He talks down to and harangues other posters using his asserted superior knowledge and expertise. I've just noticed him on this thread making http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10678 allegations against Antony Watts (this is in the area of temperature measurement).

I think I first came up against him when he was talking about the Walker Circulation http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124.

We've also had discussions about the interaction between atmosphere and oceans where he demonstrated he didn't understand the second law of thermodynamics http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9484

And on another thread he was arguing about cloud formation and its effect on global warming, and getting it wrong. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3312

It's part of the way we hope that debate works on this site that commenters actually back their arguments up with facts and links.

Perhaps Julia Gillard's seeming call for a disregard of PC in public debate is intended to 'give permission' to her Parliamentary colleagues to start representing a public opinion with which it seems most representatives have lost touch, bigoted though such opinion may have been, and continue to be, labeled by a majority of the commentariat.

If this is substantially so, should not the general public be asking why and how it is that its representatives have come to be so subservient to the elitism that seemingly characterizes much of the commentariat, and, increasingly, Australian parliaments?

Somewhere earlier on the Forum, I think in this thread, I recall someone posting something to the effect of "anonymous posters not having any reputation apart from what they say on this forum, so therefore not being able to be slandered". I must go back and take a screenshot of that post, if I can find it, in case it gets deleted. I want to frame it, because it so reflects my own view: in fact I wish I had written it myself.

Closely related to the establishment of such OLO reputation, is the issue as to what has seemed to be the ease with which 'plausible deniability' can be claimed by politicians as to awareness of aspects of matters of public interest that may have been raised and/or debated on OLO by users posting under pseudonyms. The routine bridging of this gap, where genuine online reputation has been established, seems to be the next challenge faced by OLO in securing and enhancing its hold upon the claim to being Australia's premier e-journal of social and political debate.



@qanda

It is very mean and selfish of you not to grace this Forum with your presence. How 'Indian giving' of you to heap praise upon my efforts, and then depart the lists! It devalues the praise that I so treasure. You threaten to rob me - rob me I say! Go then! And may the grace of oug and his gamboge text go with you and infest whatever forum you may dwell upon.

Forest found me from information I posted over the years.
I once was goaded into saying who I was.
I do nothing because of fear, my job it is clear forces me not to put it out there.
But look if you wish it is there.
After I leave work and it is clear my thoughts are my own, I will put my full name out here,surname is Bell.
I question truly, the need to unmask, for century's even authors used other name and sex's to hide just who they are why not?
I find no weakness in those not wanting to put their names out, just maybe wiseness is what I see in them.
In truth to hide behind a name thinking you are then free to say what you want if that names is yours or not is gutless.
I think this bun fight can only end in trouble and is better left to die.
OLO is our common ground respect it if some see me as crawling they need glasses.

Forest "anonymous posters not having any reputation apart from what they say on this forum, so therefore not being able to be slandered"

Perhaps this http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3773#93384

True as long as we stay anonymous but for many who have posted here over a sustained period it's likely that we have revealed enough details that those who know us could identify us. Not just today but any time in the future, search technologies are improving along with the ability to map data from diverse sources. I assume that it's only a matter of time before someone will make a tool available which could work with a variety of criteria to put the pieces together.

Our writing style, favorite topics (and attitude to them), common grammar mistakes, mention of periods of ill health, family members passing, time away, occupation, marital history all give hints that in the right hands and with good search tools could identify many who post under an alias (a programmatic version of CJ perhaps).

Is it slander if it later becomes associated with a real name?

R0bert

It was I who said it Forrest. But Robert is right. Could be defamation if people were able to work out who the person was. There are even cases where people have been held to have been defamed even when the comments were not directed at them, but where people thought they were because of sharing a name with a fictional character - hence the disclaimers you see on movies etc.

So one would want to be very careful what you say about someone on OLO. However, I don't think the courts would necessarily look too kindly on someone who revealed their identity after posting anonymously and then claimed to be defamed, but I'm not aware of any cases on point, and wouldn't want to be the test case.

However, there are probably some defences to defamatory comments, such as the implied right of free speech in the constitution. And some of what posters think is defamatory is probably mere abuse. To be safe though, you should make sure that whatever you say of a factual nature about other posters is true and that your opinions are based on those facts. I'd also be careful of being malicious. If you make a mistake, you should also apologise as quickly as possible - that doesn't stop something being defamatory, but it does limit the quantum of damages.