It does raise an interesting dichotomy. We certainly want to know the identity and a little of the background of the article authors yet are happy to sit behind pseudonyms while sending slings and arrows in their direction.

Before reading an article I more than often will check the author's bio. Anyone from the IPA for instance would have me reading the piece from a different perspective than if it were written by someone in the Wentworth Group.

Those authors do not have that luxury when replying to our posts challenging their message.

Living in a small communities in the past would have meant one was constantly judged on ones utterances and that the opportunities for anonymous offerings were severly limited and often deemed scurrilous by their very nature. Gossip, with all its obvious destructiveness, also served to a degree to keep people to account.

Perhaps the new social media signals a return to that framework. I do not have a Facebook page and look askance at the gay abandon with which my children and their generation fling personal details including opinions up on their 'walls' for all to see.

The other demographic that seems to have taken so readily to social media are the grandparents. I had often though it was just because they had the time, but perhaps they often came from small communities where anonimity was an unrealistic expectation.

Could the OLO demographic of identiphobes become an archaic blimp, caught between the era of small open communities of the past and the new world community which is social media?

csteele.

You make a good point that article authors are identifiable - and often those of us who respond do so anonymously.

My feeling is that conducting conversations online is a vastly different experience to conducting the same in physical reality/community in that it effectively lands us in a nebulous place where we are not afforded the coordinates and perspectives we enjoy in the real world.

It's a different paradigm for interaction.

I agree with Forrest. I'm stating my preference that if the option of pseudonymity was withdrawn, I would probably withdraw also....however, it's entirely Graham's call and I appreciate his position.

No halo over my head I need to contain myself often.
But are we best served by a forum rule not being enforced.
Already posted this else ware but some thread diverting is pure flaming.
Changing the subject to hurl hand grenades.
The last speaker, often,asked for rules during question time.
Less argument in both questions and answers.
Maybe we can Be trained to have our say keeping within the threads intended track ?
Just maybe too questioning a poster for having views other than ours is not doing much good.

Dear Poirot,

Indeed.

Further I suppose some acknowledgement should be given to what OLO is; “Australia's e-journal of Political and Social debate”.

For instance in the General Forum section Graham Young seeks opinion and discussion on political matters as evidenced by his last two topic promptings; 'Putting in the Slipper – Your say' and 'How important is Wayne Swan's surplus?'.

Our voting system quite rightly has at its core the secret ballot. At election time the ruling class asks we the people which among them are we be least offended by, and through perfectly anonymous means our political opinion determines a winner.

The same regard for our anonymity is expected from those organisations who conduct polling throughout the year.

Discussions of politics and sex have generally been regarded as tiresome in polite society.

Perhaps anonymity and a degree of animosity just come with the territory.

even though..i love you..mr bell...
would you be judged..by the same me-assure?
ie measured..by the same rule..the same yard-stick..the same measure

quote;;''But..are we best served
by a forum rule..not being enforced.""

that much depends ol mate
you recall..my 5 bannings..for my style..of writing
[not meeting word-counts]..

not what i say..but the way
i chose..to say it]

people..who cant refute..*what i say
but..complained about the format..*of HOW..i said it
not refuiting
the why/how...being reasond

[post limitations..that mean
i need to..wait 23 hours..to add-in
[the last few words]

mate..have you ever
exceeded the speed/limit?

""some thread diverting..is pure flaming.""

sure...and a flame is usually someone..TRYING TO PUSH..their adversary

out of the public forum[woth no right of reply]...
no debate enterd into..[no revieuw or correctiove mechanisms..no neutral umpire

""The last speaker,
often,asked for..rules..[rulings?].during question time.""

mate..this is
the third topic..in 7 lines

""Less argument..in both
questions and answers.""..?

but taking more words to refute t
hat state incorrectly
out of topic

""Maybe we can Be..trained""

i have changed..my writing style..3 times

till i just got over trying
to please complainers

""to have our say
keeping..within the threads..intended track ?""

and this topic..is about?..anonymiity..!

[unlike complainers..i get...[no right of reply
to correct the dispersions and influence..they got
with the moderator

WHY NOT COMPLAIN..*at the topic
allow right of reply..at topic

allowed wrngdoer..to explain..
at..the offending topics words

""Just maybe too
questioning..a poster
for having views..other than ours
is not doing much good.""

i agree ol mate
especially if their facts are wrong

like the topic i moved here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&start=10

i wish..forrest would join in

OUG no offense but please stop calling me Mister.
Spent a lot of my childhood around Bowral my dads birth place.
The term Mr is insulting to me I am Belly Allan or anything but a Mr.
My childhood,as the grandson of dads parents who had been servants to the very rich, was blackened by Australian rich snobs who still called England home.
And thought my father as the son of the above and me should address them as Sir or Mr.
Glad my dad was as prickly as me!
Yes csteele and I clash but I agree with most of that.
Look I truly do not think GY wants us to disrobe, he seems to want us to self regulate in part.
And the fact is this site needs us to make it self sustaining.
It will not stop those who can not help.
A site, sorry unsure but think it was Australian Politics, it was hight profile and good slammed the doors over night.
Threats of legal action and slanders killed it.
I know we all, most,know we can all improve our online behavior.
I am not referring to you OUG and its worth the effort.
And we know if we want to be honest of past posters with mental health issues and some awful personal matters posted by others about them.
Let us not build a mountain out of GY s concerns ,unless it is a cash one to keep us the best.
I invite every one to remind me if my posts are out of order.