Has anybody else been labelled a coward, implicitly or explicitly, for “hiding behind a pseudonym”? I have a couple of times and it seems to me a topic worth discussing.
I have to admit that when I’m picking on sacred cows, like ANZAC and Australia Days, or sporting my radical opinions generally, anonymity is a luxury. Certainly politicians and those in the public sphere never dream of saying that jingoism effectively censors valid criticism of the ADF, or Australia’s military adventures; or that the silly flag-waving is nauseating on Australia day; and certainly Labor Party members never espouse the socialist opinions they’re meant to represent. All is suppressed beneath the seemly stuff and nonsense of political correctness.
This is surely a good defence of Anonymity? People can say what they really think—though sadly, many people think politically correctly.
We should self-regulate, of course, and criticise and debate the issues rather than the wo/man, and mind our manners, but just as the secret ballot is designed to guarantee freedom of conscience, anonymity allows us to forgo social deference’s and even our own inhibitions.
It also occurs to me to wonder why, or what it is, we should courageously disclose? Is there a real threat that disgruntled writers/friends/colleagues might make reprisals in the real world?
Anyway, isn’t all of life performative? What does anonymity mean? And what is my “real” identity? It’s as much an act as my pseudonym, the only difference being you can put a face to a name—that is, a mask.
Maybe it’s also about extroverts and introverts? The former (article writers) want the kudos and the latter are modest and private about their opinions. I know people who never breathe a word about religion or politics. I’ve never known what political party either of my wives favoured or voted for; they’ve never volunteered the information and I’ve never asked.
There’s something to be said for the propriety of privacy.
So are those who put their names to their articles egotists? And/or are who hide behind pseudonyms, cowards?

I like the pseudonyms. Some are pretty clever, and they add a certain colour and vibrancy to the discussions. Some may hide behind them, not necessarily through cowardice though. Some through necessity. People are generally proud of what they have to say.

It's about the topics in debate and discussion, not the people

Dear Squeers,

I prefer a pseudonym.
Most of us on this forum express our opinions
quite freely and we end up getting to know
each other quite well. However, I like the
anonymity and it does give me more of a sense
of freedom.
Although, I still do hold back anyway.
We all do - to a certain extent. -
civility requires it. Though as I've said
in the past - the art of reasoned, intelligent
argument is a skill not easily acquired and nine
times out of ten as Poirot pointed out on
another thread - we often end up in a he said/she said
tack - where we end up arguing on an emotional
level - not a mature intelligent one.

But that's all par for the course and to be expected
on a public forum such as this one where you get a
wide variety of posters with some very diverse opinions
as well as the same predictable ones.

I think a pseudonym is a matter of personal choice.
If you want to post under your own name - I'm sure
the forum administrator would allow it. I just
prefer not to. I like my privacy.

I much prefer a pseudonym when commenting here. Mainly because the threads I'm commenting on are likely to be anything and my contributions to different threads are not usually based on a passion or planned. They are merely haphazard opportunities for me to put forward an opinion. If, on the other hand, I was to author an article, I would be staking a lot more on it. I would also probably be passionate about the subject which means it would be more than a passing interest or merely a convenient opportunity to polish my ego. An article would be my creation and, therefore, my name would accompany it with pride.

I am no coward but no fool, hang on maybe the last is not quite true
Think we should link more to safety and all that than cowardice
Allan, call me Belly, Bell
See I am a fool, just do not do it, on line is no place to be silly with your safety.

Squeers,

I think also that by choosing anonymity we're protecting our physical selves because in real life we have many more checks and balances operating when we interact with people. Coming onto a forum to vent our opinions is a bit like walking blindfold through society. In the physical realm we make interactive judgements based on visual and sensory data. These help us to vet the people we are engaging with. We don't have that luxury online. Really we are just transmitting our thoughts. I do think of safety and privacy issues when choosing anonymity.

Mostly with the people we meet in our physical daily lives, our demeanor and tastes are exposed as much by what we do as what we say and think. We're more of an open book.
I think your experience of not knowing which party your wives voted for would be unusual as most of us inadvertently expose our political preferences by implicitly leaning in one or direction or another as we discuss the state of things around us.

its funny the range of emotions
first i note to be not to be[think suicide;]
then read the con-tent...see the context and have much opinion

but then read the comments
and all thought stops

mr bell is the only..adverse reaction i know of
though no doudt..mr bell coped with it in the old way[shrug it off]
he dislikes my use of mr bell..i dislike addressing a stomache..thus the honoyuum..of mr[cause i know belly with love in my heart]

but not all lust to love[live to love]
but lets address this id secret thing..its delusional
i know i had to proof id..to get online..as do the rest of you

even then there is posting style
its not hard to find out who we are

but lets slide back to the honourum..[mr]
the title..mr indicates a male 'person'
person is defined as including govt/business
including means limits it to[govt/busness]..but we were taught WHAT?

word is more powerfull than sword
so clearly some words cut others hard
some words cut through the cccc rap./.others break ice!

i look at the heading to recal focus to topic
and recall..that all 'person's]..are in law persons
[now under the law..personhood is included in..is person[all persons fall under the act]

because the acts can only control persons
[ie dead corperate fictions..[in caps means the thinking is this particular person is dead]

ditto signing in black ink/blue ink
onto any form..creates a dead dopple ganger..[person]
usually in the form of a 'licence'..that is the true person[under the act]

dotto if written in CAPITAL letters
[you recallk no doudt nouns[naming words..only capitalise the first letter]

so there is lots of ways our god given rights
have been legally subverted [perverted]..by the state
via the fictions of PERSON..and the signs point to a person

wether it choses to be or not
isnt able to be done by any MR..siomply by begging govt licence
[govt collectivly affectivly is like a dead trust..run by the living to serve the dead

thus they suck our lifeblood
via the lie of person

Thanks folks for the comments.
It occurred to me after kicking-off that there's not that much to be discussed on the subject, but OUG's comment is filled with suggestions!

I agree, David Corbett, that it should be about the subject matter, and it's true that we pin a certain amount of self-worth on what we say, and we feel it when it's devalued.
Depending on your point of view we're all literally anonymous, mere representation, so it's fascinating the way we identify so powerfully with our opinions; they largely make up the virtual-self we live as literal.

Lexi, I think your a good example of a pseudonym that takes on real shape. You're the epitome of civility in that your the least likely to use your anonymity as a weapon.

When I've been called a coward I think it's been because I've given offence to a real representation(?) in the world, who wears his frankness with pride, but is insecure and hypersensitive of it; such personages seem to think their "manliness" of disclosure is deserving of respect merely for that. A genuine public intellectual is a rare beast and someone who objectifies the subject matter. If one is going to lecture the world, personal investments should be eschewed.

Poirot; yep, well it is social media after all, and having opinions gives pseudo-substance to the sense of self. Why else do we have this need to be heard but acknowledgement?
No doubt too anonymity is about protecting ourselves. Squeers can make a fool of himself but "I" remain safely anonymous.
I do a cleaning job in the evenings and it's interesting the way I'm treated by people I encouinter. Mostly they're ultra-conscious of our relative stations and are eager to compensate by treating me with seeming-equality. I suspect disabled people would understand, the way we treat them as if they're just the same. It was refreshing to hear a disabled person complain about this recently, that sometimes she doesn't want her "independence respected", but an offer to help. People are less magnanimous when it comes to practicalities.

Getting to you, OUG.

Squeers,

"...and having opinions gives substance to the sense of self. Why else do we have this need to be heard but acknowledgement?"

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Acknowledgement and even more "approval" gives our sense of self a boost. It's a way of satisfying our egos, since they are always in need of nourishment. I know how I feel if someone gives kudos to my opinion here - and it's not the sort of approval that is easy to attain in the real world. Other relationships in day to day life are imbued with certain affinities, loyalties and antipathies and therefore reactions to our opinions are likely to be coloured by these. Also, there is always someone around here that is wanting to offer and receive interaction, eager to expand their minds and share their views. It is, in that respect, a meeting place - a real "forum".

I think it's a natural human phenomenon to want to share thoughts and feelings. In fact I believe it is almost imperative for us to engage like that. Consequently, online forums appeal to us even if our real identities are hidden.

Dear Squeers,

Posting on this forum - has been and continues
to be a learning experience. The topics vary
as do the opinions. And even though most of us will
react if the right buttons are pushed at times -
and I've had some classic dummy spits. Yet I've also
learned from the experiences. I have worried about
security at times - that's another reason that I
feel that anonymity is a good idea on a public
forum such as this one. Over all though - its
being able to express one's opinions and views
as Poirot has pointed out -
and the sharing of ideas that I also find is a
great drawcard here.

OUG,
I know what you mean about Belly; I feel the same way about Loudmouth and am much more comfortable calling him Joe.
I wasn't sure whether you meant identity or Freud's "id"--the materialist's self, Jekyll's Hyde, the hid id. You seem to be talking about the interpellated self, a conjuration of ideological institutions, legally invoked and validated, whose hail we mechanically answer forever more. But you presumably believe in a soul that's thus imposed upon. I still find dualism a possibility too, vested in our sceptical commitment to the institutionalised-self. It's more the suspension of disbelief than genuine identification, which would surely be unconscious, indeed consciouslessness.
But this talk will put some people off.
As you say, we're not entirely anonymous; our personae are gendered, politicised and variously pigeon-holed.
This is a profound truth:
<so there is lots of ways our god given rights
have been legally subverted [perverted]..by the state
via the fictions of PERSON>

I don't know about "god given", but we're certainly patronised and ideologically-controlled from the outset. Being anonymous allows us to experiment with and transgress against our conventional boundaries.
I wonder if the self-identifiers are too credulous? Thinking about them, there seems an obsessive tendency to accept the parameters of our human reality (which is ideologically sustained and not "real") as given, something to be worked within and not "on".

I believe it is an individual matter, of personality, and apparently -dare of say- of gender.
My observation is that all the identified females on this site -that I am aware of, or at least think that I am aware of- appear to converse rationally, reasonably and politely -as do a majority of males.
There are and have been however, a small number of males who I'm quite certain revelled in their anonymity, and were far more bombastic than they would be in person.
I think the use of full names would reduce the incidence of 'flaming' and 'trolling'.
It's a peculiarity that the other person who uses an abbreviation on this thread has an incidentally descriptive moniker.
I do tend I guess to be a little morose. I wonder if Belly... Apologies are no doubt in order, but your name inevitably invokes a certain mental picture.
When the internet began, we were urged to protect our identities with obscure email addresses.
That seems to be gradually fading, as people realise, as with a phone book, it's often handy to be able to be found.
Just a thought.
Cheers, peter grimley

I think anonymity does allow us a kind of freedom, especially at the outset. However, as Squeers says, it's not long before we're pigeon-holed into one or another sub-set. I was interested to use what is considered a "male" username. It took a while for some to get the gist that I was female. And gender does colour our perceptions, even on OLO. So yes, it's a loosening of the usual social constrictions, not an entire freedom from them.

Above all, my reason for coming here is to see what others have to say, and then to meet their minds with an offering from mine. Whatever constructs we resort to in our attempt to bolster our sense of self, that sense of self exists whether we use our real identities or not, and we project it regardless.

sq..[a prefered mode of address
to you as i feel queer using queers bit[not having a mental image to impose over your physical self]

this dont stop us from reading your soul[behind your words]as revealed by your own words[see i see things different]
and posting allows me to inform my differences

darn i wish i could write english
[yep i know so too many of you]lol

regardless to me its simple[i am simple minded]
cars need petrol..[a body without life force..is like a dead car]

just flesh[at its basic animal levels]
their life force animates their flesh..i call the life force..gods life giving spirit[all life has the same petrol]..but drive different fleshy vehicles [bodies]
EACH driving according as the animal nature lusts to do

we in the higher beasts..are sustained living..by the same spirit
BUT our life 'experences/loves hates nature passions[live on]..these are our soul[and after living inhabit the astral realm[our soul fORMS our astral body

under it all its stil gods SPIRIT
but allowing US to gain a soul

satan can buy your soul[works]
but not gods living spirit
as much within us as him

that spirit..is love
[light sustaing life..that life find love via logic]
its so easy kids get it..but adults cant[god is good]..if its not good its not OF god[yet he sustains its living too]

freewil is sacrosanct
parents truswt their kids
and in time we all evolve[but first must form SOME perception of what we are seeing..now[science has not ever created life/nor evolved it]
it has a theo-wry

Let me clear some air here, I am Belly, almost every Bell gets Belly, yes I have a gut, but believe it or not my 5 ft 4 inch dad drove trotters and rode race horses, he too was Belly.
I am here, just what I am in life, not ego that brings me here.
Not one of us knows why, in truth we come, but I learn every day, by coming.
I know I get it wrong, regard that as a positive, but while I lash out, not nice, it is the real me.
Let me tell you about the hobby that bought me to ham radio.
CB Radio, over night 300.000 licenses and more than twice that unlicensed operators took to the air waves.
YO YO,S hula hoops on steroids.
Every one wanted one, soon a disappointment took place.
On hearing one another, people arranged to meet, in groups or singular.
DISAPPOINTMENT is an under statement.
Some very dangerous folk turned up on doorsteps, even murders took place.
In the street we meet talk get to read body language and get closer or get away.
I have had the honor and privilege to meet some,OLO folk and as said meet one twice who I would not feed.
Why invite trouble?
I feel we are a family, true, even want one day to buy Rechtub and Shadow Minister a beer, a few others too, with better expectations.
I think I see a prod at me here but do not care, I know how to impress, but honesty will not let me be other than me.
I worked with the bloke this saying was invented for *once you can fake sincerity you have got it made*
Such folk repel me.

Belly,

I don't think there's any prod at you in this thread. More likely it's in response to some article authors who when defending their stance tend to use the "you're a coward because your hiding behind a pseudonym" tactic. It takes the substance of their argument nowhere, but it's an oft used resort when they find themselves stymied.

(we all operate from our ego - even when we're not being particularly egotistical)

Anyway, off out to a lunch with friends and family to interact in the real world : )

belly/quote..""fake sincerity""

yep me too
but even worse too easy compliment
and flattery..and sympathy sex

how droll

Thanks Grim for your comment. I always enjoy your posts and often chuckle at your handle. It's a bit of a let down, to be honest, that it turns out to be derivative. I like to think of Grim adjectivally, but then I never think of your comments as morose.

Belly, Poirot's right, there's no prod that I know of.
Sometimes, for a moment, I envy the "family" status you and others enjoy and I feel so palpably excluded from. But only for a moment. At the end of the day it's too inhibiting and I'd rather not be constrained by fear or favour. And that's the value of anonymity.

Thanks all for the comments.

...Cut me loose on this one!

Hi Squeers,

While initialising my first name I do use my real surname and it has resulted in me being contacted outside the forum a few times, once in a certainly less than pleasant fashion.

I have also been guilty of calling out an unapologetic but anonymous racist poster.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13047&page=0#225859

Not all that proud of that one really.

But I do feel a kind of obligation to be identifiable to a degree when taking a forceful position against an article author since they have been prepared to furnish their details to us.

However I do appreciate there are many who wish to remain anonymous and if lets say my daughter were to start posting here I probably would advise her to do the same.

csteele:
<But I do feel a kind of obligation to be identifiable to a degree when taking a forceful position against an article author since they have been prepared to furnish their details to us>

It's a good point, csteele. I s'pose it depends how you define "forceful". I often take a critical stance and don't generally pull punches, but I try not to get personal. Racists offend me too though and I have told a couple off. For the record I have and do post elsewhere under my full name and am no less critical. As far as I know, subject matter has no feelings I ought to respect; the problem is that people identify so with their opinions and defend them as closely as their own testicles. Or they see their position as wholly to the good and above criticism, as if there isn't always a different perspective. It'd be better, I think, if we all maintained some critical distance; as it is, the subject matter rarely gets scrutinised, people just reconfirm their habitual biases and form cliques.
This can make opinion sites potentially dangerous if you come for rigorous debate, rather socialising and watching your P's and Q's.

I think it's entirely a matter of personal choice.
When I comment on line I always have a link back to my blog, yes, in part to promote it, but also, as a matter of personal choice I do choose to identify with my comments.
And here's my reasoning, for better or for worse.
I have difficulty accepting the idea that anybody can be free without being responsible.
In fact, I believe that the two words, 'freedom' and responsible' are synonymous.
When we put people in prison, we take away their freedom and we also prevent them from being response - able. The are no longer responsible for where they spend their time, what they eat, what they wear, and so on.
My - and I stress - personal - view is that the internet gives a kind of pseudo freedom by letting folks be anonymous, but because it allows commentators to avoid personal responsibility for their comments, I don't think it's a true freedom.
Moreover, I feel there's a similarity between some outbursts on line and road rage. The anonymity of sitting in ones car - a stranger - signalling rage towards another road user, might be less attractive and its occurrence less common if our names and phone numbers were on the sides of our cars.
So, for this reason also, I choose to make myself identifiable as the person expressing my views.
This isn't a criticism of anybody else's choices, it's just an explanation for mine.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

'So are those who put their names to their articles egotists? And/or are who hide behind pseudonyms, cowards?'

Definitely. I am more than comfortable with the polarising categorisation of heroes and villains.

The thing that makes me laugh about this goings on about anonymity and such is people really think it matters.

It reminds me of this scene in Layer Cake when gangster 1 goads our hero with 'You wouldn't be acting so tough if you didn't have that hard-ass guy with you. Said hard-ass guy retorts, 'But he does, doesn't he'. You had to be there.

I find the implied threat laughable. Like people are really going to be so upset about what some random says on the great graffiti-board of our time that they will be bothered trying to work out where that person lives and murder their children and eat their entrails.

I suppose we should retort with, you're more a coward because you can only taunt 'cowards' in the safety that they'll never tell you where they live so you don't have to back up your threats!

'...since they have been prepared to furnish their details to us'

Oh what tosh. Someone stands up at speakers corner, they can bloody well take the tomatoes. Nobody's forcing them to make such a spectacle.

'For the record I have and do post elsewhere under my full name and am no less critical.'

And my other car is a Porsche. Really who cares, your moniker here is just as verifiable as your real name.

IF in fact that is your real Name!

' the problem is that people identify so with their opinions and defend them as closely as their own testicles.'

Doubly bemusing to me as I am prone to take a position just for the fun of defending it. There's nothing more entertaining when I actually have negative stake in an argument and the person I'm arguing is ideologically very similar to me but hates me based on my devils advocacy.

Hey, Squeers, some of the fun is seeing how people react, thinking that they're being martyrs to their 'cause' by being so brave as to post comments on a website.

"So are those who put their names to their articles egotists? And/or are who hide behind pseudonyms, cowards?"

No… Not necessarily – and it's probably worth remembering there are a lot of readers out there who "just like to watch".

There are too many exceptions to be absolute. Many self-effacing articles and even more examples of raw, naked egotism wrapped up behind a pseudonym.

The range of articles and comments goes from the peak – those I wish I'd been clever enough to write myself – to the trough… written by fwits. Real or pseudoanonymous identification has nothing to do with it.

Most of us can recognise and respond appropriately to commentary that demonstrates the difference between an opinion and the opinionated.

Well founded and argued opinions will obtain (even those with which I disagree) regardless of who or what wrote them.

Besides I enjoy the game of allocating nicknamed posters to various roles in films and TV shows – most recently having finished mentally recasting Downton Abbey – but who's who will remain my personal joke.

'I think your experience of not knowing which party your wives voted for would be unusual as most of us inadvertently expose our political preferences by implicitly leaning in one or direction or another as we discuss the state of things around us.'

Oh no I'm the same. I tell NOBODY who I vote for. It's a secret ballot you know! My parents were desperate to know for some reason, I guess to see if my communist mother or neo-con Dad had the more influence.

'Mostly they're ultra-conscious of our relative stations and are eager to compensate by treating me with seeming-equality'

Ha I get a kick out of watching that dynamic. I find especially managers lay it on real thick it's cringe-worthy.

There is a guy though who cleans our office and I really like him for some reason and we cant communicate as I don't speak mandarin. We really connect in our smiles though, and I'm sure someone will make a movie out of it for us, but no doubt they'll go more along the lines of the guy cant speak English. Probably I am patronising him though I sincerely believe it's more he reminds me of some long lost friend or maybe someone I saw in my travels through his homeland or some such thing.

He probably thinks I'm pretty weird and laughs to his mates, but in my reality he is so much more to me, and I don't care. I think I love him actually.

'What does anonymity mean? And what is my “real” identity?'

You're channelling me lately squeers, not as good as trev who just seems to get me and get a kick out of me and I him.

See how I do that? Give a bit of praise and then taint it with a challenge to compete with someone else for my affections! I'm evil incarnate, a psychotic psychopathic sycophant!

But I know yooouse love me anyway.

I just knew it was no coincidence that there are eleven letters in both names - Maggie Smith and Houellebecq!

Anthonyve, you make some compelling points and this "I have difficulty accepting the idea that anybody can be free without being responsible" seems hard to argue.
But then there's been a long and honourable succession of pamphlet writers down through history who were wise not to take responsibility. Of course I don't say that as things stand there's any danger of being burned at the stake in modern Australia, but as I say above there are pressures to conform that at best inhibit plain-spokenness and at worse censor it. There's a certain limited spectrum, political and ideological, that we're all more or less free to traverse, enjoying the illusion that we're critical thinkers, but there are also decorous limits and taboos outside the spectrum that the bravest public intellectuals avoid or pussyfoot over. We're a conformist lot and the public sphere, such as it is, all to readily self-regulates. Genuinely radical voices are treated as just that--as if the Western State has attained to such perfection that its orientation is the final arbiter of what's desirable. Just as we look back on former social orientations and are appalled, so posterity shall reflect on us. There are many matters about which more could and should be said that the public is not ready to hear, much less to tolerate. Nevertheless they need saying and at times anonymity seems merely prudent.
Houellebecq, thanks for the dressing down, which I richly deserved. You're like OLO's version of a dominatrix. Spank me any time!
But you've got me pouting, I get you just as well as Trev does!

You make a powerful point, Sqeers.
On reflection, maybe my willingness to be identified with my positions is merely evidence that my positions aren't terribly, er, adventurous.
I must work on that.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Houellebecq,

Where on earth do you get off calling my position 'tosh'? I clearly stated it was an obligation I personally felt. I also stated I was perfectly comfortable with others choosing to remain anonymous therefore it was not an obligation I expected others to adopt.

Could I invite you to think about the difference between playing the 'devil's advocate' and trolling.

Further I don't recall ever seeing tomato throwers in any crowd wearing masks. How about putting a little thought into a more appropriate analogy.

Houellie,

"But I know yooouse love me anyway."

Well yes we do : )

I'm always interested in the way we mentally visualise each other. We can't help but do that. I have a reasonably distinct picture of all the faces and body shapes of regular posters. For instance, your hair colour got darker in my mental image when I learned of your Carribean ancestry (if my memory serves me correctly)

What an odd little construct is disembodied online discussion.

Dear Poirot,

This may be of some interest. It's
about Michel Houllebecq - the french
writer:

"The man who isn't there. The man you meet at a
crossroads of great contradictory currents who
hasn't made up his mind which path to take
and who, moreover is not going to make up his mind.
He enjoys the intersection. But meanwhile he will
delight in directing and mis-directing you.
This is what gets up everybody's nose about him."

Lexi,

It's a perfect match then!

I wish I had Houellie's lack of arrogance...he plays with us because he knows we're all desperately trying to construct something to give our life meaning, but....

Life's absurd - be merry!

It is "an odd little construct", Poirot, or should I say, Countess Grantham? Which is of course facilitated by the use of nicknames and an innate need of our frontal cortex to create visualisations of language concepts.

It's sort of the reverse process of language acquisition as toddlers.

We are more likely to create a mental image or a mental sound of a poster than to create a mental smell of them. Even when their comments on the nose.

Squeers' imagining (or was it fantasising?) of 'OLO's version of a dominatrix' didn't get me pouting but instead seeing us as members of a seraglio with Houllebecq as guard and giving orders – but in a preternaturally high-pitched voice.

"Squeers' imagining (or was it fantasising?) of 'OLO's version of a dominatrix' didn't get me pouting but instead seeing us as members of a seraglio with Houllebecq as guard and giving orders – but in a preternaturally high-pitched voice."

For some reason, I find the image that this brings to mind hysterically funny.
I seriously have to get a life.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Poirot,

Yes - every absurdity has a champion to
defend it.

"I think that the undecideds could go one
way or the other." (George W. Bush).

And - "Facts are funny things." (Ronald Reagan).

Dear Wm Trevor,

Thank You for the best laugh I've had all morning.
The mental image is great!

Anthonyve,

I looked at a few of your articles and you've got a nice easy-going style that does seem unlikely to offend anybody--your dialogue pieces are reminiscent of but more accessible than Joyce--whereas I tend to piss people off : )

Lexi,
I'd never heard of Houellebecq--and I'm supposed to know something about literature. It does sound like our dominatrix chose his name well.

WmTrevor,
unless Houelle's got something in common with the Chiko Roll girl, I wasn't fantasising.

Ah anonymity ... I have chiselled features like Sean Connery in his prime, but you'll have to take my word for that.

Dear Squeers,

I suppose there is another protection afforded the anonymous poster and that is the fact that unlike an article author we are unable to judge their utterances against previous deeds and associations.

This is where the Facebook era is so interesting. Andrew Bartlett, former Australian Democrat and himself a serial blogger, has recently written about the announcement by the blog Larvatus Prodeo that they were ceasing to operate.

“Back in October, I wrote here about the decline or re-defining of blogs, at least in the Australian political arena. The relatively few posts I’ve done on this blog since then shows how much less useful I find it to do my own blog than I used to, and as I mentioned back then, a big reason why I don’t read many of the blogs I used to is because the valuable links to many interesting stories, ideas and pieces of information can be found more easily through Twitter or Facebook, sometimes with comment threads which are also at least as good.”

It is yet to be seen whether markedly less anonymity afforded Facebook users will contribute to less embellishment, hypocrisy, and trolling in discussions.

I suspect it might.

It would be interesting to know how many OLO posters share their contributions here with friends and family. If anything is designed to cut one down to size it is ones family that can be the most effective. Writing knowing a watching brief is being kept certainly adds some rigour that is perhaps missing from the restraints on the purely anonymous writer.

Dear WmTrevor,

Thanks for the laugh. My rather drab and sordid imagination had him naked in a crowd wearing a leather gimp mask and a tomato in each hand. Your description banished any thought of adorning him with an erection which is probably a good thing.

csteele,
I do agree with your argument and it certainly would be a positive if ownership of comments made some people more careful and rigorous. But I think the negative side trumps that. Who's going to say what they really think when the boss, or the Mrs or the kids or the colleagues are reading it? I've often criticised universities but wouldn't have been so critical under my own name because I've been a researcher and contract teacher, and there are few places more politically sensitive! I wouldn't have wanted staff or students to stumble across some of my opinions. Yet I think my criticism has been warranted. I hasten to add though that I wouldn't be that bothered. I stand by my convictions and am generally not afraid to speak my opinions in the street.

WmTrevor,

"..or should I say Countess Grantham?...."

"I just knew it was no coincidence that there are eleven letters in both names - Maggie Smith and Houellebecq!"

Am I missing something here....Maggie?

: )

'Scuse the sidebar Squeers…

I doubt you miss anything, Poirot. It was a backwards reference to my "mentally recasting Downton Abbey" comment. I failed to keep my secret for long though by indicating that I had Houellebecq pegged as the Dowager Countess Grantham and yourself in the Elizabeth McGovern role.

Any implied gender confusion can be argued as having more to do with our ongoing support of his desire to be recognised as the mother of his children and nothing at all to do with the mention of his Harem.

Very spooky, WmTrevor,

http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Cora

That's exactly what I look like! : )

.....but you'll have to take my word for that.

WMTrev,
I'd have a bit of trouble with side-bars; I'm a bit of a lack-beard.

Exactly how I picture you, Poirot, with a highly wrought moustache of course.

Squeers,

Of course the moustache goes without saying. : )

HaHaHa... Do you know the old joke?

She's had so many facelifts, one more and she'll have a moustache!

WmTrevor,

Ha, ha, ha...although you're denting my newly fashioned persona here. I quite fancy myself as Countess Grantham...and I need all the help I can get. My oldest child turned 30 today. Fancy that! - and I haven't even had my first facelift yet!

I must say, Poirot, I can understand your wish.
After all, the Countess does have some of the best lines.
And then there's that twinkle in her eye...
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony,

I'm enjoying this little flight of fancy - in fact I feel a sock puppet coming on - "Countess Grantham", and I could come on OLO and lord it over all of you - with a twinkle in my eye.

But perhaps I'm getting a little carried away. I'll go back to being mild-mannered Poirot from this point on : )

This might help undent it, Poirot… I think I've stumbled across a picture of M. H!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eunuco_haciendo_guardia_en_un_har%C3%A9n.jpg

But to keep it relevant for Squeers – in the unlikely circumstance you haven't seen this famous piece of graffiti:

To be or not to be – Shakespeare; To be is to do – Socrates; To do is to be – Sartre; Do be do be do – Sinatra

WmTrevor,

Nice postcard - I wondered where Houellie had got to.

Just as an aside (since I can't resist my alter-ego of Cora) I'm rather taken with my hubby, Robert, Earl of Grantham. He's honourable, kind to his servants and all round loverly.

Since you have a penchant for mentally recasting Downton Abbey, who do you reckon fits the Hugh Bonneville character amongst OLOers?

Originally considered for the role of the Earl of Grantham, Pericles was unavailable due to prior commitments (but was able to be scheduled as Dr Clarkson), so the part is currently occupied by Saltpetre – on a limited contract due to upcoming UNESCO ambassador responsibilities.

Outside OLO, the rumour is that it is being performed by some garage-door wrestling bloke in Western Australia under a pseudonym.

Since you didn't ask… appearing as Mr Carson is Squeers.

Poirot, I preferred Hugh Bonneville as Josh Sedley in Vanity Fair, now there's a wonderful period film! But he's not nearly so fine in it.

Trev, Mr Carson!! Give me a break! I s'pose it could have been worse; at least I'm not the lame John Bates!
I'm more suited to the Colin Firth type roles, who was born on the same day and city as moi btw. I often refer to him with my kids as my long lost ugly twin.

Okay, now I'll have to get my maid to fetch the smelling salts...a mild swoon coming upon me at the mention of the delectable Colin Firth.

So I'm married to Saltpetre (who, alas, will never know because he never visits the general section). I think Mr Carson is superb as he is cast, btw.

Squeers, I have to say that I always imagined you as maybe harbouring a wild poetic Heathcliffy type soul, kept very well hidden under your butler's exterior : )

I take your point, Squeers, but it works for me as I imagine your writings in Jim Carter's stentorian voice, plus the bemusement of the character's secret vaudevillian past. But given what I've said above about Houellebecq the deal was sealed when I read this on the character wiki: "He is nostalgic for the past and has a close relationship with Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham."

Some of us are desperate enough to get our chuckles where we can.

I understand what you mean about the Firth thing – but for me, you've got the wrong one – not Colin so much as Peter. As in Spooks rather than Equus.

Poirot, what do you think of the idea of Shadow Minister as Thomas Barrow?

Trev, well I do like that tenor voice, and maybe I'm not that much better looking than Colin Firth, and if it makes me intimate with Poirot, I mean the Dowager ...

I'm certainly for making Shadow Minister the villain! But what about Maggie Smith? She's conservative and condescending...

WmTrevor,

Thomas is rather villainously attractive in a way and sees himself as the "Shadow Valet". So yes SM or even SPQR would fit the bill.

But what about Lexi? Surely she has a part.

Squeers, Cora and Mr Carson - that would be a turn up for the books. I think I'll pass up the smelling salts in favour of a good stiff gin and tonic. (Gin and tonic is apparently always "stiff" so we don't need to go any further with that, WmTrevor : )

Having got myself this far I'll just have to keep digging… like Charles Bronson in The Great Escape.

I know it's my strange cast of mind that does the strange casting but with the obvious exception of Poirot it's almost never about appearance. More usually the tone of voice or the characterisation or the plot line associations…

Given the nursing links, I have thought of Lexi as Lady Mary – but if that mother-daughter thing is too much for you, Countess – she could be reassigned as Penelope Wilton, seeing as how at heart Isobel is a dedicated mother and not really a creepy Crawley.

I think you're on to something with the drink (some things don't have negatives; a bad stiff gin and tonic being non-existent) and I can imagine you wanting the Butler to give it to you on a tray wearing only a vest and suspender socks, err… that's Carson wearing the vest by the way.

"…so we don't need to go any further with that" – why do people always look over their shoulders and say that, especially when my reputation is preceding me?

WmTrevor,

This is proving a most delightful diverson.....

"...I can imagine you wanting the Butler to give it to you on a tray wearing only a vest and suspender socks...."

Absolutely...is there any other way?

I was thinking that Lexi may perhaps be best suited to Mrs Hughes - stoic, ethical and caring. Lexi's like that on OLO, usually diplomatic, yet capable of a dressing down when necessary. Whadaya think?

As far as looking over my shoulder, I've learned that if I carelessly leave a thread hanging, you'll whip out the crochet hook and in no time will turn it into something spectacularly clever and suggestive - and see-through.

After checking with the Downton wiki to find, "She is very stoic, but she is ethical and never two-sided." I'll grant you the Mrs Hughes idea.

Though spookily it quotes her saying, "In many ways, I wanted to accept. But I'm not that farm girl any more. I was flattered, of course, but... I've changed, Mr Carson."

And all I could visualise was Carson in a nappy. Now problematically for Squeers, this turns him into a student of incontinental philosophy. (He can explain why that's funny, if necessary).

As for your crochet – am I and it so transparent? On your part, that's just another attempt at tat-for-tit.

WmTrevor,

(Just quickly as I'm nipping over the visit the Dowager)

"...just another attempt at tat-for-tit." - which is fitting because, according to Basil Fawlty, "It's only the upper class that would have tat like that". We're big in the tat department.

I thought I was the one who was changing Mr Carson? And now it turns out Lexi has been seeing him behind closed doors.

Crushing blow, I'll have you know.

For what it's worth - I can identify with
Lady Mary. She with-holds when she should
yield and yields when she should with-hold.
Plus she has the most amazing and beautiful
wardrobe.

I love dressing up - a witty velvet slipper,
designer fragrance, a slip of silk, small
exquisite pieces that are the lynch pins of style,
and can change your mood, your look. Being wrapped
up in delicious splendour is very much my style.
Beautifully offsets my killer cheek-bones, mane of
red hair, and long legs.

Not really "…behind closed doors", more ajar. Our guard has to be able to keep an eye on things somehow. He likes to watch you know – I'm convinced one of his games is to count and score the number of mentions received after his last stirring comments. Or should that be sterling?

"Crushing blow, I'll have you know." Yes, but we don't know this as intimately as Houellebecq – it being one of the nonsurgical methods of, shall we call it, job qualification.

Now you've made me go and give him four points. One for the mention and two for the name and a bonus point for both being in a single post.

He is right. I do enjoy the kick he gives me, but never when he is down. Only when he is up to it.

(Oh rats… that's another point for an implied innuendo)

Did you notice the late change to the casting? Sir Richard Carlisle is to be played by the strangely named Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc – a gloriously democratic moniker for one person.

Lexi,

Lady Mary you are then. Nice to have you on board.
"Killer cheek bones, mane of red hair and long legs" - sounds extraordinary!

Well Cora, Countess of Grantham, has had rather a long day. No more gin and tonic - poor Mr Carson is finding it rather a trial standing there with the serving tray, and I can't say I blame him. Yes, it's time to snuggle in front of the fire with the Earl and the Labrador and a small liqueur.

WmTrevor,

I believe you're right about Houellie. He winds us up like a child's toy and off we go for pages. Lots of fun though!
Btw, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc sounds perfect for the part.

Dear Poirot,

Thank You - good to be on board.

Talking about your Earl.

I've just lit a fire with my Lord - and after reading your
post - I got inspired to open up a small
bottle of dessert wine. (Yering Station -
Pinot Gris) Delish!

So again Thanks - am feeling very warm!