...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.