anonymity == no big whoop

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"We want our privacy to protect us from creepy stalkers like yourself."

Thunder;

Do you truly believe what you just posted? About being a "creepy stalker" like "myself?"
You are talking to a real person here. I have a family and friends. I have grand-childen,
children and a career. I have never been accused of anything more than 2 speeding tickets.
Do you understand and have a conscience, about anything?

I've never been on Facebook, Twitter, or Myspace. Never, not once, ever. Check it out. So your assumption has no basis in reality and is again assassination by innuendo. How typical. I simply don't care about the internet social media and believe that real friends are best.

You've made a typical small minded and infantile mistake here. Knowing nothing about you but what you just wrote, let us analyze your thoughts through your expression.

In your case and I suggest most cases - Ethics, honesty, and truth are tied to control. Taking personal responsibility means giving up control to the scrutiny of others. Because to take personal responsibility leaves you open to questions or to scurrilous personal attack. Which you just did to me. Obviously you are without any sense of right and wrong in this matter. YOU have just accused a real person ME - of stalking YOU. Or perhaps it is the imaginary Thunder that is being stalked... I can't tell by your writing. 

Thunder  - that is your imagination playing a trick on you.

So let's recap - You feel like speaking your mind will cause you problems. This is probably true because it is filled with fantasy. So you speak what you truly think only in private or anonymously and speak with duplicity in public... hence you need the cover of anonymity. This means you've made a decision to lock yourself into a habit - a convention - you've consented to segregate your conscience into private fantasy (which you just displayed) and public pronouncement (which you also just displayed). This is delusional.

Since you just did it here, and I knew some one would, you've proved my point and I thank you for it. In this manner you won't make yourself more eloquent, positive, or cogent in your thinking. You don't have too because "Thunder" is nothing but your imagination playing tricks on you... and so you'll just blither - as you do now. Your Thunder persona will speak the "truth" for you. Thunder will speak wild accusations.  YOU set it up that way. So is your paranoid fantasy built from your own stupidity? And, then transmitted, without an attached conscience?
Is there any thing your wooden dummy Thunder wouldn't speak? If so, what? Thunder is free, Thunder is liberated. Thunder is insane.

Develop a conscience and you'll become smarter too. You'll become responsible. Every criminal in every prison is first and foremost, dumb. Even Bernie Madoff - known to be smart - had to lie, cheat, and steal to be successful. However, that is not success - that is just money. Thunder - how about you?

If you aspire for anything better in your life - you'll need to rearrange your brain for a while. You need to develop yourself using your own name. You'll need to become a stand-up guy (or woman) as the case may be. If you don't feel you can be a stand up person then don't. But, don't send Thunder. He's not very smart and is rather paranoid.

There is another solution to this Thunder paradox. That solution is to remain mute. Silence for you or practice being you but a better you. A more eloquent, substantive, and potent thinking... you. 

[Major Lord]

My only comment on this is that anyone who believes they are anonymous here or anywhere else on the internet is kidding themselves.

I think you can take reasonable steps to ensuring the privacy of your identify on-line such that it would be outside the capability of just about everybody to find out who you are. Some of my friends in China, Iran, and Cuba even bet their lives on it.

Ooooooohhh, I hope you never have to get a security clearance...you have just confessed to having covert ties to communist and totalitarian nations! Just kidding Nathan. (if that is your real name, tovarich!) FYI, I am a Licensed Private Investigator in California, and for 25 bucks to a subcontractor, I can pretty much unlock any internet account unless its a truly "blind". (A hotmail account opened at a library in the dead of night under an assumed identity, etc.) This is one of the ways we identify stalkers. ( I have pretty much retired from that business, thank the Buddha...)

As to anonymity, there could be lots of very good reasons to use it here. You might be General Pineda, or Ray Hayden, or a fugitive from justice. You might just not want CAP people to start a vendetta against you, a very real possibility!

Major Lord
ps: FYI, core values are really more like "guidelines" than hard and fast rules.....

[Short Field]

Anonymity allows me to discuss things without hurting the feelings of local members who may feel offended when I used examples that relate to them.  The last time this subject came up, I used an example of how it is harder to train some of our older members on the computer programs we use now.  I managed to get a few board members to get upset at my comment instead.  I really could care less about the board members, but I would have really felt bad if I had hurt the feelings of our local older members who struggle to do the most basic items on eServices - and lets not even start toward the WMU and IMU.

Am I anonymous?  Not by a long shot as various members in my wing and squadron leadership positions and on this board know who I am.  Do I avoid having my posts printed out and posted on the squadron bulletin board because I just slammed the planning on the last SAREX?  You betcha!   Do the people who plan the SAREXs know my thoughts? Absolutely.  But I avoid a direct link between my comments on this board and the local members.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Short Field;
I am not against anonymity. I am against poor ethics that use anonymity as cover.

Anonymity is allowed on this board. I am asking not "is it allowed" but is it "right? and "ethical" That is a moral question.

I am incapable of reading a man's heart. I am very capable of reading everyone's words. The ethical dilemma
will persist. The moral paradox is for each of us to answer through examination of our own hearts.

However, I have made a decision too. AND, that is to treat the unconscionable writings of the anonymous as
I would fictional characters from a book. The author may feel insulted. BUT, the character that they have created
is not real. Their written words are.

[Short Field]

What a person writes is what they are - regardless of what their signature says they are.  I don't know 99% of the members on this board except by what they have written.   Words do count - and a writer's demeanor and style reflect a lot more about them than their signature.  Juvenile postings are not just a function of age. 

[Thunder]

Mr Smithsonia I refer to your comment that you said people who are anonymous on here have facebook accounts. I have no idea how you would know that if you never been on it, and why you would even care to cross reference that. I also wonder why you look down on internet society and yet at the same time you want to affect your vision on it at the same time. I'm not ashamed of my comments at all. I think you have an agenda, and someone who does internet searches on people they don't have any personal business with in order to discredit them, in my eyes, is creepy stalking.

Psychoanalyzing people based on their internet posting is also a judgement, and its something that is really quite annoying and presumptuous. No one invited you to parse our motives. Lets see how it fits on you: I can only imagine the reason you have only been accused of two speeding tickets is because the poor people were afraid of a condecending rambling lecture on why they have no basis. You probably got out of those tickets by arguing with the judge that the cop who gave the ticket had no basis because they only wrote their badge number and they themselves also speed, so they must be hiding within their cop fantasy world and it was small minded of them to catch you speeding.  Without a name on the ticket it must not be a legitimate citation, and so you have shown your superiority once again.

Don't be a troll if you can't stand the flames. Lets remember you fired the first shot here in making the assumption that people are anonymous because they are cowards and inherently dishonorable.

[Smithsonia]

Mr Smithsonia I refer to your comment that you said people who are anonymous on here have facebook accounts. I have no idea how you would know that if you never been on it, and why you would even care to cross reference that. I also wonder why you look down on internet society and yet at the same time you want to affect your vision on it at the same time. I'm not ashamed of my comments at all. I think you have an agenda, and someone who does internet searches on people they don't have any personal business with in order to discredit them, in my eyes, is creepy stalking.

Psychoanalyzing people based on their internet posting is also a judgement, and its something that is really quite annoying and presumptuous. No one invited you to parse our motives. Lets see how it fits on you: I can only imagine the reason you have only been accused of two speeding tickets is because the poor people were afraid of a condecending rambling lecture on why they have no basis. You probably got out of those tickets by arguing with the judge that the cop who gave the ticket had no basis because they only wrote their badge number and they themselves also speed, so they must be hiding within their cop fantasy world and it was small minded of them to catch you speeding.  Without a name on the ticket it must not be a legitimate citation, and so you have shown your superiority once again.

Don't be a troll if you can't stand the flames. Lets remember you fired the first shot here in making the assumption that people are anonymous because they are cowards and inherently dishonorable.

Yes, Thunder is insane. I analyzed your writing. For that is all I have to go on. I analyzed your use of language. I analyzed your thoughts. I analyzed YOU. It isn't difficult.

Regarding the facebook entries. Those people told me so. I haven't checked. I asked a fair question. I put it to them first.

Regarding agenda. I believe you will find that agenda clearly stated 3 entries above this one.

Regarding the speeding tickets: Since it comes with another false allegation from you. I didn't argue with the officer or in court. I paid the tickets humbly because I knew I was wrong violating the speed limit? Why argue when you are wrong?

The Anonymous persona Thunder is insane. You, well you've certainly helped me make the point about segratation of ethics, writing, conscience, anonymity, and the corrupting influence of anonymity. Thanks!

[RiverAux]

In recent days it seems that the people making personal attacks against others are those who do make their names public. 

One of the most egregious trolls I know (not on this board) is one who makes his name public.

Anonymous/non-anonymous doesn't seem to make a difference.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RiverAux;
On my part that is true and fair. For purposes stated 5 entries up.
So the question is, Can one attack an anonymous persona... and is that really a flesh
and blood person?

Or is it a criticism of a fictional character?

You have my email address. I'll gladly give you my phone number too. We can discuss it.

[RiverAux]

You go with that theory.  We'll see how the moderators react.

[HGjunkie]

Members will not engage in libel, slander, name-calling, or personal attacks.  Members will not post any hateful material about any person, unit, or organization.  There is a line between leadership examples and scenarios, or having constructive discussions about problems without naming names, and attacking others outright.  Personal threats are also strictly prohibited.

inb4 Modstorm.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've urged, hoped, and asked several times that it be enforced.

[davidsinn]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've urged, hoped, and asked several times that it be enforced.

You're one of the instigators. Are you not a trained journalist? Isn't anonymity one of the cornerstones of journalism? One of the most important American journalists frequently used a pseudonym to publish his works. Sometimes difficult things need to be said and have light shown on them and the only way to do it and avoid reprisal is to not sign your name to it.

[Smithsonia]

David;
Anonymity is a cornerstone of journalism? I haven't heard that one.
I suppose if it were true all the Pulitzers would go to John or Jane Doe.
Of course we don't identify everything up front. But then neither do detectives.
Usually we just watch people and get interested when there is a story.

And CAPTALK isn't journalism either. These are mostly opinion essays - or - commentary.
Not much reporting.

I don't know the important American journalist you referenced so I can't say.
If you are talking about the Primary Colors author Joe Klein. He was outed within weeks
of the publication of this fictional account of the Clinton Campaign. He was sheepish, then
embarrassed, then apolgetic for hiding.

Journalists have to take both credit and blame. We can be sued. BUT, not by fictional
characters. Lex Luther has no chance in court. Well, a real court at least.

Instigator? I always shoot second, never first. I am just persistent, if I have time
or can express my opinion aptly.

Reprisal? If it comes to words I can defend myself. Were you thinking of something more?

[davidsinn]

David;
Anonymity is a cornerstone of journalism? I haven't heard that one.
I suppose if it were true all the Pulitzers would go to John or Jane Doe.
Of course we don't identify everything up front. But then neither do detectives.
Usually we just watch people and get interested when there is a story.

And CAPTALK isn't journalism either. These are mostly opinion essays - or - commentary.
Not much reporting.

I don't know the important American journalist you referenced so I can't say.
If you are talking about the Primary Colors author Joe Klein. He was outed within weeks
of the publication of this fictional account of the Clinton Campaign. He was sheepish, then
embarrassed, then apolgetic for hiding.

Journalists have to take both credit and blame. We can be sued. BUT, not by fictional
characters. Lex Luther has no chance in court. Well, a real court at least.

Instigator? I always shoot second, never first. I am just persistent, if I have time
or can express my opinion aptly.

Reprisal? If it comes to words I can defend myself. Were you thinking of something more?

Anonymous sources? Ben Franklin used pseudonyms often. For reprisals I'm thinking of cases where higher command is being stupid and it needs to be pointed out publicly, but if a person owns up to it they could have consequences(demotions, 2bs, similar things) come their way.

Captalk isn't journalism but as one you should have a healthy respect for someone wishing to remain anonymous when taking certain stances even if they are morally right but not PC can effect a person negatively. Just look at the current political climate in this country to see examples where taking a stand on an issue can be hazardous.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David;
Anonymous sources or anonymous journalist? These are different people. Anonymous sources need to be checked, confirmed, and vetted. Eventually you need more than rumors. Eventually you need someone to sign their name to it.

Ben Franklin lived under a much different set of ethics than I do. He and all of the founding fathers were propagandists too. They weren't journalists. They didn't even use the term in it's current context. Also Ben's head was on the line. I am assuming mine is staying put. However, I've been in places and done stories where that wasn't a certainty.

Most people haven't read Ben's long form works - just his quotes and witticisms. However his essays, political commentary, stories are a different kind of written voice.. but he was not really a journalist.
See here: http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/Franklin3.HTML

Regarding your comment on saving your skin through anonymity. No I don't believe that. I don't practice that either. I don't respect those who do. (editors note here. "don't respect" is not the same as disrespect.) The reason is it makes you lazy and dumb. Do the right thing. Don't say what you can't defend before your wife, mother, God, etc. When you are anonymous your wits never come up to competitive speeds. I defend my real work all day in one editorial contest after another. Back and forth with editors, readers, writers, other media people. So this is what I do. That is what a bunch of journalism is...

May the best idea win. All things being even, may the best written idea win.

I never sit on my authority. I've never really had any. Just responsibilities. Lots and lots of that. So today for instance I fought for an hour with 2 lawyers about a verb, a couple of contractions, one sacrificial line that I always plant so the lawyers feel like they win one of the arguments, and the word "bet." My client doesn't want to be sued. The lawyers are there to protect the business interest of my client but the story got worked over pretty good. We all had to sign our names to our final collective decision.

[HGjunkie]

Im my Middle School Journalism class we learned how anonymity was a key factor for some important information. Such as an anonymous tip to police, a few details on a developing story, etc.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Middle School journalism? Was your teacher anonymous too? Did your grade come with your name attached? This part of the discussion is getting goofy. We are confabulating or misconstruing several notions. What a journalist is? What a journalist does? Is CAPTALK journalism? What's a source? What a source does? What makes a source? What purposes are appropriate for anonymity? Was Ben Franklin a journalist? I think this is a good place to see if you guys will organize your thoughts for comprehension. 

Again I am not against the use of anonymity. But it has a corrupting influence long term on the human enterprises particularly when it comes to critical thinking. I "think" we may be seeing signs of this now.