anonymity == no big whoop

[dwb]

It seems all message boards are destined to collapse into discussions about themselves, and it's sooo boring because it happens all the time.  Normally, I try to avoid such discussions,  but I'll make an exception here, because I think there is a CAP Core Values tie-in, and I'm always willing to discuss Core Values.

The issue is whether people should "sign" their posts -- to make it known who they are in real life.  The argument is that people will behave better, and that they shouldn't hide behind the quasi-anonymity of the Internet when posting.  Given the sort-of-but-not-really military aspect of CAP, this anonymity allows for junior members to snipe at senior members or CAP's leadership, with no real accountability.

My rebuttal is that anonymity on these (and other) message boards is no big deal.  It just doesn't matter whether someone chooses to identify themselves, for two reasons.

First of all, even without knowing someone's name and CAP grade, you make assumptions about a person from the moment you start reading their posts.  Those assumptions are hard to shake, even if you find out who the person really is.  Once you decide "crzyCAPdood" is an idiot, then learning his name is John Smith and he's a C/Maj isn't going to change your opinion.  You still think he's an idiot, although you now also think he should know better because he's a Phase IV cadet.

Which brings me to my second point, and the Core Values tie-in.  Regardless of a person's real identity, rank, and credentials, we should all (as CAP members abiding by our Core Values) treat and be treated with a certain baseline level of Respect.

You should not be concerned whether crzyCAPdood is disrespectful, but rather, if you yourself are providing the proper respect to other members of the board, regardless if you outrank them or they outrank you or they're really Maj Gen Pineda posting anonymously.  This is especially true when you're arguing with someone who is showing a lack of tact.

People who are willing to be disrespectful anonymously are probably people who are overtly disrespectful in real life.  At least, I've found that correlation to be strong.  Once crzyCAPdood is outed, he'll probably be nice to the superior officers that smacked him down, but he's already been exposed as lacking Respect and Integrity, so you know that behavior will infiltrate other aspects of his life.

In conclusion, I don't think it's useful to remark about anonymity, because you're already making judgements about that person anyway, and I've found that adding their name and rank to the equation doesn't really change those judgements.

The one exception is if someone is posting as the official authority.  For instance, if Suzie Parker were answering uniform questions, I would expect that she make it known who she is, so people know they are receiving official word from an NHQ staffer.

Thoughts?  Flames about the fact that I don't sign my real name? (the admins and long-time CAP Talk members know who I am, I'm not really anonymous)

[pixelwonk]

Well said, General Pineda.

[Major Carrales]

I find that signing my posts is a good way to prevent myself from saying something stupid.  I have never, to my knowledge, said anything that is worthy of a 2B have have tried my best not to be baited into doing so.

I also, sort of make it my unwritten rule to try to return conversations to civility or interject some sort of REALITY check when things fly out beyond "too far."

We throw around so many good ideas from time to time that get nebulized by the atomizer of  vitriol, agendism bias and a host of other negatives.

[MIKE]

I find that signing my posts is a good way to prevent myself from saying something stupid.

Concur, but I also see the benefit of the other side of that and remaining anonymous as means to protect oneself from oneself if you tend to run your mouth a bit. 

There is also the benefit of being able to approach some subjects differently, since your name and or affiliations won't be tied to what you post.

[shorning]

Thoughts?  Flames about the fact that I don't sign my real name? (the admins and long-time CAP Talk members know who I am, I'm not really anonymous)

I think  that's part of the difference.  Not that we really know you, but that you're a contributing member of the community who has built a reputation.  Conversely, the people I take issue with are those who just join in with both guns blazing from the get go.  I find that they generally have an ax to grind or an agenda to push. 

That being said, there are many members here that I don't know who they really are, but they've participated and we've gotten to know them through their posts.  Some I agree with, some I don't, but I'll give them far more credibility that the new person whose first post is mudslinging.  It doesn't fit our core values, and it's not how professionals behave.

[dwb]

Well said, General Pineda.

Thank you, Col Agnello. 

Conversely, the people I take issue with are those who just join in with both guns blazing from the get go.  I find that they generally have an ax to grind or an agenda to push.

Absolutely, and with those people, it doesn't matter whether they're signing their real name, because they've probably already prosecuted the same smear campaign with their local commanders, IGs, the old cap-talk mailing list, CadetStuff, etc.

[Nathan]

Just to provide the devil's advocate argument...

We do expect everyone to use courtesy and respect when dealing with all members, but unfortunately we know it never really happens quite the way it should. Oftentimes, I don't see people posting anonymously for reasons of being able to snipe at others, but rather to avoid being attacked themselves.

For instance, one of the clearer examples I remember (not necessarily from this sit or CadetStuff) is anything having to do with the war in Iraq. Usually, when a real civilian gets involved in such argument, then the military guys come in. Usually, this ends up in a, "Well, I was in the box, and you weren't, so shut your mouth" argument. Then, no matter what the person does, they will be known as the guy or gal who went against the vet in an argument about war politics. Both combatants in the debate may be completely respectful, but regardless, we've all seen similar situations, and that person will have a hard time getting any respect after going toe-to-toe with a soldier, regardless of the validity or position of his or her opinion.

Then there's the well-known members who travel around the forums who are sort of treated like the SpecOps of internet posting. They don't tend to say much, but when they do, they usually end the argument with a single post. Any person who dares stand against one of these members usually isn't attacked back by the member him or herself, but rather by the entire community.

Frankly, given these types of problems, it could be perfectly feasible as to why someone may want to hide their qualifications and/or experiences merely to be able to have some sort of unbiased respect. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with being a civilian simply because they want to be able to have their opinions heard despite their being a civilian, a cadet, or whatever.

My solution to it is that I put my name in my signature, but nothing else. People can recognize me upon meeting me, but they don't know how far I am in CAP, what I've done, or much else unless I tell them. Like the original poster, most people have a pretty good idea of who I am, but regardless, I've found it to be a pretty decent solution. This way, I don't have much of a problem having my opinions be heard by less tolerant members, while still being able to get truthful debate out of those who are subordinate in rank or age to myself.

YMMV

[DNall]

Obviously it's not mandatory, and that's the best policy. However, I think it lends a bit more credibility in that you're putting your name behind it, stand by what you say for better or worse, etc.

Bonus is I've met a whole lot of people of late that've read items I've posted, & mostly agreed. I've also be contacted by email & offline by peole that didn't or couldn't post. It kind of seems like there's an increased synergy about it.

On the other hand, we are all trying to encourage a collegial atmosphere where the new 2Lt or C/MSgt can participate as equals in open discussion with Wg Chiefs of Staff & LtCols w/ 30+ years of service.

I really don't have a problem with the monikers. I prefer if you put your name at the bottom or are open in conversation about who you are. If you choose not to do that, then I personally have nothing against you, but it's going to create an extra hesitance to overcome at times. If I were say a National Board member or assigned to CAP-USAF, then I'm sure I would take advantage of the anonymity. It's your own call though.

[A.Member]

I put in my $.02 about the issue in this thread:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1147.0

I don't list personal data in on-line forums.  That's my preference.  And I stand by everything I write - the fact that I don't list my name, etc. in a signature line doesn't change that. 

If someone chooses to list their resume with each, that's fine - personally, I could care less.  I don't really pay much attention to them because statements either have merit on their own or they don't.  As a matter of fact, the only need for User Names is for the purpose of directing/responding to a particular comment - whether a User Name is a real name or something else is really irrelevant.

So, I agree - "no big whoop".  It's a non-issue to me.

[RogueLeader]

My op is that I try to be as respectful as due.  I treat them as I would like to be treated.  Some of my posts may cross the line, for which I try to be careful, but there is one reason I don't wan't my name known.  At another site, I got a quasi-dressing down for my opinions about wing.  That was not what should have happened.  There were several other people around-within 4 or 5 feet. I don't want it to happen again.

[floridacyclist]

I agree about the respect part...in fact, the names really shouldn't matter because we should all always treat each other with respect whether we're anonymous or not. I do find it a little uncomfortable talking to an unkown person, like trying to hold a coversation with a masked person.

I do find it interesting that some folks perceive themselves as anonymous even when their name is posted (perhaps it's not real?). I was searching for something on here the other day and found a thread where some cadet airman was ripping a Col a new one, complete with insults. I admit that I have trouble comprehending that anyone with half a lick of common sense can talk to a superior officer like that, then sit back and say "oh well, it's just the internet" and not expect something to happen. They just don't get that rules and regs of common customs and courtesies (as well as common sense) make no distinction as to the communication medium, and that there really is no difference between being disrespectful in person or online.

[bosshawk]

As many of you know, I put both my name and some of my background in my signature block.  As a long time Officer(with a big O), I believe that my word is my bond.  I happened to have been taught that before I was commissioned and it has been my trademark ever since.  I get especially irritated when someone asks me for an ID to pay a bill with a check. 

In these posts, I have never belittled anyone, although I may have violently disagreed with what they have said.  It might be a good lesson for anyone on this blog who fancies themselves as "Officers" to consider adhering to those principles.

I generally say what is on my mind and I mean it: make no mistake about that.  If you don't want folks to know who you are and where you are, you may be avoiding that intellectual honesty that most of us strive to attain.  If these posts are jokes to you, please take them someplace else.

[A.Member]

This forum, and others like it, are public forums - open to anyone.  It is not a requirement to be a CAP member to view or participate in discussions.  If personal attacks are made or conduct is otherwise unacceptable, then that's for the moderators to handle.

[floridacyclist]

That is very true for non-members. For members however, we are still bound by the same rules of conduct on and off-duty and in all social situations. At that point, I think that it becomes a commander's responsibility if they are aware of the member's behavior.

[RogueLeader]

As a CAP Officer,  I do take my posts seriously.  I also want to make known that I stand behind my posts as are.  If there is a NEED to know my name, please ask me in a PM, and I'll be glad to send you my name and rank.  If there is no need for it- let it alone.

[RogueLeader]

Big time bump, it looks like there be some more room room for people to comment and/or review.  I know that my views changed from way back when.

[FW]

The way things can be in CAP; especially with the "Social Media" debate raging with in the National Board, I can see the need for a certain anonymity in posting to Cap Talk.  As long as the Mods enforce the Code of Conduct, I have no problem with contributors speaking their mind without identifying themselves.  We have the freedom of analysing posts as we see fit.  After all, this is a discussion board; not an official policy site of CAP.

[Eclipse]

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

Now, there is a difference between signing your title and staff posting, which can give the impression of some weight behind your statements, and just going by a handle, but in general you are only as anonymous as someone is interested in finding you, especially to other CAP members.

[vmstan]

I look at CAP Talk like a giant (public) Officers Club or a local pub where we'd all hang out (not in uniform ) on a weekend to talk shop. There would be mutual respect among members but it's not formal.

That said, I'm a huge fan of knowing names, squadrons/area and rank of members who post here, if not so much to add more weight to the person's opinion in the discussion but to also "extend my social network" -- Also, you never know when we could end up at a wing/region/national event or even a mission together.

[EMT-83]

I post "anonymously" in the few forums I belong to, in an effort to reduce my presence on the Internet. Doing a Google search on my name produces very few hits, and you need to dig to find them. I happen to like that.

In communications with board members by PM or email, I don't hide who I am. There are squadron members and Wing staff here who know who I am. Being aware of that fact usually keeps me from saying something stupid. Not always, but most of the time.

For those who post their real names, I recognize maybe a half-dozen people. So, no big whoop.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

You literally can't google my name without me being in the top ten. I don't mind people knowing who I am and what not. Everyone around here does. Most here on CAPtalk do not however know my name. I have TRIED... I say again TRIED to be respectful with my posts. I do however have some views and opinions that are really really... really......... REALLY one sided. With those I try to be tactful and respectful with those posts, but they still come very harsh so I edit and edit... and edit to try and make it as easy to not vommit out your ears thinking, this guy is a ...

My name is Robert Killion.

[addo1]

I can see both sides to this issue.

On the side of claiming your posts, it makes sense. When you post something, YOU and you only should own the post and be responsible for any outcome that it brings. If you go anonymous, it will trick yourself to think you can post whatever you want without consequence. Again, anytime your name is googled, You will claim that post.

On the flip side, posting anonymously can be used for a variety of purposes. If you are wanting to protect your privacy, posting as an anonymous user helps that. This would provide opportunity to say things that you do not mean though. It can also be useful for some ranking officials to see what people think without creating an official presence.

For myself, it is a learning experience for me. I look back on my posts and see some that I am not proud of years back. Again, that just adds to learning from my mistakes.

As for internet privacy, I am willing to stand up for myself. Anyone can look my name with a CAP tag and find pages of stuff regarding CAP, education, and community work. It both adds to my resume, but also makes me responsible for my actions.

[Chappie]

I have chosen to use a pseudonymn due to the desire that I want to be able to post without people thinking I might be speaking in an official capacity since I have served on command staffs at both Wing and Region level.  I know Ned Lee can post and not be accused of that .... I know Ned Lee .... but I'm no Ned Lee

Though I have chosen to use the veil of anonymity...many of the CAPTalkers know who I am.  And as stated by other posters, in my time on CAPTalk, I have not used that veil to violate the principles found in the Core Values of CAP. 

[Eclipse]

I know Ned Lee can post and not be accused of that .... I know Ned Lee .... but I'm no Ned Lee

When Chuck Norris posts on CAP Talk, his handle is "Ned Lee"...

[dwb]

Wow, I go away for a few days and my thread from four years ago comes back from the dead!

For those wondering, I still hold the same opinion on this topic.  The only difference is that my name is in my sig now.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Most of the hits on my name lead to CAP News or CAP based forums. I'm fine with that. I think the stories that have included my name would bring credit to it when it comes to people like employers looking it up.

[Smithsonia]

Acting with honor is doing in private what you do in public. Of course this "ol saw" is
a little simplified because we all have personal business, relationships, physical functions
and habits that are meant to be only private. However, if in life, we keep our identity hidden,
if we allow our discretion to be corrupted by our anonymity, then we are not honorable.

Every bank robber in a ski mask is not a skier. How to tell the robbers from the skiers is our question. 

We are all human. Humans make mistakes and humans are, well... human.
Live behind your screen name and you may be human. But, your humanity is tougher to judge.

You may think you can cut a corner on your logic, smear through innuendo,
not edit your thoughts, become snide out of habit. and be smug, arrogant, and foolish.
This is unbecoming. This is a misuse of the anonymous privilege.
When the screen name is a dodge for ownership of your writings, then it is an act of dishonor. 

I never write what I can not sign. I never write what I can not defend. I never
write what I don't believe. By the way don't misconstrue this to mean that I am always right when
I write. Sometimes I write as a reality check. This essay may be one of those times.

So to this point. Some of us have as ethical behavior attach our real names to postings- Some don't.
To the anonymous - don't take liberties. Using the perverse logic of the lazy, this tendency
to shoot from the hip easily creates great and fast mis-judgements.
On both the part of the writer and the reader.

This proclivity can lead to mob mentality as the screen name provides easy and convenient cover.

Personal Responsibility is now the crux of this matter.

In this manner a hooded robe may clothe a holy monk or a KKK member. A Burqa may
cloak a woman for discretion or may allow a terrorist to pass unchallenged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

I am not against anonymity per se'. I am against allowing screen names to be used to dodge
personal responsibility. I am against anything that allows the mitigation of personal responsibility.

I have watched innocent people... and in this I don't mean cadets... but actual
innocents berated and discredited, here.

On Saturday we had an ethical discussion regarding a PAO who's name was attached
to a story. However, he didn't put this story on this website. He was not part of the discussion. He made no
choice. He was an innocent to the discussion. However, there were three anonymous Captalkers who took shots
at him. I think in this context this is a immoral act and appeasement is perverse.

I've seen pictures posted by third parties and gigs about the uniform piled on. This was done while the persons in the picture
have no idea that a discussion about them is taking place. When this is done with your name attached then it is disrespectful. When it is done under a moniker this is immoral and abusive.

A better thing might be to make a choice and post a picture of yourselfand state - "this is how to wear a uniform, whatcha think?" - then wait for the responses. This is an act of a responsible person. We can learn just as much when we act morally. You make a choice. You stand your ground. You are better for it. We all should be better for it. I don't think I've ever seen this particular picture here.

I am always for free speech. I am always for personal responsibility. This discussion is actually about
the balance between these two, at times, divergent virtues. One of the ways to judge any of us is through
our identity. Transparency of identity makes for better thoughts and actions, sometimes - perhaps most of the time.
Certainly not all of the time. However, hiding from personal responsibility is almost always a corrupting influence.

It is the thing that drove HG Wells "Invisible Man" to madness - not the drug he took - but the power of invisibility
he possessed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Man

This cautionary tale is worth considering.

If the internet was the wild west and we all at one time had Pecos Bill, Wild Bill, Billy the Kid,
and Calamity Jane monikers - I ask the question. Is that still the case? Is this forum the proper place
for this continued practice?

My real name is below.

[N Harmon]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

With the right tools, anyone online can be tracked down. When it comes to places like you mention...there's not much you can hide online, since the internet they get is monitored anyway.

[vmstan]

I know Ned Lee can post and not be accused of that .... I know Ned Lee .... but I'm no Ned Lee

When Chuck Norris posts on CAP Talk, his handle is "Ned Lee"...

Actually, Chuck Norris was going to post on CAP Talk, but then he saw Ned Lee, and ran. That's how awesome Ned Lee is.

[Eclipse]

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.

Not a bet I would take, personally, however not remotely the same situation.

[Thunder]

Smithsonia should make fortune-cookie inserts

Acting with honor is doing in private what you do in public.

if in life, we keep our identity hidden,
if we allow our discretion to be corrupted by our anonymity, then we are not honorable.

Every bank robber in a ski mask is not a skier. How to tell the robbers from the skiers is our question. 

Live behind your screen name and you may be human. But, your humanity is tougher to judge.

When the screen name is a dodge for ownership of your writings, then it is an act of dishonor. 

To the anonymous - don't take liberties. Using the perverse logic of the lazy, this tendency
to shoot from the hip easily creates great and fast mis-judgements.

In this manner a hooded robe may clothe a holy monk or a KKK member. A Burqa may
cloak a woman for discretion or may allow a terrorist to pass unchallenged.

It is the thing that drove HG Wells "Invisible Man" to madness - not the drug he took - but the power of invisibility
he possessed. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Which brings me to my second point, and the Core Values tie-in.  Regardless of a person's real identity, rank, and credentials, we should all (as CAP members abiding by our Core Values) treat and be treated with a certain baseline level of Respect.

This is a private board, and the owners/moderators determine what is acceptable to be posted here.  :clap: This website isn't owned or controlled by CAP nor is it CAP policy that allows it to prevail. 

When you or I are wearing a CAP uniform & attending a CAP function or are representing CAP in the community, than surely I would agree to complying with every CAP policy.  Lets not start over extending CAP's (or perhaps some CAP members) "fantasy land" of total member control into discussion groups via some sort of censorship or the threat of 2b action.  CAP is NOT the military, most CAP'ers are NOT real (military) officers, but CIVILIANS who volunteer their time for specific purposes that CAP as an organization accomplishes.  We aren't on duty 24 hours a day, and realistically can voluntarily choose when we want to be on duty on behalf of CAP.

I think screen names are a very good thing since it does offer some privacy.   Gee I still find my legal name on things way back when Al Gore invented the internet and I was naive to the power of a search engine.   It is just amazing to me some of the things that still remain on the internet historically.

BTW all of you can assume that while posting here I'm "off duty" from CAP, and none of this is officially representing the view of CAP but only my personal opinion.   Lets face it some members do some funny things that get in the press, and I will continue to find & publish these.

"OVER & OUT"
RM 

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Sir,
As Level one says, should we not strive to live up to the core values in our every day lives?

BTW... Al Gore didn't invent the internet.

"Despite what he may have said, Al Gore did not invent the Internet. The Internet was invented in the United States  during the late 1950s to the 1970s by a group of researchers and scientists at the newly formed Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) after the former Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Realizing that the United States had suffered a great technological blow by allowing the USSR to hold the first successful satellite launch, ARPA set out to create a brand new technology unlike anything that had ever been done before; and the Internet was the result of their hard work." (Unknown Author) Even Bill gates doesn't try to claim the internet, even though Macintosh was the first company who provided internet capable computers to the public.

[Smithsonia]

I am sure online privacy is a legitimate issue for many of those on this thread. However...

I wonder how many of those claiming their privacy have Myspace/Facebook/Twitter accounts too? So this is a fair if provocative and rhetorical question, I suppose. Rhetorical because I don't expect honest answers to be posted. Provocative because it makes your point untenable. Doesn't it?

I know of two people on this thread living in this personal privacy paradox. Any more?

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know of two people on this thread living in this personal privacy paradox. Any more?

It's not really a paradox.

A SM with the right access can get a lot more data about me than strangers on my facebook can with the settings I use.

That said, my name is all over these forums, I just don't attach it to my signature, but a search on the username is sure to bring it up.

[dwb]

We aren't on duty 24 hours a day, and realistically can voluntarily choose when we want to be on duty on behalf of CAP.

I agree, but that's not the point I was making.

My point was that, regardless of one's anonymity (or CAP rank, if not anonymous), there ought to be a basic level of respect and courtesy.  You are communicating with fellow human beings after all, even if you're doing so on an informal web forum.

It's like the customs & courtesies thing.  Cadets get all wrapped up in the minutia of saluting, titles, rigid hierarchy, etc. and miss the bigger point.  C&C are like manners -- it's something you do because you're supposed to be nice to people.

While we're not "on duty" here, I would also like to think we don't all have a license to be as dishonest, selfish, lazy, and disrespectful as we want, just because the core values don't technically apply right now.  Being a good person is something we should always strive for.

[DakRadz]

I know of two people on this thread living in this personal privacy paradox. Any more?

It's not really a paradox.

A SM with the right access can get a lot more data about me than strangers on my facebook can with the settings I use.

That said, my name is all over these forums, I just don't attach it to my signature, but a search on the username is sure to bring it up.
[/quote]

Agreed with all except I don't put my name on posts. My Facebook is locked down fairly tight.

If a SM really wanted to find me, it's pretty easy. But those who don't have those resources (non-member lurkers... those kicked out... random lurkers...) are the ones I don't like to have my name.

While we're not "on duty" here, I would also like to think we don't all have a license to be as dishonest, selfish, lazy, and disrespectful as we want, just because the core values don't technically apply right now.  Being a good person is something we should always strive for.

Agreed, though I submit that we are never off-duty from the core values.

[Eclipse]

When you or I are wearing a CAP uniform & attending a CAP function or are representing CAP in the community, than surely I would agree to complying with every CAP policy.  Lets not start over extending CAP's (or perhaps some CAP members) "fantasy land" of total member control into discussion groups via some sort of censorship or the threat of 2b action.  CAP is NOT the military, most CAP'ers are NOT real (military) officers, but CIVILIANS who volunteer their time for specific purposes that CAP as an organization accomplishes.  We aren't on duty 24 hours a day, and realistically can voluntarily choose when we want to be on duty on behalf of CAP.

You can pretend that is how it works all you like, however that won't change things if you do or say something which discredits CAP publicly (or worse).  The regs and the oath about behavior are very clear.

[Thunder]

I am sure online privacy is a legitimate issue for many of those on this thread. However...

I wonder how many of those claiming their privacy have Myspace/Facebook/Twitter accounts too? So this is a fair if provocative and rhetorical question, I suppose. Rhetorical because I don't expect honest answers to be posted. Provocative because it makes your point untenable. Doesn't it?

I know of two people on this thread living in this personal privacy paradox. Any more?

We want our privacy to protect us from creepy stalkers like yourself. You need a better hobby than trying to ban the anonymity of the internet. You are literally "sweeping the beach"

Bottom line is, people get to choose who to share their info with. Its perfectly fine to share your personal life with friends and family and not *supposed* CAP members on a message board.

[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.