No problem - this is an interesting debate topic - neither of us need take anything personally.
Anonymity can indeed lead to impunity, however, if I thought punishment was a likely response to my posts here, I probably just wouldn’t post them - anonymous or otherwise. It’s just a message board.
Anonymity can also help people to speak frankly and in earnest. Pretty sure some embarrassing personal questions have been asked and answered here in the past, that people may not have wanted to ask if their full real-life identity were to be directly attached.
For me though, it’s mostly about containment of activity. I may or may not get very involved in a debate on the SDMB, but I dont really want to have to continue those debates on my doorstep, over the phone, at work and by mail. Its really just a convenience - and I’m sure anyone sufficiently determined could quite easily penetrate this fairly trivial layer of anonymity - but the point is that in doing so, they would quite clearly be stepping outside of an acceptable boundary - and this transgression would then be the only topic on the table.
Headhunters/recruiters internet checks.
Like the one they’re gonna make on you and realize you cant write *nom de plume * properly.
I know only only person on the Dope who use(d) his real name. And I wouldnt want to be in his shoes if some prospective employer checked on the Dope with his name.
My first thought was actually that it’s someone who read the thread “Cecil isn’t real!!!” and is wanting to show how ridiculous getting so upset about that is by offering an easily toppled strawman.
Do I understand you to mean that, Because Cecil Adams uses his IRL name, we should follow that example?
I may be on the point of discovering a flaw in this argument…
One thing about fighting ignorance, it should matter what is written, not who writes it.
Excluding the Perfect Master, of course, is something any less hogwash if a well known person wrote it? Is an intelligent argument any less intelligent when a person you never heard of before wrote it?
In fact, some highly technical conferences have a policy of removing the names of authors before the papers are sent to review to eliminate the halo effect - giving a well known writer the benefit of the doubt.
Since we have no way of proving our credentials here, we must do so from scratch.
…used the same pseudonym for fifteen years now on t’interwebz, since day one, and i bet i’m not the only one. i suggest it makes me accountable in some small way for what i say…
For me, I always use my real name unless it is technically impossible (a one-short-word ID is required), there is an overwhelming culture of “handles” (in which case I usually come as close as I can to “Willmore the Rover”, or I am using some sort of ex-officio account (like “webmaster”).
As to Cecil, assuming that it is a nom du clavier (which is not proven) the motive is easy to determine, to wit, the Chicago Reader wishes a name that they control, like “Franklin W. Dixon”, “Ann Landers”, or “Edith Van Dyne”.
Well, either that, or he’s just concealing the fact that he’s Queen Elizabeth’s love child with Walt Disney, and the father, incestuously, of Her Majesty’s natural daughter, J. K. Rowling, his real name being George W. Bush.
More pedantry, IIRC, “nom de plume” is really an franglicism for “nom de guerre” – I’ve never heard it said in French, although “plume” is certainly used metonymically for writer/writing. Cf. Michaux’s Plume (book of poems).
Doesn’t discount its currency and correctness in English, though. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Cecil is currently incarnated in Ed Zotti, but has previously had other bodies, a lot like the Buddha. Also he’s wise.
I use a pseudonym on the Internet because I believe argument and opinion should stand up by itself. The way to disagree, or otherwise interact with words, is with words only.
Posting my real name brings the risk of some nutjob coming round to smack my head in, or the cops stealing my freedom, or some other thing. Not LIKELY, but POSSIBLE, and that’s enough to bother me. I’m happy for anyone to say whatever they like to me on the Internet, but to bring Internet arguments into real life is to take things away from the realm of philosophy, and into the realms of pugilism and imprisonment. Not that I spend all day starting fights and breaking laws, but if I wanted to, I could, and I value that.
Also I’ve been on the net for 16 years, so it’s a bit of an old-fashioned Internet attitude in the days of Facebook and reality-TV where people are desperate to get their names in any sort of light. But privacy has lots and lots of advantages, in ways I’ve thought of and not yet thought of.
But in Cecil’s case, as I said, it’s like the Dalai Lama. He appears in mortal form, but his true nature is transcendental.
That’s not true. Anything that anyone writes, is the property of that person, under Copyright law. Unless of course they sell their copyright, or give it away. A site owner may have copyright on the collection, the actual grouping of the articles in their particular order, but the content of things posted on websites is owned by the writer.
In most countries at least. The USA is a bit behind in copyright law, until recently requiring explicit registration. In Europe as soon as your pen touches the paper, if you can prove you wrote it, it’s yours. Tho of course sites have their terms and conditions, cases on “click to agree”-type contracts have proved that a lot of these aren’t enforcable. Simply clicking “ok” on a box of text, is not the same as signing a contract.
Tho in practical terms, until a court decides on your case one way or the other, none of it matters anyway, and most people don’t ever go that far. Tho the DMCA brings the exception to this pragmatic rule. DMCA requests CAN have legal weight WITHOUT any court or trial decisions before they’re issued. Have I mentioned recently the world’s going to the dogs?
I think his point was that anything posted in one place on the internet can be copied, edited by another into gibberish, and then reposted elsewhere attributed to the original author, making it sound as though the original author said the opposite of what they did, or whatever.
Of course, they can also completely make up random things and attribute them to anyone they want as well.
You can do a google search on my name and all you’ll get is pages and pages about a professional hockey player who happens to have the same name as me.
Thing is, given names are not unique identifiers. Multiple people can have the same name, and the same person can have multiple names. This makes it impossible to simply use someone’s name as their username on a messageboard, or at a bank, or at the DMV, or at the social security office.
Surely you’re familiar with the scene in Julius Caesar where the mob beats Cinna the poet to death, confusing him with Cinna the conspirator? I’d hate to have that poor hockey player have to answer for all the crap I say here, conversely I’d hate to have to explain to my boss all the roughing penalties he’s racked up.
There is an Indian name, Mahalingam, though. As a friend explained it to me: “Think Shiva’s lingam and the difference between a common or garden raja and a maharaja”.
