Anonymous Postings

[opop]

I read the criticisms regarding anonymous postings on this website and wonder why this practice is wrong. I can’t speak for other anonymous posters or users of pseudonyms on this site, but I represent my employer 24/7/365. I do not wish to have my personal leanings on any issue attributable to me because they can be used to suit anyone’s purpose for or against me or my employer. My employer takes the stand that every utterance, either positive or negative, can be interpreted to be their official position. I think it is wonderful that some posters use their actual names and are proud to point it out every chance they get, as if that makes them more truthful and credible. I think it is even more wonderful that their employers don’t seem to mind either. However, everything that is stated in written form becomes a matter of retrievable record and, no matter if it’s right or wrong, it can be misused, taken out of context or interpreted by some to be the position of that person’s employer. Even the most innocuous of statements can be used against you or your employer if the person reading them has an agenda to push. It happens all the time.

If you don’t like the anonymous person’s posted opinion don’t lend it credibility by responding. A recent reply by Mr. McKie to an anonymous post began with the following statement: “As a general point I would appeal to all contributors to do so in their own name or at least have their identity known to the moderator of this site. I feel anonymous posts devalue the strength of debate and allow unsubstantiated claims, accusations and insults to be made. I have always identified myself and provided contact information for replies.” Mr. McKie is to be congratulated for his stance. Why he would then go on to respond is beyond me. It does nothing. Absolutely nothing. No one’s opinion is changed, no epiphanies occur, no judicial reviews happen. Nothing happens.

Mr. Wertheim repeatedly states as follows: “As I have stated before, I make it a practice not to respond to anonymous critics.” “I avoid addressing these anonymous slanderers directly.” “I have avoided getting involved in spitting contests with people who intentionally distort the truth and even stretch it beyond the breaking point, but some of the lies told by three anonymous employees or supporters of the SCRO cry out for response.” Mr. Wertheim goes on to respond to the anonymous posters he seemingly despises an additional four times . That’s seven responses to anonymous posters he “makes it a practice not to respond to.” To what end? He only solidifies the opinions people have of him, either positive or negative. He’s either the savior of the science of fingerprints or a self aggrandizing, pompous #$$@. Either way, no one’s opinion of him is changed.

All I’m asking is please don’t pigeon hole those of us who decide to post anonymously or under a pseudonym. There are other reasons to do so than to “devalue the strength of debate and allow unsubstantiated claims, accusations and insults…” Some of us simply wish to contribute anonymously as a matter of circumspection. In closing, for those of you who feel the need to respond, please re-read my message. 8)

[Free Thought]

I agree whole heartedly. I have always been neutral on this topic until recently I have seen just how silly adults can be over a few written words and twisting them to prove their point. I have even seen an attorney bring a stack of these posts into court. You can bet I won't be using my real name.

However, I urge everyone to stay professional with their anonymous posts (or their named posts for that matter). It does make for better reading.

[Charles Parker]

ANYONE NOT WANTING TO READ A BUNCH OF DRIVEL, DO NOT READ THIS POST.

Dear opop:

I generally do not have a problem with anonymous postings. I care more of what the posting is all about than who sends it. Unless the anonymous name is something silly like “Red Finger of Death” or “Black Widow”. Those I have a tendency to not even read.

I understand why some would post anonymously. It gives someone a little more freedom to poke and prod the cracks and crevices of the topic without having to be too concerned with the Black Guard sending you an e-mail saying to back off because you are rocking the foundation or someone tells you not to go there as attorneys might be listening. I personally am not afraid of the Black Guard or not getting invited to somewhere important. (I stole that last part from someone—Mikey I like it).

Another reason to post anonymously is that there are some pretty sharp, quick-witted people that could talk the bark off of a cedar post that monitor this site. If you use your name and wake one of them up with something they have an agenda on, you might just get sliced and diced. Some can be cold and cruel in a very sly way. If you use your name, you got to be cool

I was cold and cruel a couple of times, and I felt bad. Those people just did not believe as I believe. But hey, just like “My Name Is Earl”, I am trying to treat everyone nice now while I try to find Karma.

But sometimes a posting will come on, and I just want to sign up as “John Stosel” and say “Give Me A Break”.

Sorry to hear you are working 24/7/365. I hope you get paid 24/7/365. With my agency as long as I do not talk cases, about them, God, country, or mom’s apple pie, they could care less. They have this concept about ideas and exchange of information that is refreshing. As long as it does not get bawdy (I forgot that one).

Dear Free Thought: (That is strange that someone posts anonymously with the title of Free Thought------Kind of hollow, or weird someway----Can’t quite put my finger on it.)

Anyway, could you possibly tell me what state that attorney is bringing a stack of these into court on? I would imagine that would be difficult to even use them. Perhaps one of the attorneys monitoring this site could give me some insight on how that would be done. I am sure it probably could be done, but I would think there would be a bunch of objections to it. I would think maybe to impeach a witness. Oh well, I am waiting for that to happen. When it does I will let you know.

Now some of you did not read the sentence at the top and now you are thinking, Parker has lost his mind. He has finally flipped out. Not really. I am in a good mood. I have finished all my Admin and Tech. Reviews. I am ahead of the curve. I feel happy, and when I feel happy I like to write drivel. So thank-you for putting up with me, but it is time to go home and grab the fishing rod and go out to the cement pond and do some fishing while the wife fixes the cornpone and possum grits.

THIS POSTING HAS NO MORAL, CIVIC OR SOCIAL VALUE. THE THOUGHTS ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND NOT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANYONE LIVING OR DEAD.

[Whisler]

Charles, love the disclaimer:
"THIS POSTING HAS NO MORAL, CIVIC OR SOCIAL VALUE. THE THOUGHTS ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND NOT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANYONE LIVING OR DEAD."

I only have a few comments to add to this topic. I want to reaffirm that Yes, some employers do read up on what their employees say (especially about their Department/Company). I recently witnessed this occurrence last week when a SWAT team member at our department made a posting on one of his sites and was later scolded for his comments.

Also, I made a posting a while ago where I illustrated the differences between live scan images, pre-inked pads, and printers ink images. Shortly after that, I started getting phone calls from sales companies. One was upset at the "slander" I had posted.

One should not be afraid to speak their mind, however there are potential consequences for everything.

[L.J.Steele]

Anyway, could you possibly tell me what state that attorney is bringing a stack of these into court on? I would imagine that would be difficult to even use them. Perhaps one of the attorneys monitoring this site could give me some insight on how that would be done. I am sure it probably could be done, but I would think there would be a bunch of objections to it. I would think maybe to impeach a witness.

The first problem would be, of course, authentication. There's no proof of identity on this site. If an attorney sought to impeach with a posting, they could probably only do so if the alleged author acknowledged the posting.

The second problem is that judges and juries aren't stupid. Casual posting to a list-serv or site have relatively little probative value. Unless there's something really germaine in the post, a typical trial judge is going to exclude this sort of thing as an irrelevant waste of time.

Third problem is that postings, like letters, are basically hearsay -- an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. An attorney couldn't use a posting to prove that "Famous Expert" said that "Testifying Expert" is wrong. An attorney might, however, contact Famous Expert and ask him/her about testifying in court in support of a point made in a post.

Detail articles are a different question entirely. I don't use them myself for most pleadings as I deal with judges who don't seem particularly comfortable with, or impressed by, web-based citations and prefer citations to printed journals (even if they will likely never look at the journal). I may refer to Detail articles in articles or talks, but I prefer printed materials where possible.

So, yes, what you say could conceivably come back to bite you, but the odds are not high.

[RL Tavernaro]

opop, et al,
In general I have little problem with anonymous postings, for reasons including some valid points cited previously in this thread. I confess, however, to harboring some discontent in certain instances, such as vituperative personal attacks made against a named poster, while hiding behind a veil of anonymity.

There are also those who exploit their anonymity by posting demonstrably false and misleading information. Left unchallenged, many viewers without other specific knowledge of the subject may actually believe or be influenced by that false information. To that extent, there is a potential for real harm. Those knowledgeable individuals who ordinarily would not respond to many anonymous postings may deem it irresponsible on those occasions to not offer a contrary view.

I do not mean to imply that the above sentiments apply to this thread, however I do have a couple of further comments:

Why he would then go on to respond is beyond me. It does nothing. Absolutely nothing. No one’s opinion is changed, no epiphanies occur, no judicial reviews happen. Nothing happens.

I would disagree with the premise that a rational response would always accomplish nothing to an open mind, or is it suggested that each and every viewer has a closed mind?

I think it is wonderful that some posters use their actual names and are proud to point it out every chance they get, as if that makes them more truthful and credible.

Relative truthfulness may not be in dispute, however their credibility is undeniably enhanced due to personal accountability. That aspect of credibility is notably absent for the anonymous poster.

A post may request help, offer information, or express an opinion or point of view. The nature of a board such as this one also invites comment or challenge to whatever is posted. Along the way, perhaps the universe will be expanded just a little for each of us participating.

[L.J.Steele]

I wouldn't mind anonymous posts if it wasn't being used as a shield for a couple of folks with an axe to grind who like to toss around insults. If one is going to insult somebody, it seems cowardly not to take responsibility for one's words.

If one needs to post anonymously, then at least be polite in one's tone.

[flying monkey]

sycophant \SIK-uh-fuhnt\, noun:
A person who seeks favor by flattering people; a parasite; a toady.

[L.J.Steele]

(Pardon me for indulging in childish tit-for-tat for just a moment, folks...)

Troll - "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to intentionally annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion as their only purpose (see Anonymous Internet posting)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll