|
Post by prove it on Nov 13, 2007 19:29:09 GMT -5
Those that allow anyone to see their email address, do not hide their real name and address You're wrong. An e-mail address can be just as anonymous as anything else. Revealing an e-mail address means nothing. Anyone can sign up for a free e-mail address and provide false identification information, including a fake name, address, birth-date, etc. Few? How about you! Why haven't you revealed your exact location here. What's your exact home and work address? I know someone who avoids this board because of threats he received in private after someone figured out who he was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2007 19:37:52 GMT -5
icy blue hearts crystalline, frozen embers of tears turned to fire burned out timeless eons ago waiting for death's life
icyyou 2007
|
|
village eyedeetentee
Guest
|
Post by village eyedeetentee on Nov 13, 2007 22:09:28 GMT -5
Where's that 'Original' poster when ya need 'im? That person who chases Ran around asking him why he can't be original. Looks like Ran just created something original. Put it in your calendar, Original.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 14, 2007 13:45:06 GMT -5
You're wrong. An e-mail address can be just as anonymous as anything else.
An email address CAN be anonymous, but it at least proveds a possibility of traceability more than total anonymity. That its not foolproof does not invalidate my comment.
Revealing an e-mail address means nothing. Anyone can sign up for a free e-mail address and provide false identification information, including a fake name, address, birth-date, etc.
Thats true they can. Doesn't invalidate my comment.
Few? How about you! Why haven't you revealed your exact location here. What's your exact home and work address?
I have done if you want to know it. If you cant find your way around the system, email me and I'll give it to you.
I know someone who avoids this board because of threats he received in private after someone figured out who he was.
Its quite possible to use a varity of filters to avoid this problem. My email address is quite public, but most junk if filtered quite successfully.
My comments stand
|
|
|
Post by gem on Nov 14, 2007 14:03:08 GMT -5
To geoff...you said that "research in several places have recently shown that anonymous posting to boards cannot be trusted..." I am wondering..what were your sources for this "info"?
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Nov 14, 2007 15:52:35 GMT -5
All of it bugs me. Here, the chat room, anywhere. (and I don't mean peoples' right to be anon...I just mean it bugs me personally...the following aspect of it) If you are trying to forge a relationship with someone (and I just mean strictly *friendship!* before that gets confused!) it is very VERY difficult to do that on the Internet. Depending on the person you are dealing with and what his/her personality or way of doing things is...you could be talking to one person with ten different IDs and be naive enough to think that they are all different people (if you're like me. Some people are easy to spot--others are not.), you could talk to 10 actual different people who just lie about most of what they say to you, or you might get lucky and be talking to one person who is mostly honest. I hate getting to know people a bit and then not knowing if I'm talking to him/her again under a different name a day or two later. I know it happens every day and if we knew how much we would probably feel like fools a lot! (well, I would.) Sometimes, although I participate a few places and enjoy it, I think the Internet is just more emotional trouble than it's worth. M.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 14, 2007 16:00:42 GMT -5
To geoff...you said that "research in several places have recently shown that anonymous posting to boards cannot be trusted..." I am wondering..what were your sources for this "info"? Sources: BBC ITV Times on line and UPI
|
|
More specific please
Guest
|
Post by More specific please on Nov 14, 2007 18:08:24 GMT -5
To geoff...you said that "research in several places have recently shown that anonymous posting to boards cannot be trusted..." I am wondering..what were your sources for this "info"? Sources: BBC ITV Times on line and UPI Could you be a little more specific please. I have searched the sources you provided and have found nothing to support your claims.
|
|
|
Post by Wow on Nov 14, 2007 18:53:10 GMT -5
Well blow me down. A big man afraid of a little creepy crawley ;D
|
|
|
Post by gem on Nov 14, 2007 19:03:23 GMT -5
:)Yes....geoff could you please be more specific? Like I stated earlier.. I always post under gem..and I chose to remain anonymous at this time..I am curious why do you keep forcing the issue?
|
|
|
Post by Original on Nov 14, 2007 21:34:35 GMT -5
Where's that 'Original' poster when ya need 'im? That person who chases Ran around asking him why he can't be original. Looks like Ran just created something original. Put it in your calendar, Original. I fail to see a post by ranman. Or you saying that icyyou is ranman. And you know this because...
|
|
|
Post by gem on Nov 14, 2007 21:47:32 GMT -5
I don't think geoff can be more specific because he doesn't have any sources to back up what he says...
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 15, 2007 2:44:20 GMT -5
To "gem" You posted at 3 minutes past midnight (my time, GMT) asking for specific references. Then at 02:47 (GMT) you accuse me of not having any sources. presumably because I didn't reply to your accusation in the middle of my night. I was asleep. Now I'm replying in the middle of your night. I don't expect a reply for about 5 hours or so at best. I'm guessing you're in either north or south america by the time of your posting. I certainly won't come back in a couple of hours further into your sleep and accuse you of lack of response. In fact i don't expect any. Of course it could be two different people posting under the same unregistered name, and it could also be that neither of those two are you. I'll never know under this anonymous regime. Nor will anyone except you (and perhaps the admin if she bothers to check) But to answer your question, - I was originally asked where the info came from, and answered. Now I'm asked to be more specific. And I will. What have I failed in that you accuse me? I didn't keep the references that I originally read. They were all online. There was another that I could not remember, a Herald newspaper in USA. But to show that its not hard to find such references, I did the exercise again, using techniques that anyone could employ if they really wanted to find out. Using Google, I found these... www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article2788870.ece (this one very good) parkerpeters.livejournal.com/www.usenet.com/articles/anonymous_posting.htmwww.danwei.org/media_regulation/xiamen_to_kill_off_anonymous_p.phpwww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.htmlwww.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/new-jersey-lawmaker-peter-j-biondi-wants-outlaw-anonymous-speech-internetgallery.menalto.com/node/46843news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,2071090,00.htm cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5385I think thats enough.
|
|
|
Post by gem on Nov 15, 2007 10:10:21 GMT -5
thanks for the info geoff...... geoff: ' OF COURSE IT COULD BE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE POSTING UNDER THE SAME UNREGISTERED NAME, AND IT COULD ALSO BE THAT NEITHER OF THOSE ARE YOU.I'LL NEVER KNOW UNDER THE ANONYMOUS REGIME.NOR WILL ANYYONE EXCEPT YOU (AND THE ADM. IF SHE BOTHERS TO CHECK) Sorry to disappoint you but it is one and the same poster :gem And the administrator has my permission to check my address if she cares ..and really why would she? she will find its the same one each time.. by the way what's your weather like in Scotland?
|
|
|
Post by gem on Nov 15, 2007 10:14:35 GMT -5
one last comment geoff and then I am done discussing this issue with you...yes I am from North America..specifically the United States...and here in the states we have freedom of choice! have a great day
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 15, 2007 10:44:17 GMT -5
Gem Good to know that its you. In Scotland we also have freedom of choice in most things.
Weather report: High pressure ridge making settled conditions, mostly overcast but little rain. Cool at about 6deg C this morning, after -4C on Tuesday. Outlook for weekend: Rain, max 4C.
|
|
|
Post by gem on Nov 15, 2007 10:58:22 GMT -5
:)Thanks...have you ever been to the states? Scotland is a beautiful country.....
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 15, 2007 11:15:10 GMT -5
:)Thanks...have you ever been to the states? Scotland is a beautiful country..... Yes, spent 2 months in Oregon some years back, was working there. (Eugene - Springfield area). Other than that, only airport stopovers passing through. USA is also a beautiful country. Most countries have some really beautiful parts, often going unacknowledged by the locals.
|
|
|
Post by perhaps s on Nov 15, 2007 13:18:08 GMT -5
I totally disagree with the ''implication'' given by your sources that only ''registered '' users are ''honest'' thus implying unregistered users are dishonest. That seems to be what the information implies. But, we all know that all men are liars in some form or another, sure when we are forced to a degree of accountability, we are certainly held to the standard we embrace....YET, YET......there are no registered members[posts], on this board, that I believe or trust, any more than the many anonymous posts that I have read. Bottom line is that if a person is incapable of discerning what the truth is, and what truly is ''hogwash'' ....then their personal gullibility is the direct fault of their own intelligenceNOW NOW please do not take my word for it, wait for some ''intelligent'' registered poster, to slam my post, too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by perhap s on Nov 15, 2007 13:21:09 GMT -5
I totally disagree with the ''implication'' given by your sources that only ''registered '' users are ''honest'' thus implying unregistered users are dishonest. That seems to be what the information implies. But, we all know that all men are liars in some form or another, sure when we are forced to a degree of accountability, we are certainly held to the standard we embrace....YET, YET......there are no registered members[posts], on this board, that I believe or trust, any more than the many anonymous posts that I have read. Bottom line is that if a person is incapable of discerning what the truth is, and what truly is ''hogwash'' ....then their personal gullibility is the direct fault of their own intelligenceNOW NOW please do not take my word for it, wait for some ''intelligent'' ''HONEST'' registered poster, to slam my post, too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 15, 2007 13:59:29 GMT -5
Howdy, In regards to: NOW NOW please do not take my word for it, wait for some ''intelligent'' ''HONEST'' registered poster, to slam my post, too. Dang it!!!! Why did you have to put the word intelligent in that sentence? Now I can't slam you like a wrestler at the state fair.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by only one on Nov 16, 2007 10:01:25 GMT -5
Howdy, In regards to: NOW NOW please do not take my word for it, wait for some ''HONEST'' registered poster, to slam my post. Now I can't slam you like a wrestler at the state fair.... Scott Do not put your trust in princes.all men are liars, too?
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Nov 16, 2007 17:01:34 GMT -5
Bottom line is that if a person is incapable of discerning what the truth is, and what truly is ''hogwash'' ....then their personal gullibility is the direct fault of their own intelligence
This is not necessarily true at all. I am a very trusting person by nature, but I have learned to be more sceptical, thanks to the Internet.
If "you" put out a very convincing story, and one which I would otherwise (but that it's on the Internet!" have no reason to doubt--and I believe you--I don't think that makes me gullible--it just makes "you" a liar.
If we didn't choose to believe what we read here to *some* degree, how would we ever have any discussion about it? (As far as what each person's views really are, etc....)
That's how I see it anyway.
(Obviously, I was using generic "you" there)
|
|
|
Post by m gullible 2 on Nov 17, 2007 12:01:31 GMT -5
Bottom line is that if a person is incapable of discerning what the truth is, and what truly is ''hogwash'' ....then their personal gullibility is the direct fault of their own intelligenceThis is not necessarily true at all. I am a very trusting person by nature, but I have learned to be more sceptical, thanks to the Internet. If "you" put out a very convincing story, and one which I would otherwise (but that it's on the Internet!" have no reason to doubt--and I believe you--I don't think that makes me gullible--it just makes "you" a liar. If we didn't choose to believe what we read here to *some* degree, how would we ever have any discussion about it? (As far as what each person's views really are, etc....) So how else do YOU define ''gullibility''??
It seems obvious to me that the more intelligent one strives to become, the less ''gullible'' they are, or am I missing my marbles some place?
I am not saying that i am invincible to being deceived by con artists, but I am prepared to raise an analysis sufficient to make a wise conclusion of the matter....[[as , Solomon discerning who the real mother was of the disputed child]]
|
|