X-Message-Number: 26844 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:16:14 -0600 From: Subject: Anonymity and the Wakfers Above in today's digest, Kitty Wakfer writes: >Since anonymity is inconsistent with the free flow of necessary evaluative >information, it is impossible for it to be " used correctly". Since Kitty and Paul have made it clear in the past that they share all of each other's opinions, I am wondering how Paul justified going under the pseudonym "Tom Matthews" up to 3 years ago. Or is this above-quoted philosophy merely a more recent "enlightenment"? Or perhaps some would rather instead of using a name such as "Flavonoid," I pick some pen name such as "Abigail Stuart". Would that be more pleasing to the mental palate, hm.. Another thought that occurred to me is that two people taking the same last name, seems to somewhat diminish whatever value may be present in non-anonymity. Changing one's last name is a great way to hide, even if one puts the old one in the middle. Aside from all the above, let's talk about what value there is in knowing who says something. Some information is best presented just as it is. If the presenter's identity is known to some readers, those readers may place their own prejudicial slants on what is said, by their memories of other things the presenter has said. They may not take the information at face value, and analyze it totally objectively. If the Wakfers or anyone else think that information presented is only as valid as "who" presents it, they are entitled, of course, to their opinion, but their opinion is hogwash to anyone with a bit of brain. It is the argumentum ad hominem in reverse ("information is no good if the messenger is not deemed worthy"). Let's look at it from the other angle. Is it logically valid to give any more weight to information presented by a "known, reliable source"? Well, maybe if one is dealing in probabilities, but certainly not if one is dealing in confirming and verifying the validity of information. If assessing probability, the reputation of the speaker of the information should be given a very low weight if any at all. Well, as "Flavonoid," I guess I had to weigh in here at some point. Here it is. As to "Numberman," the reason for all this hoopla, he (I say "he" due to the "man" on the end) presented some valuable information. I just wish he would stop using the open privilege of this forum to keep repeating himself over and over when the information and resources presented are already present. It would be a kind and respectful thing, and contribute to the positive emotional acceptance of us anonymous contributors. And to the Wakfers: I have observed some of your prior exchange of discussion, and noted that your end tends to be verbose, almost to the point of filibustering. I will reply only to carefully-worded, succinct statements, if you have any to make. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26844