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