On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:11:51 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
>> >>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
>> >
>> >Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses to
>> >you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
>>
>> You have the most amazing gall.
>>
>> You some here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself,
>> and then you have the "chutzpah" to accuse *someone else* of weakness?
>>
>> What a self-referencing ass you are!
>
>I don't follow your logic. How do you know for sure that my name is Jennifer
>Wainwright? How can I be sure that your name is John Carrick?
>
>Perhaps people that use obvious nicknames are being *more* honest than
>people that use realistic-sounding names -- at least you know for sure that
>they are using an alias.
I don't think that you have provided me with much logic to follow.
If someone chooses to participate here *in attack mode* using a name
other than his or her own, he or she is being a coward, but at least
there is no flaunting his or her anonimity at others.
Those who come here using a stupid pseudonym *and savaging others* are
calling attention to themselves though. They are saying, "Look at me!
I can have all of the privileges of using the Canadian political
newgroups to libel public figures and other posters, and I don't have
to take responsibility for what I say."
A proportion of us come here using our correct names. We express our
opinions and stand behind them.
I suppose that you are correct. Some do come here using what looks
like a genuine name, but is not.
That makes them both cowards and liars.
[Please understand...I have no serious problem with anyone coming here
anonymously, so long as he or she is civil and not looking to
assassinate the character of others.]
>I can think of lots of legitimate reasons why someone may want to post under
>a pseudonym.
Really? They are in for a disappointment then, since *everyone* who
posts here can be identified rather easily - I have had a lawyer do
this for me twice, when I was contemplating legal action - any
protection that people think they get from using a name other than
their own here is illusory.
>In any case, isn't it a matter of what they say, rather than who they are?
As I have said here repeatedly, I wish that everyone would use the
newsgroups under his or her correct name. That would surely produce
more thoughtful and responsible posts.
I have also said repeatedly that I have no *strong* objection to
anonymous posts that are civil and not libelous.
It is the "junk-yard dogs" who come here intent upon savaging all
those who don't buy their twisted political values that offend me.
I manage to tell them just how despicable they are from time to time.
Why?
I don't think it would be healthy for them to spout their poison
without decent people contradicting them.
For evil to rule, all that is necessary is for good people to remain
silent.