Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:35:59 -0400
From: cryptik
Subject: Dear Chathamites on Anonymity
Dear Karen Crowell: I fear that you have already decided your conclusions before hearing the information, and therefore are of a sufficiently closed mind that you cannot participate in a logical debate on the subject of anonymity. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Dear Bob Suber: I do identify myself, consistently, under a pseudonym but nonetheless by a name everyone recognizes. There is no “responsibility” involved in that, though. I am here to discuss and argue issues, not try to find names of people so I can retaliate on a personal level. You can call me names all you want…but you clearly can’t refute my points. Your judgment is of zero value, as you are judged not by your name, but by your contribution to the discussion points being tossed about. I don’t know you and I don’t care if your feelings are hurt such that you have to throw an Internet tantrum and call me names. Discuss the points being made, not the clothing on the messenger that brings the message; that’s the only respectable way to handle this.
Dear Jeff: Thank you. It’s always nice to see that someone takes the time to understand the concepts behind freedom and anonymous speech BEFORE blasting off an opinion about them.
Dear Gene: Despite the fact that anonymity allows for pe ople to be more acerbic without fear of in-person retribution, I appreciate that you allow it in the interest of allowing unpopular opinions. It is certainly for the good of the many that those who disagree cannot be shouted down and threatened with real-world injury simply for the discussion of opinions.
Dear Chatham Matters: Thank you as well for adding to the discussion about anonymity and unpopular opinions. The use of pseudonyms by the country’s own founders is certainly interesting.
Dear John Dykers: You are correct; I misspoke when I stated that text carries no intonation. My true intent was to state that text does not carry intonation in the manner that vocal communication does, and especially lacks the visual cues of body language. Text’s intonation is assumed from the choice of words and the experience of the reader, rather than being explicitly perceived as when heard or experienced in person, and that highly subjective portion where the reader must glean intonation based on their experience is where things tend to get quite ugly. I have experienced many stressful communication breakdowns in the past simply due to misread sentences in text messages or emails, where the intent of my words did not strike the “mental ears” of the reader in the way I had intended. Sometimes it’s my fault for choosing words poorly (as this interaction demonstrates) and sometimes they read it differently than I would have expected it to be interpreted.
Dear Whatzup: Try not to be too scathing…your choice of words can detract from your core message, and that’s why people are having a fit. They don’t have a right to not be offended, but that doesn’t mean that you should offend them. Anonymous discourse doesn’t work as well when you make people angry and they pay more attention to presentation than to the arguments contained within.
Dear everyone else: I hope you enjoy the things I contribute to this list. If not, drop complaints to the usual address. Also, feel free to call me out if I’m wrong on anything; it’s more important to me to be factually correct than to be perceived as such. Thanks!