Quoted from brian

I don't think it is right that you should call him Phil. Correct or not, you should respect his anonymity.

Quite right. It's Loser23.  

Quoted from brian

I don't think it is right that you should call him Phil. Correct or not, you should respect his anonymity.

I quite agree. RG is doing himself no favours by trying to make public a forum member's identity. I wonder if this is an approved Labour Party tactic for dealing with those you don't agree with, or if it's just a personal vendetta.

Quoted from brian

I don't think it is right that you should call him Phil. Correct or not, you should respect his anonymity.

Interesting comment. Does he have any anonynity?

It seems odd that the pretence of not knowing who User23 is and what he does continues.

Quoted from massifheed

I quite agree. RG is doing himself no favours by trying to make public a forum member's identity. I wonder if this is an approved Labour Party tactic for dealing with those you don't agree with, or if it's just a personal vendetta.

Viewing the interaction between them, it seems that User23 can attack RG personally (is this a vendetta?) whilst the pretend anonymity User23 uses a shield means that any personal points are deflected.
I don't think either of them are doing themselves or the organisations they represent any credibility with these tactics.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I don't think either of them are doing themselves or the organisations they represent any credibility with these tactics.

Absolutely agree. But I don't ever remember reading a post where User has confirmed either his real name or his occupation. If I were to disagree as bluntly with RG as User does, would it be right for RG to try and reveal my real name and occupation?

Richard can, up to point, post what he wants.

User can, up to a point, post what he / she wants.

It's up to Admin to delete / censor / edit posts.

Admins house - Admins rules. If he's happy for the names to be up then so be it.


Threep.

Quoted from massifheed

Absolutely agree. But I don't ever remember reading a post where User has confirmed either his real name or his occupation. If I were to disagree as bluntly with RG as User does, would it be right for RG to try and reveal my real name and occupation?

My suspicion is that if he isn't the person at WBC that has been named by several posters, the real person would have disagreed publicly by now. I wouldn't want my name associated with some the remarks User23 has made.
It seems to me that User gets what he deserves on this thread. He has at times wanted to know various posters personal details. This along with his occasional aggression and at times insults make him, as far as I am concerned, fair game for anyone who wants to name him.  

Quoted from Threepwood

Admins house - Admins rules. If he's happy for the names to be up then so be it.

Quite. But, any intervention by Admin aside, my point is rather that even though you can do something, should you?

It's clear that BrianB/Admin are hardly best mates with User, so they're probably not going to care less whether RG reveals who he thinks User is or not. So I would have hoped for a bit more restraint from RG, instead of letting User get him worked up enough to resort to trying to "out" him. What purpose does it serve anyway?

Quoted from massifheed

Quite. But, any intervention by Admin aside, my point is rather that even though you can do something, should you?

It's clear that BrianB/Admin are hardly best mates with User, so they're probably not going to care less whether RG reveals who he thinks User is or not. So I would have hoped for a bit more restraint from RG, instead of letting User get him worked up enough to resort to trying to "out" him. What purpose does it serve anyway?

Sorry guys, but it wasn't me who outed him originally. Yes, I've mentioned his names a few times, but not until some pretty nasty stuff he wrote about be that was untrue and unfounded. Anyway, I've apologised to User23 and when I do call him "Phil" it's usually meant in a jokey way to get him to reply on something. If he finds it offensive, I'm sure he would let me know and I'd happily apologise and stop it.

Quoted from Bartholomew

It seems to me that User gets what he deserves on this thread.

I don't particularly disagree with that. But I do think that trying to disclose someone's identity crosses a line. If it's ok just because it's User23, and he get's people's backs up, then where does it become not ok to name other otherwise annonymous forum users?

Obviously, as Threep said, it's Admin's house and Admin's rules, and I do find those that bang on about free speech on what are essentially private forums tiresome. But as I've said previously, what's to stop RG (or anyone) trying to disclose my (or anyone else's) real name and occupation should he/they wish to do so?

There's simply no need for it, in my opinion.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Yes, I've mentioned his names a few times, but not until some pretty nasty stuff he wrote about be that was untrue and unfounded. Anyway, I've apologised to User23 and when I do call him "Phil" it's usually meant in a jokey way to get him to reply on something. If he finds it offensive, I'm sure he would let me know and I'd happily apologise and stop it.

Point taken.

Quoted from Bartholomew

Viewing the interaction between them, it seems that User23 can attack RG personally (is this a vendetta?) whilst the pretend anonymity User23 uses a shield means that any personal points are deflected.
I don't think either of them are doing themselves or the organisations they represent any credibility with these tactics.

I think you're being mischievous here.

I've never said who I am and the views that I post here don't represent any of the organisations I do work for, all opinions are my own.

One way to kill a forum off is to 'Out' some of the members that post.  If that was such an important part then you should be asked to register using your own name as a membership rule from the outset.  Richard has chosen to register in his own name... I'd rather hide behind my PC and post anonimusly anonomuesli without using my name....

If the membership rules change do let us know, so we can delete and move on to doing something more important with our time...

We have always had a fairly harmless tradition of pseudonyms in print. Private Eye (for example) has it's literary gossip 'Bookworm', it's architecture  critic 'Politi', farming expert 'Muckspreader' and it's parliamentary scribe 'Gavel Basher'.

Bernard Levin wrote for the Spectator as 'Taper' (although the work was so good it was pretty obviously Levin). Colin Welch and Michael Wharton wrote as 'Peter Simple' for the Telegraph, not only allowing them greater creativity but also meaning they could take days off without the knowledge of their manager.

More elevated were the noms de plume 'George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) and 'George Orwell' (Eric Blair). From there you can get to 'Q' (Sir Arthur Quiller-Crouch), and 'Saki' (H.H. Munro). Need I mention Harry Webb, Reg Dwight, Marion Morrison etc etc...

Pseudonymity is, clearly, an acceptable and maybe even a noble condition. Sometimes it has permitted a writer to step outside unreasonable social restraints, particularly in the days when women were not 'meant' to publish their works. Sometimes it has allowed a contracted writer to work elsewhere in order to get the (his) message out.  Columns such as 'Mandrake' in the Telegraph and 'Blackdog' in the Hate on Sunday can be more outspoken and upset powerful figures without losing their sources or getting the journalist writer a P.45.

There is an old joke "who is the most prolific poet in the English language"?..........answer "Anon"

'Anon' may be  anyone from a lowly paid member of a P.R. firm posting great reviews of a stinker of a stage play, right through to a professional rebutter, or a full time lobbyist, maybe in the pay of the tobacco industry, the State if Israel, Monsanto, or even the local council. Certainly 'Anon' is rarely proud of what he / she / they do. But hey, it's a job right?

The possible outing of an 'Anon' is neither here nor there. Freedom of speech should not be reserved only for those with names.

But, Marshall Mcluhan said "the medium is the message" so it is with User's posts. They often defend the indefensible and obfuscate the real story. Now, whether that's his job or not is up to his employers. Had he given out sensitive information or the REAL story then outing him would cause problems, but if he truly was on the side of the Angels then I doubt he'd have been outed in the first place.

As you sow, so ye shall reap. Posting under a false name is a long standing tradition and in some ways a safety device, however, if you get personal and someone then sneaks up behind you and pulls yer pants down, you must expect to hear big laughs. Goes with the territory.

A better game to play would be to try and work out his other identities on this forum and in the other place.


Threep.

Quoted from massifheed

I don't particularly disagree with that. But I do think that trying to disclose someone's identity crosses a line. If it's ok just because it's User23, and he get's people's backs up, then where does it become not ok to name other otherwise annonymous forum users?

.....

I think the issue is when you consistently try and back up the organisation you work for and discredit those who speak against it.

If there was someone on here talking about Vodafone, backing them up and discrediting those that made valid points against its business decisions, I would want to see the "outed" if they were a Vodafone employee!

Just general comments that two other council employees (by their own admission) make, deserves protection of the anonymity!