Anijen Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Hi I was using the pseudonymn Anijen for a long time, however I have been considering changing to my real name for some time. rcrocket has had several posts about taking people only serious if they do not use another name. Ten years ago my daughter attracted a stalker on the internet because of that our family went incognito, time has put some space and she is out of the nest so I do not fear for her safety as much now. But, I am not changing for that reason nor from Elder Cooks talk. Many here already know my name so I thought it was just about time. Thanks to the moderators who have helped me do just that. I think I have always been fair in my posting and I have not used anonymity to flame anyone. I am the same poster you have always known me by. So I am happy to reintroduce myself to my MDDB friends. Very nice to meet youJeff aka Anijen
thesometimesaint Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) I prefer everyone stay anonymous. Take your personal security seriously.NemesisI whole heartedly agree. DO NOT EVER put ANYTHING on the internet that you don't want publically known. Edited March 6, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Sky Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 I can appreciate the spirit and intent of Elder Cook’s remarks, but I’m not convinced that posting with your real name is the right thing to do for everybody. And I disagree with the notion that just because a person uses their real name that this automatically makes their posts more worthwhile or puts them on some sort of moral high ground. I think being more civil and polite is something we could all stand to work on, though.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 6, 2012 Author Posted March 6, 2012 And I disagree with the notion that just because a person uses their real name that this automatically makes their posts more worthwhile or puts them on some sort of moral high ground. All other things being equal, it does make them more credible. It is reasonable to assume that a person putting his identity on the line is more apt to be careful with his facts, assertions and rhetoric. Newspaper editors have recognized this for many years; apparently, from the quote in Elder Cook's talk, the management of the New York Times still does.
cinepro Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Considering the great disappointment felt by those who have actually met me IRL, I remain anonymous for the benefit of others. 2
BCSpace Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Once you've read the talk in full, please tell me if and how I've taken something out of context.Have no fear. I am not accusing you of anything. Just wanted to see the whole thing before I passed judgement.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 6, 2012 Author Posted March 6, 2012 Have no fear. I am not accusing you of anything. Just wanted to see the whole thing before I passed judgement.And I don't fault you for being careful. I wish more people would check the context of quotations.I just wanted to make it clear from personal knowledge why in this instance the chance that quotes are not in context is extremely unlikely.
BCSpace Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) I just wanted to make it clear from personal knowledge why in this instance the chance that quotes are not in context is extremely unlikely.Good. The context, btw, of my wanting being careful, was in response to cacheman's post.FYI. Can now watch it. The first mention of masks is in the 18th minute and the idea is now being expounded upon in the 20th minute.24th minute: Very good explanation on how dress standards (missionary) are not just superficial.31st minute: Anonymity vis a vis pornography.33rd minute: Flaming/anonymity regarding online/journalistic attacks.42-44 minute: Obligation to vote in caucuses.Devotional is 53 minutes long. Cook's talk is from the 12th minute to 45th minutehttp://www.lds.org/b...nmdONkYkAiPKoalScott, I believe your context here is impeccable. Edited March 6, 2012 by BCSpace
LDSToronto Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 CFR.LehiDan Peterson and Bob Crockett played a part in outing a young man's online activities to his father. It's a well known story. And well documented on the affectionately named "trailerpark".H.
The Mean Farmer Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 I am now ashamed to revel to you all at MDD that I, The Mean Farmer am NOT a Farmer.Nor am I really mean.I need to call my Bishop.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 I am with Nemesis here. I've mentioned this before in other posts, but my name is so common as to make me effectively anonymous even if I use it. In my semi-rural county alone there are four or five us with this name: Mike Clark. There used to be another one (a member of my ward), but he passed away. I actually gain a degree of distinctiveness by use of my screen name, Stargazer.So I am going to stay "anonymous".LOL!
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Dan Peterson and Bob Crockett played a part in outing a young man's online activities to his father. It's a well known story. And well documented on the affectionately named "trailerpark".H.That's only a fear if you are doing things you shouldn't be on the internet. But of course that could never apply to you. 1
cinepro Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) 31st minute: Anonymity vis a vis pornography.Wait. Those aren't their real names? Next you're going to be tell me that the channel 7 weatherman isn't really named "Dallas Rains." Edited March 7, 2012 by cinepro
LDSToronto Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 That's only a fear if you are doing things you shouldn't be on the internet. But of course that could never apply to you.Does it apply to you? What's your real name?H.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Well at least when I flame people I use my own name. So I guess that gives me an F and an A, so does that average out to a C?How could I make up a name like this one??
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Does it apply to you? What's your real name?H.Harvey Milk
Arkholt Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Seeing as how I'm the only Arkholt on the internet, and I use the handle everywhere, and Googling "Arkholt" will immediately show everything about me, including my real name, I think I'll just stick with Arkholt.
thesometimesaint Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Gohan Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Meh, I'll just stick with Gohan. I think I've posted the link to my Facebook on here before so anyone that wants to know who I am can probably dig that old post up.Besides, the board software automatically censors part of my last name.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 Meh, I'll just stick with Gohan. I think I've posted the link to my Facebook on here before so anyone that wants to know who I am can probably dig that old post up.Besides, the board software automatically censors part of my last name.Then I'm guessing it's D*i*c*kson.
Gohan Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Haha, well those particular four letters are in there, just not that name.
Tepui Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Some institutions try to control it, he said, noting, "For instance, the New York Times won't tolerate comments where there are personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, impersonations, incoherence and shouting.Elder Cook denounced "any use of the Internet to bully, destroy a reputation or place a person in a bad light" and said anonymity makes people more likely to engage in such behavior.But it is ok for the New York Times to use the internet to place a person in a bad light, by posting a ridiculous photograph of former President Gordon B. HinckleyThis is because Laurie Goodstein used her real name? It didn't stop the NYTimes. I'll have to listen to Elder Cook's talk.[apologies. Edited to remove the NYTimes photograph of Pres. Hinckley. No need to display here that bad photograph obviously used by the NYTimes to put the Church in a bad light] Edited March 8, 2012 by Tepui
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 But it is ok for the New York Times to use the internet to place a person in a bad light, by posting a ridiculous photograph of former President Gordon B. HinckleyThis is because Laurie Goodstein used her real name? It didn't stop the NYTimes. I'll have to listen to Elder Cook's talk.[apologies. Edited to remove the NYTimes photograph of Pres. Hinckley. No need to display here that bad photograph obviously used by the NYTimes to put the Church in a bad light]It's not the best, but the photo doesn't particularly bother me. And scanning through the article (I didn't take time to read it thoroughly) I really don't see an intent here to put him in a bad light.
Tepui Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 It's not the best, but the photo doesn't particularly bother me. And scanning through the article (I didn't take time to read it thoroughly) I really don't see an intent here to put him in a bad light.The article was fine. Some facts were wrong, corrections were noted. Yet, the photo bothered me; and with the online resources the church provides to the media, it's a little confusing why the "Professional" NYTimes would use that (AP) photograph. (Well, it's not confusing.) Just my opinion.
Stargazer Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Meh, I'll just stick with Gohan. I think I've posted the link to my Facebook on here before so anyone that wants to know who I am can probably dig that old post up.Besides, the board software automatically censors part of my last name.You must be a D.i.c.k.e.n.s or something like that.
Recommended Posts