Anonymity, MediaLine and You

[Tally Atwater]

There's been a breach. A rift, if you will. The veil of anonymity that I simultaneously curse and hold dear on this board has been corrupted. A few on this board have decided that exposing someone's 'real' ID on this board is a correct response when someone they disagree with continues to post his opinion.

To make matters worse, the person they "outted" wasn't even the original poster in question. "Chris Kittinger" had the strength of character to apologize and the empathy to understand that his actions may cause others harm - unintentionally, but harm nonetheless. I salute his integrity.

But the question remains: When did it become OK to "out" anyone on this board - regardless of their opinions? Before some of the threads detailing this overwrought drama were shut down, I expressed some of the following:

I learn a lot of things here. I've changed my mind plenty, and that's due to the people who post here. Anonymity levels the field. Many opinions expressed here would never be heard in a newsroom. This industry already has more than its fair share of 'personalities' - in this forum, principles get a shot at shining through. I like that. But I promise you - if people get the idea that their ability to express themselves without fear of revenge or reprisal is threatened, this whole board will dry up. Quick like.

I have no fear of getting 'outted'; my professional life will not suffer. I just wouldn't post here any longer. I know a few who would be happy with that. But ask yourself this: What if YOU got "outted", and your professional life took a hit? What if someone YOU could learn from got "outted" and could no longer post here?

The threat of exposing real ID's on this board will be the very thing that kills it. And the justification for this outting - that someone was posting the same thing over and over again - is just stupid. There are plenty here that are familiar with a few who have done this, and continue to do this. They're almost as tiresome as those who accuse some of having multiple ID's. I've learned something new since I began my campaign to expose "Dark Lord Rove & his Master Plan" - I simply ignore whatever responses I want. Easy. I don't have to justify, defend or explain anything to anyone. But I certainly don't have the moral right to expose a poster simply because I disagree with him.

OK. Rant over. Any thoughts?

Cheers,

-Tally

PS - Fedora, please check your PMs. Thanks.

[ June 22, 2005, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Tally Atwater ]

[The Fedora]

Thanks Tally,

I hope we can work things out...

As for this whole thing...

As I told Tally, I was not seriously trying to "out" Speedy. I am sorry if anyone got hurt.

[Chris Kittinger]

Good post Tally.

Hopefully a lesson was learned in part because of my irresponsible behavior.

I know I learned how much impact things posted here could have in the real world. And that I should not get so into this thing that I do something that could cause someone real problems, even unintentionally.

[Mr. Rugen]

I post under my real name.

[wxcaster]

I'm sorry but anyone that reveals their identity to anyone on this board is at fault themselves.

[jrat33]

I don't think it's such a big deal to be outed on this board. It makes you take responsibility for your words. Besides, if you're not adult enough to stand by what you say, you probably shouldn't say it. I don't say anything on this board that I wouldn't (or haven't) said to people to their face. Steve Scott posts here regularly, and makes good points. I'm sure several people in my shop and in my market know who I am . I just make sure not to say anything that's going to haunt me. That's why I never, EVER rip people at other shops in my market on this board. It's unprofessional and it could come back to haunt me.

[ June 23, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: jrat33 ]

[Lenticular]

Gotta agree with wxcaster... the only way YOUR anonymity is compromised is if YOU allow it to be.

[Kace]

I'm not exactly anonymous.

[2:30]

the only way YOUR anonymity is compromised is if YOU allow it to be.
Is that true?

[Diggin' Bear]

Originally posted by 2:30:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />the only way YOUR anonymity is compromised is if YOU allow it to be.
Is that true?</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, it pretty much is. It seems to me that if you put so much of your time and energy into proving a point - and this isn't the first time it's happened here - people will want to know why.

One of the first things we all do as humans is ask 'who is this?' 'Why would they advocate something so strongly?'

About a year ago, a poster put up a graphic from their AOL hometown page - and anyone who had the ability and knowledge to right click and look at the properties of that graphic could trace where it came from, and from that, discern the poster's real identity. I jokingly pointed that out and was immediately lambasted by just about everyone, including the person who inadvertantly revealed their own identity.

Somebody else then had some fun at my expense by continuing to push the situation under a series of different handles, making it look like it was me.

Frankly, if you don't live behind a firewall and masking software like Black Ice Defender or any of the Symantec or Panda products, anybody with a reasonable amount of computer knowhow can track a lot of your information down. There should be no expectation of real privacy when you use publicly owned communications pathways.

So, my point is: there a certain level of privacy in anonymous handles, but over time, that expectation of privacy should be adjusted. You shouldn't expect total privacy over time, becuase people DO pay attention to your personal details. People DO pay attention to what you reveal. And in the end, it really doesn't matter. This is just like any other newsroom: you learn who to listen to (read), who to trust, and who to ignore.

In my opinion, this isn't that big of a deal, and I think if you have this same conversation with the owners, Mark in particular, he'd probably agree.

[Up Your Nose With a Rubber Hose]

Originally posted by jrat33:
I don't think it's such a big deal to be outed on this board. It makes you take responsibility for your words. Besides, if you're not adult enough to stand by what you say, you probably shouldn't say it. I don't say anything on this board that I wouldn't (or haven't) said to people to their face. OK, Mr. Big Shot, out yourself. It's not a big deal, right?

[ June 23, 2005, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Up Your Nose With a Rubber Hose ]

[14 GHz]

But ask yourself this: What if YOU got "outted", and your professional life took a hit? What if someone YOU could learn from got "outted" and could no longer post here?
Personally, I don't care. When I post images here, many are hosted on my website, which identifies me. I make no efforts to hide my identity when posting in threads that discuss cities, jobs, experiance, etc.

I don't say anything here that I would be embarrassed to say to someone in person, and I don't have a double standard for whats accecptable in an online forum and the workplace.

[imported_Baby Cakes]

Anyone who would spend that much time searching for clues to someone's identity has a real problem. Sure it could be looked at as a game. But I think it's closer to an unhealthy revenge obsession. And it shows when they get some obvious sick joy out of sharing private information with other people on the board.

Anyone who does that or aids in that should be banned for life.

It's sad that so few here feel strongly about this. I reall plenty jumping for joy when an identity is revealed. They're the sick ones to steer clear of.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally posted by 14 GHz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> But ask yourself this: What if YOU got "outted", and your professional life took a hit? What if someone YOU could learn from got "outted" and could no longer post here?
Personally, I don't care. When I post images here, many are hosted on my website, which identifies me. I make no efforts to hide my identity when posting in threads that discuss cities, jobs, experiance, etc.

I don't say anything here that I would be embarrassed to say to someone in person, and I don't have a double standard for whats accecptable in an online forum and the workplace.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree 14 GHz....I say only what I would be comfortbale saying to someone in person. It took me a few months of posting before I realized that's how it should be, but I find this board works a lot better for me if I treat everyone with complete respect and dignity....as I'd like to be treated.

I have never truly been outed, as I am very much known...especially on the WXLine where we all pretty much know you everyone is. (Haven't figured out who Don Paul is though. ;) ) I have signed my name and given plenty of descriptions of what I have done in my career and where I am currently in many posts. I respect those decent posters who want to remain nameless. I LOATHE some of the anonymous ones who think nothing of taunting and terrorizing and acting like babies...but such is life.

Enjoy your anonymity...those that need it.

Mark (Strzepek) Stephens
KXXV-TV

[s'news]

Originally posted by Diggin' Bear:

About a year ago, a poster put up a graphic from their AOL hometown page - and anyone who had the ability and knowledge to right click and look at the properties of that graphic could trace where it came from, and from that, discern the poster's real identity. I jokingly pointed that out and was immediately lambasted by just about everyone, including the person who inadvertantly revealed their own identity.
If this is the situation I'm thinking of, I believe you did more than just jokingly point it out.

[Chief]

I remember when Diggin' Bear was outted. Despite what he says now, he went nuts. But, I guess it was his own fault.

[kgsl]

I am curious to know if the non-anonymous posters (Mr. Scott, Mr. Steinman, Mr. Pigott) ever get any heat from their workplace for using their real names when posting here.
I think if I started using my real name, my boss would ask me to stop.

[Media Hack]

Hmm... I suppose I'm partly to blame for this "controversy," although I don't believe there's really that much of a controversy. I saw a name from a location that immediately made me think of everyone's favorite rabble rouser, Sir Speedy. That sparked a co-worker to post about it and then I subsequently posted about it. It was amusing to me, nothing more.

It does go to show you how Sir Speedy's selfishness and stuborness may inadvertantly lead to problems for others.

Anonymity on this forum, or any forum, is largely an illusion. If someone really wants to, they can likely discern the identity of anyone.

There's a similar "controversy" going around the blogosphere right now. I suppose it's just a warning for everyone to choose their words carefully... just in case.

[Sultanosurf]

What Baby Cakes said.

Look, site anonymity isn't going to protect you IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME, but it's just malicious behavior to want to track down somebody's ID.

Most people are here for the same shared community that others use when they play internet video games. Most times opinions or takes I have are the same I have at work. But occasionally it's an outlet for opinions and vents that would not be appropriate at work, but fall short of any crime.

I don't know who the heck got outed, (Maybe you need to be more specific as long as it's gone this far) since I'll admit that at some point I stop reading baiting threads with childish namecalling and epithets, but if all this was about Sir Speedy or whoever, it certainly didn't need to lead to anyone's name or profession being revealed.

Hey, they've got a take. Sometimes we may not agree, or think they're annoying. And somebody may be bright enough with the time to do research on why they have that take. But at some point you need to have some SELF RESTRAINT.

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by 14 GHz:
[QUOTE]I don't have a double standard for whats accecptable in an online forum and the workplace.Actually this brings up a good point. Many people who know I post here tell me that they feel like Medialine is a nasty place populated by rude people. I have found many intelligent and insightful people here, and so I disagree.

But we all see how things here can become very heated. Would the stuff that we see here be acceptable under normal "real world" circumstances?

I agree with Tally that the board would be less populated if people had to go by their own identities, and I don't suggest that should ever come about. But if a poster had to go by their own identity then they would have accountability for what they say. And some of the things said here are very hurtful and cruel.

I support everyone who wants to stay anonymous. But being anonymous should not give anyone free reign to be an a$$.

I have made mistakes here, and I have taken ownership of those mistakes. I have made erroneous statements here, and I have admitted my errors and apologized for them. I guess what I am saying is that maybe if we all held ourselves accountable and behaved in a manner that is acceptable in the first place, then no one would care who was who.

I made a huge error by suggesting that Sir Speedy was a certain person. The problem with that was an innocent person was then associated with a poster who many on this board had grown to dislike. This could have been harmful to him, and I didn't take that into account.

Also, I still wouldn't want to do harm to Sir Speedy's real world identity. No matter how annoying he tried to be, it is still just a message board. If I had found out who he really is and "outed" him, then maybe that would have had bad repercussions for him. And no matter how bent out of shape I get over someone's behavior here, I don't want anyone to lose a job or anything of the sort just because they got on my nerves on a message board.

I do not go by another identity on this board. But obviously I have made mistakes here, and been an a$$ myself on several occasions. I am far from perfect, but I do try to remember to treat others with respect. And when I do forget that I own up to it.

Compromising someone's "secret" identity is something that we should not do. Destroying someone's "persona" is something we should not do. I do not advocate that, and I have learned enough from my own errors to see how harmful that sort of thing can be. But the point of my post here is, we should not let the fact that we have a "persona" make us think that rude and hurtful behavior is acceptable. We shouldn't treat people with disrespect just because we can get away with it.

Yes this board is more entertaining because of some of the strong characters that post here. No I don't want for the flavor of the board to go away. I don't want Dyckerson to all the sudden start being nice, but I know that Dyckerson is a satire meant to be over the top. To me Dyckerson is funny, to others he is not. But do we really want a board where everyone thinks it is okay to act like the person that The Mighty Dyckerson is satirizing?

Maybe I am being to Rodney King, but would it be a bad thing if everyone on this board were conscientious of how their actions affected others?

[14 GHz]

Back when I first started posting here the board had no registration requirement. People could come in and reply to any post with any name they just create. I think the mods went to a registration-only forum to try and get people to be responsible for what they spew, but it obviously hasn't worked so well. Its too easy to create an alter-ego registered name.

Not that I think it should be done, but if everyone's identity was known, the 'crap' to 'good discussion' ratio would greatly improve.

[Kool Koozie]

Agreed. But do you think that should be the moderator's choice, the individual poster's choice, or some malicious poster's choice?

I think that's the crux of what we're discussing.

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by Koo Koo:
Agreed. But do you think that should be the moderator's choice, the individual poster's choice, or some malicious poster's choice?

I think that's the crux of what we're discussing.Very true, outing someone's identity because you feel that they are being malicious can be malicious in itself.

As I said above, I guess what I am saying is that maybe if we all held ourselves accountable and behaved in a manner that is acceptable in the first place, then no one would care who was who.

---Edited to correct a typo, you guys already think I am a moron, no need to validate it.---

[ June 23, 2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Chris Kittinger ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

That's justifying the actions of the outer.

Anyone should be able to say whatever they choose because in the end they don't MAKE anyone feel anything. That's each individuals choice as to how to FEEL about what someone's written.

Lord knows I'm an expert at that.

If someone has manipulated you into getting angry, especially on an anonymous internet message board it simply shows how immature you are.

There's no excuse for invading someone's privacy. None.

[imported_Ike Pigott]

Originally posted by kgsl:
I am curious to know if the non-anonymous posters (Mr. Scott, Mr. Steinman, Mr. Pigott) ever get any heat from their workplace for using their real names when posting here.
I think if I started using my real name, my boss would ask me to stop.I never did.

But being a journalist, you have to keep in mind that these pages get Googled too, and anything you might want to say of a political or controversial nature will get discovered.

That's why I created Vulcan.

Yeah, I know I'm going to catch a lot of heat from those who say "This is my only name and I'm sticking with it, I'm not two-faced yada yada yada..." Frankly, I don't care.

As "Vulcan," I was able to pass along advice and insights that were judged on their own merits, and not filtered through the prism of "what-does-he-know,-he-works-in-Birmingham." As Vulcan, I was able to express opinions that I never would in an environment where my objectivity mattered. If you'll notice, I registered Vulcan before Ike. That was a defensive move, to prevent someone else from using my name to make slanderous comments.

However, as "Ike" I was able to quickly slow the onslaught of people accusing Vic Quick of being "Sir Speedy." I dare say that Vulcan wouldn't have been as credible an option.

I'm out of broadcasting now, and don't foresee a day when I come back. But since part of my job centers on issues and trends in the media and in newsrooms, I like to stay somewhat connected. My current employer doesn't seem to mind.

Yes, this would be a more civil board if everyone used real names. It would also be very quiet, because no one would actually step forward with anything potentially provocative. And there are always the children with pompous egos and thin skins who can't seem to put all of this in perspective. They are the ones who take their disagreements from cyberspace into "meatspace," and start calling employers to complain about what Tony England said as "BritBoy99" on Open Line Forum. Pathetic -- and perhaps the driving force of self-preservation that girds the need to hide behind a handle.

[CommGirl]

You know--even if others could easily figure out who a person is, I would never want someone to out me. I find it an ugly play--like shooting someone in the back. Let's say that I post something and a dozen or so people figure out who I am. That's fine. But then one of those dozen or so people, decide to post, in plain language, who I am. That is not cool. That is not fair play. From then on out, if people google my name, they could likely find all the posts I put on a message board. I post semi-anonymously, but I don't try to hide who I am. Mostly because of my husband's job, I don't want all of my opinions out there being linked to my name. So for the sake of my own interest, I once googled my display name. Guess what comes up? Someone "outs" me on their very public blog that I am Michael C*r*o*o*k* (posted this way so he, the one of NO SHAME, can't google it and find this post since he has apparently nothing better to do that out people all day long.)

I also was once "outed" on a message board as another infamous and less than savory human being on a message board. Very embarassing and I was very defensive about it.

To me the harm lies not in outing the real person, but in outing them as someone they are not.

I love Google--use it every day, but Google is bad. Very bad. Forever more if someone googles certain of my screen names, I will have been "outed" as two people I really can't stand and have no desire to be associated with in any way.

The point is that we are reaching (well, we already have reached) a new era of ethics. You post on a board after having been there a couple of months and coming to trust people at least a little bit. Unfortunately, some people think of people as friends only if they have met them face-to-face. But in today's reality, a lot of peoples' friends are people across the world that they simply email every day or swap stories or opinions with on a message board.

It's enough to keep a girl (or guy) from ever sharing her opinions, and in itself is an ugly type of censorship.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

BarkieDawg's identity:

Leonard Barkidawski
515 Oak Street #2
Naples, Florida 12345
210/555-4321

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by CommGirl:
To me the harm lies not in outing the real person, but in outing them as someone they are not.And that is exactly what happened in the Sir Speedy situation. I was the one responsible for running with it, and I take full blame for it. That is why I am so glad that we are having this discussion. My actions were wrong, and I learned how my irresposible behavior could take a toll on others.

But I am hoping that I am not the only one here who learns something from this issue. I do not and cannot support outing someone because I have seen the damage it can do. Before I didn't realize that.

I made my mistake and took ownership of it. Hopefully no one will make the same mistakes that I made.

[Scarlet Termite]

Ooooo! I wanna be outed! It sounds sexy! How do I get outed? Or maybe in-ed?

tongue.gif

[Signature on File]

I know who Dykerson is!!!!!

The Mighty Dykerson......Elmer Tinipeter
Box 369
Pulled Muscle, Tenn 42879
(222) 555-6969 Home
(222) 677-9696 Cell

[Chris Kittinger]

Ike,

I would never say that you are being two faced because you also are Vulcan. I understand everything you say about the benefits of having another identity. I for one have had posters here give me the "oh you're just a photog, you just work at so and so market" treatment before. I started here as dckitt, but MCO Mike outed me and I realized that I had nothing to hide and changed my id to Kittinger, and then to Chris Kittinger. I have considered having another id here, but after seeing some posters abuse that (MCO Mike to be exact), I chose to say this is who I am, I stand behind what I post. And if I am wrong I admit it (I would still admit it if I was anonymous).

Obviously people like Mike are the exception. I have been a big fan of Vulcan's insight for a while now. And this board would be a worse place if you weren't allowed to shed the objectivity that you use as a journalist. I don't participate in the political discussions here because (even though I am just a photog) I am part of the media. Maybe when I leave the business I will start voicing my opinion, but until then I have to stay out of those discussions. And yes that can be annoying when I have to refrain from stating my opinion for those reasons. I understand why anonymity is important on a board like this.

I would not want this board to lose its flavor. I don't think it should be a place where everyone has to use his or her "real" identity. And I don't fault anyone for having a persona here.

If it seems that I am implying that being anonymous is bad, then I have not put my ideas out correctly. My points are this, don't out anyone, be respectful to others, and don't be thin skinned like I sometimes am.

[Sultanosurf]

Christ, what's so hard about this?

If you actually work in this biz, and had a source who wanted his identity protected, you are OBLIGATED to NOT reveal.

If you wanna post under your own name, do it. But if somebody else chooses not to, RESPECT IT.

Of course, respect and integrity seem to be in failing supply these days...

[Tally Atwater]

All I'm saying is that it's a double-edged sword. Anonymity can breed rudeness and more, but it also can and does promote perspectives and opinions that will never be heard by people that are never heard inside of a newsroom.

Also, you never know who posts here. I personally know one person of some 'fame' who says he/she posts here. This person hasn't told me their MediaLine Handle. Instead, I know this person in 'real' life. He/She pegged me cold, though. When I asked who he/she was on MediaLine - I got no answer.

So my overall point is that there might be some who don't really care about anonymity. But that doesn't negate the 'rights' of those who wish to remain so.

And Chris, my original intent was never to "pile on" you. Please accept my apologies if it feels that way.

Anyway, as I said earlier: In a career field already dominated by "personalities", this forum allows principles to shine through - sometimes.

Cheers,

-Tally

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by Sultanosurf:
Christ, what's so hard about this?Is there something that you feel I am not getting?

I agree that no one should be outed, I think it is fine to be anonymous. I think that is what my posts are saying, along with the hope that we will treat each other with respect.

So why do you feel that I am not respecting others who chose to be anonymous?

---Edited to add---

Uhmm, please see my post below, and thanks Chief for pointing out my obvious error.

[ June 23, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Chris Kittinger ]

[Chief]

Dude, I think he said Christ, not Chris.

But I guess you get that all the time.

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by Tally Atwater:
And Chris, my original intent was never to "pile on" you. Please accept my apologies if it feels that way.Tally,

I never felt that way, I am thrilled that you started this thread. I just wanted to use this great topic that you started to have a good discourse on the issue. We are in agreement in principle. I am just trying to let others know what I think and why I think it.

These are rules I am putting in place for myself, that I think others might agree with. No outing, respect others, and don't take what others post so personal that I go against the first two concepts.

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by Chief:
Dude, I think he said Christ, not Chris.

But I guess you get that all the time.I get called names, but that isn't one of them.

Opps. Sorry Sultan. They don't call me dumb without a reason.

[ June 23, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Chris Kittinger ]

[Media Hack]

Originally posted by Chris Kittinger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chief:
Dude, I think he said Christ, not Chris.

But I guess you get that all the time.I get called names, but that isn't one of them.

Opps. Sorry Sultan. They don't call me dumb without a reason.</font>[/QUOTE]I was Christ once in a newspaper when the editors missed the added "t".

Uh oh... I've now left another clue to my eventual outing!!!! ;)

[jama]

Originally posted by Media Hack:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chris Kittinger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chief:
Dude, I think he said Christ, not Chris.

But I guess you get that all the time.I get called names, but that isn't one of them.

Opps. Sorry Sultan. They don't call me dumb without a reason.</font>[/QUOTE]I was Christ once in a newspaper when the editors missed the added "t".

Uh oh... I've now left another clue to my eventual outing!!!! ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I got it - are you John?

[Diggin' Bear]

First off, great thread, great discussion, no matter where you fall on the issue. This is the kind of thing that's often missing from Open Line, so maybe something good has come of this. I don't think CK or Fedora meant any harm - both are good guys.

[imported_Ike Pigott]

Originally posted by Diggin' Bear:
First off, great thread, great discussion, no matter where you fall on the issue. This is the kind of thing that's often missing from Open Line, so maybe something good has come of this. I don't think CK or Fedora meant any harm - both are good guys.I don't buy it. I think Diggin' Bear is really Chris!

No... wait. Shaky and Blue is Chris!

No? Then Purplehaze is Chris!

[Chief]

Originally posted by Diggin' Bear:
First off, great thread, great discussion, no matter where you fall on the issue. This is the kind of thing that's often missing from Open Line, so maybe something good has come of this. I don't think CK or Fedora meant any harm - both are good guys.I agree with the first part but not with the second.

They knew EXACTLY what they were doing - divulging personal information about a poster who wished to remain anonymous. Good guys or not, it was with malicious intent. They wanted to out someone. They just got the information wrong.

[KROG-TV]

I've nothing to gain by remaining anonymous, and nothing to gain by being "outed" either.

If you want to know who I really am, feel free to e-mail or PM me. I can't imagine that the idendtity of a director in Kansas City would garner much attention on here. I applaud WacoWX for having the ballz to post his own name here. Hope nothing bad comes of that one!

[HushHush]

Originally posted by Ike Pigott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kgsl:
I am curious to know if the non-anonymous posters (Mr. Scott, Mr. Steinman, Mr. Pigott) ever get any heat from their workplace for using their real names when posting here.
I think if I started using my real name, my boss would ask me to stop.I never did.

But being a journalist, you have to keep in mind that these pages get Googled too, and anything you might want to say of a political or controversial nature will get discovered.

That's why I created Vulcan.

Yeah, I know I'm going to catch a lot of heat from those who say "This is my only name and I'm sticking with it, I'm not two-faced yada yada yada..." Frankly, I don't care.

As "Vulcan," I was able to pass along advice and insights that were judged on their own merits, and not filtered through the prism of "what-does-he-know,-he-works-in-Birmingham." As Vulcan, I was able to express opinions that I never would in an environment where my objectivity mattered. If you'll notice, I registered Vulcan before Ike. That was a defensive move, to prevent someone else from using my name to make slanderous comments.

However, as "Ike" I was able to quickly slow the onslaught of people accusing Vic Quick of being "Sir Speedy." I dare say that Vulcan wouldn't have been as credible an option.

I'm out of broadcasting now, and don't foresee a day when I come back. But since part of my job centers on issues and trends in the media and in newsrooms, I like to stay somewhat connected. My current employer doesn't seem to mind.

Yes, this would be a more civil board if everyone used real names. It would also be very quiet, because no one would actually step forward with anything potentially provocative. And there are always the children with pompous egos and thin skins who can't seem to put all of this in perspective. They are the ones who take their disagreements from cyberspace into "meatspace," and start calling employers to complain about what Tony England said as "BritBoy99" on Open Line Forum. Pathetic -- and perhaps the driving force of self-preservation that girds the need to hide behind a handle.</font>[/QUOTE]THANKS! Now I know who Vulcan is! :D One down ...

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by Chief:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diggin' Bear:
First off, great thread, great discussion, no matter where you fall on the issue. This is the kind of thing that's often missing from Open Line, so maybe something good has come of this. I don't think CK or Fedora meant any harm - both are good guys.I agree with the first part but not with the second.

They knew EXACTLY what they were doing - divulging personal information about a poster who wished to remain anonymous. Good guys or not, it was with malicious intent. They wanted to out someone. They just got the information wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]I have to agree with you, I did have harmful intent. I wanted to get Sir Speedy to stop being a jerk. I went about it the wrong way. I should not have tried to out him in the first place.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally posted by KROG-TV:
I've nothing to gain by remaining anonymous, and nothing to gain by being "outed" either.

If you want to know who I really am, feel free to e-mail or PM me. I can't imagine that the idendtity of a director in Kansas City would garner much attention on here. I applaud WacoWX for having the ballz to post his own name here. Hope nothing bad comes of that one!Thanks KROG...

This is a good discussion...and as someone else posted it's nice to have a good discussion for once on this board. What I have found on the weather side of this board is that there are PRIMARILY filled with discussions like this, particularly because most of us know one another. We share so much information and ideas...it's one of my favorite sites on the web. Anonymity leads to childish accusations and saying things you would never say in person. True, there are times when I'd like to say some nasty things about competitors and such, but what good would that do. Most likely it would just lead to more problems.

I suppose that outing someone who doesn't want to be outed is wrong, but boy some of the posters here can be royal pains and just make you want to do something to get back at them....hence Chris and Fedora's reaction to SS. Wrong, but totally understandable given the unending argument spreading over several posts here.

Mark

[Ferrycrossthemersey]

I, for one, am missing big chunks of information.

Tell me if I've got this straight: someone outed Sir Speedy, only the person named as Sir Speedy, wasn't Sir Speedy.

I assume the false Sir Speedy denied it. Or did he hang himself out of shame?

What's the deal? For the record, I'm against outing in all forms, unless a crime/criminal is involved. So I say, again, what's the deal...AND, what's the big deal?

And who is Sir Speedy, anyway??

[The Sleeper]

All of you need a Donkey Punch!

Bend Over!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ferrycrossthemersey:


And who is Sir Speedy, anyway??Some guy named Vic Quick at KDUH

[Ph Factor]

Personally I like not knowing who people are on here and I really don't care to know. I think the anonymity keeps it fun.

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by Pull My Finger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ferrycrossthemersey:


And who is Sir Speedy, anyway??Some guy named Vic Quick at KDUH</font>[/QUOTE]No, that is the person mistakenly accused of being Sir Speedy. Vic and I have been in contact, and he is obviously a good guy.

There is no doubt in my mind that, in spite of my earlier mistake, Vic Quick IS NOT Sir Speedy.

[Fiya Storm]

Originally posted by Ike Pigott:
Ithink Diggin' Bear is really Chris!So do I!

[Emily Latella]

I married Todd de la Muca - Lisa Loopner

[Zorro]

Originally posted by Tally Atwater:
There's been a breach. A rift, if you will. The veil of anonymity that I simultaneously curse and hold dear on this board has been corrupted. A few on this board have decided that exposing someone's 'real' ID on this board is a correct response when someone they disagree with continues to post his opinion.

To make matters worse, the person they "outted" wasn't even the original poster in question. "Chris Kittinger" had the strength of character to apologize and the empathy to understand that his actions may cause others harm - unintentionally, but harm nonetheless. I salute his integrity.

But the question remains: When did it become OK to "out" anyone on this board - regardless of their opinions?

I have no fear of getting 'outted'; my professional life will not suffer. I just wouldn't post here any longer. I know a few who would be happy with that. But ask yourself this: What if YOU got "outted", and your professional life took a hit? What if someone YOU could learn from got "outted" and could no longer post here?

The threat of exposing real ID's on this board will be the very thing that kills it. And the justification for this outting - that someone was posting the same thing over and over again - is just stupid. There are plenty here that are familiar with a few who have done this, and continue to do this. They're almost as tiresome as those who accuse some of having multiple ID's. I've learned something new since I began my campaign to expose "Dark Lord Rove & his Master Plan" - I simply ignore whatever responses I want. Easy. I don't have to justify, defend or explain anything to anyone. But I certainly don't have the moral right to expose a poster simply because I disagree with him.

OK. Rant over. Any thoughts?

Cheers,

-TallyI don't think this is a rant at all. I think it should be adopted as a pledge as a condition of membership. That's why the violators who outed someone need to be banned, not the one they tried to out. That sends the wrong message to the board.

[mothball]

There are some very good reasons to not want to be outed.

For me, it's a stalker issue. During my college years I was the target of a very insistant freak who followed me to class, home, everywhere. I wasn't so concerned, until she went after my significant other. Since then, we've gone to unlisted phone numbers, post office box instead of street address, and notices to all employees we work with not to give out ANYTHING about us.

Severe? Yes. Necessary? Probably not. But I'd rather be safe than sorry. Even here.

[Media Hack]

1. Vic Quick is NOT Sir Speedy.

2. The identity of Sir Speedy remains a mystery. Every attempt to "out" him has been incorrect.

3. The Fedora is only partly to blame for his role... it was more my fault. The Fedora is a good guy. I was the idiot.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Originally posted by Media Hack:
The identity of Sir Speedy remains a mystery. Every attempt to "out" him has been incorrect.Why would you want to out or advocate outing any poster on this board. What gives you the right?

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally posted by Buffalo Soldier:
[QUOTE]Why would you want to out or advocate outing any poster on this board. What gives you the right?If I may...I think the whole outting of Sir Speedy was in response to frustration over not be able to get anywhere with him. He continued to post, in no uncertain terms, that these reporters in Scottsbluff did nothing wrong...the tapes were not damaged...it would never go to trial. Not just in one thread, but there were at one point I believe 4 or 5 threads going with this same topic. It's fine when someone has a strong opinion, but he continued to bash us over the head with his childish remarks...literally like a 9yo girl saying nya-nya and sticking out her tongue...over a hundred posts that evening alone...FAR from professional. Some here were absolutely frustrated and felt the only way to get through to him was to try and out him. Wrong? Yes, but the frustration of the situation was certainly understandable.

I just wanted to provide some background to the whole thing for those just tuning in.

You will note that ALL involved have profusely apologized.

Mark

[Buffalo Soldier]

Originally posted by WacoWX:
You will note that ALL involved have profusely apologized.I saw that Chris Kittinger apologized. I saw The Fedora and Media Hack justify their actions, just as you have done. And their apologies went to the person they THOUGHT was Sir Speedy.

Now I don't want to get into a pissing match, but what if they'd been right. What good is an apology then. How do you unring the bell?

[Speed Demon]

Originally posted by WacoWX:
I think the whole outting of Sir Speedy was in response to frustration over not be able to get anywhere with him. He continued to post, in no uncertain terms, that these reporters in Scottsbluff did nothing wrong...the tapes were not damaged...it would never go to trial. Not just in one thread, but there were at one point I believe 4 or 5 threads going with this same topic. In other words, you wanted to out this person (yet remain anonymous yourself) because his opinion was different than yours.

[HushHush]

I'm not sure if the apologies would need to be revoked if the user name in question really was the real identity mentioned.

The apolgies were neccessary for the attempt at "outing" a fellow medialiner regardless of who was targeted.

I think we all feel our anonimity is very valuable to us all and I applaud the gentlemen ofr admitting their mistake.

If the user name in question really is the real identity mentioned - he should also apologize for the problems he caused.

[ June 24, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: HushHush ]

[Speed Demon]

Originally posted by HushHush:
If the user name in question really is the real identity mentioned - he should also apologize for the problems he caused.How can someone cause problems by voicing an opinion? I think you all have a personal agenda against this Sir Speedy character.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Originally posted by Chris Kittinger:
I did have harmful intent. I wanted to get Sir Speedy to stop being a jerk. I went about it the wrong way. I should not have tried to out him in the first place.What about just ignoring him? Every troll needs only one thing to keep him alive. More attention.

There were far too many people willing to shovel food to Sir Speedy and keep him alive and allow him to grow in power. And then you complain about him being a jerk and try to shut him down.

Unbelievable.

I find the concept of outing anyone to be despicable. Dishonorable. Above all things we should respect each others right to privacy. We should honor that privacy even in people we find repulsive.

But worse than outing someone is accusing the wrong person and causing collateral damage on an innocent party. That is unforgivable.

It is like bombing the wrong village and then saying, "Ooooops, sorry about that." The damage is done.

And talking about it doesn't make the wounds heal any faster. It serves only to ease the conscience of those who committed the offense.

[ June 24, 2005, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie the buffalo ]

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally posted by Speed Demon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WacoWX:
I think the whole outting of Sir Speedy was in response to frustration over not be able to get anywhere with him. He continued to post, in no uncertain terms, that these reporters in Scottsbluff did nothing wrong...the tapes were not damaged...it would never go to trial. Not just in one thread, but there were at one point I believe 4 or 5 threads going with this same topic. In other words, you wanted to out this person (yet remain anonymous yourself) because his opinion was different than yours.</font>[/QUOTE]I never have been anonymous here...but yes, I did in fact want SS to be outed in the heat of the moment...out of said frustration that many of us were feeling that evening.

[Tripe Face]

OK,

Here's my "Devil's Advocate" take on this.

Imagine if you will someone posted on here that they knew all the details of Jodi Huisentruit's murder including the name of the person who did it. For some reason that poster thought what happened to Jodi was OK so he/she didn't intend to help police.

I'll bet most of us here would demand that Mark the Voice contact the police investigating Jodi's case and give all the info he had on this hypothetical poster so that person could be questioned!

OK, now the infamous Sir Speedy (TVShootist, Speed Demon) advocated the destruction of file video at a tv station. I for one DEPEND on file video to do my job. I cover the war, you can't send a crew out every day to shoot Marines walking through Falluja taking fire from Islamic murderers. So what he advocated was not only ILLEGAL (see today's ruling on the case that started this all) but also would have a major impact on the careers of many of us here on this board.

So in that case YES, I believe (note present tense) that Sir Speedy should be outed so we in this business who are in a postition to hire won't hire Sir Speedy. After all we're pretty much in agreement that the two who did it should never work in tv again so why should someone who thinks it's ok work in tv again?

I'm not saying Sir Speedy would ever advocate harming another person, I used Jodi's case to make a point. He does support behaivor that is just plain wrong and in the opinion of at least one prosecutor and judge, is a crime.

[Up Your Nose With a Rubber Hose]

Originally posted by Ralphie the buffalo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chris Kittinger:
I did have harmful intent. I wanted to get Sir Speedy to stop being a jerk. I went about it the wrong way. I should not have tried to out him in the first place.What about just ignoring him? Every troll needs only one thing to keep him alive. More attention.

There were far too many people willing to shovel food to Sir Speedy and keep him alive and allow him to grow in power. And then you complain about him being a jerk and try to shut him down.

Unbelievable.

I find the concept of outing anyone to be despicable. Dishonorable. Above all things we should respect each others right to privacy. We should honor that privacy even in people we find repulsive.

But worse than outing someone is accusing the wrong person and causing collateral damage on an innocent party. That is unforgivable.

It is like bombing the wrong village and then saying, "Ooooops, sorry about that." The damage is done.

And talking about it doesn't make the wounds heal any faster. It serves only to ease the conscience of those who committed the offense.</font>[/QUOTE]Everyone should take Ralphie's advice. After all, he got this bit of wisdom from me -- someone he hates and even tried to get banned. Too bad I couldn't slap some common sense into him before he revealed to everyone how big of a dope he is.

[Media Hack]

Originally posted by Buffalo Soldier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Media Hack:
The identity of Sir Speedy remains a mystery. Every attempt to "out" him has been incorrect.Why would you want to out or advocate outing any poster on this board. What gives you the right?</font>[/QUOTE]How many more times do I have to say it was a mistake? Frankly, everyone has a right to do whatever they want. That doesn't make it the correct course of action.

When people explain why they did what they did, some seem to believe that's an attempt to justify actions instead of an attempt to explain.

I did it because I thought it was funny and Sir Speedy is an ass. That doesn't make it right.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Originally posted by Media Hack:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Buffalo Soldier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Media Hack:
The identity of Sir Speedy remains a mystery. Every attempt to "out" him has been incorrect.Why would you want to out or advocate outing any poster on this board. What gives you the right?</font>[/QUOTE]How many more times do I have to say it was a mistake?</font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me, and this will be my last post on the matter, but I think you're being far too easy on yourself. I recall you starting a post titled "Who is Sir Speedy?"

That's not a mistake, that's a deliberate act.

[The Fedora]

Buffalo Soldier,

I did apologize, but the thread I did it in has since been deleted.

[Ferdinand Wachenheimer]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
After all we're pretty much in agreement that the two who did it should never work in tv again.Don't speak for me. I never went to journalism school. I never attended college. But even I know that suspects accused of a crime are innocent until a judge or jury says otherwise.

You, on the other hand, already have them sentenced.

I do not and will not respect a blanket condemnation of either or both when so few of the facts are known. I think we can all manage to do that much before we jump to rash conclusions. I'd have expected others to have pointed this out before me and am saddened that it's not so. This is a forum for journalists, isn't it?

[product of communism]

Originally posted by Ferdinand Wachenheimer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripe Face:
After all we're pretty much in agreement that the two who did it should never work in tv again.Don't speak for me. I never went to journalism school. I never attended college. But even I know that suspects accused of a crime are innocent until a judge or jury says otherwise.

You, on the other hand, already have them sentenced.

I do not and will not respect a blanket condemnation of either or both when so few of the facts are known. I think we can all manage to do that much before we jump to rash conclusions. I'd have expected others to have pointed this out before me and am saddened that it's not so. This is a forum for journalists, isn't it?</font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me, but I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" clause is in regards to government action against criminal suspects.

There is nothing in any government document that prevents private citizens from discussing a criminal case, and forming an opinion on the case.

A media organization can be found liable in a civil case if it can be determined that said organization intentionally slandered an individual.

The last time I checked, none of us are posting on MediaLine in any formal, journalistic capacity.

[Tally Atwater]

You're right, POC.

If you check my original post at the beginning of this thread, I stated that I didn't believe it was anyone's moral right to out anyone else.

Your line regarding none of us posting here is doing so in a formal, journalistic capacity still doesn't protect those who get outted, correctly or not, against possible harm. Thanks for making us aware of your attitude regarding anonymity.

-Tally

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Originally posted by Up Your Nose With a Rubber Hose:
Everyone should take Ralphie's advice. After all, he got this bit of wisdom from me -- someone he hates and even tried to get banned. Too bad I couldn't slap some common sense into him before he revealed to everyone how big of a dope he is.Let's get one thing straight. I never went behind the scenes to seek your removal. I threw the question out to the members of this board at large. Many people weighed in on the subject. Many voices in democracy kind of thing. That is the difference. I called you out in public instead of working to kill you behind the scenes.

Just to refresh your memory it was on a thread called "Dear Mark the Voice -- It's time to ban some more posters". February 2005. You can only find the title in the archives. The posts have been deleted by the mods.

Oh, well, it really doesn't matter. It is ancient history now.

I actually do respect you now, upyournose. Really. I may not like you, but I do respect your ability to change for the better. You no longer try to dominate the board with foolishness.

Whether you like me or not doesn't matter. If you want to hold a grudge that is your prerogative.

I will always advocate banning people for extremely disruptive conduct on this board. On the other hand, I can also forgive those who are wise enough to change for the better. Like you did.

[ June 24, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie the buffalo ]

[Up Your Nose With a Rubber Hose]

Originally posted by Ralphie the buffalo:
Let's get one thing straight. I never went behind the scenes to seek your removal. I threw the question out to the members of this board at large....I called you out in public instead of working to kill you behind the scenes.Oh, well now, yeah, that really makes a difference. :rolleyes:

Many people weighed in on the subject.And you got your ass kicked. People were actually calling for you to be banned. It was great.

Oh, well, it really doesn't matter. It is ancient history now.If it doesn't matter, why'd you bring it up? graemlins/face_banghead.gif

I actually do respect you now, upyournose. Really. I may not like you, but I do respect your ability to change for the better....Whether you like me or not doesn't matter. If you want to hold a grudge that is your prerogative.What's wrong with this picture? You say "I may not like you," then you indicate I'm the one holding the grudge. Nice twist, Ralphie. Almost as good as Chubby Checker.

You no longer try to dominate the board with foolishness.Dominate the board with foolishness?? It's called "having a little fun." And people were responding to my threads. It's no different than "Top This," "Movie Quotes" and all the other senseless threads you see on Medialine every day.

I will always advocate banning people for extremely disruptive conduct on this board.Why don't you just start taking names, then turn in your list to the teacher. Somebody's bound to get a paddling. That'll give you something to snicker at.

On the other hand, I can also forgive those who are wise enough to change for the better. Like you did.Blow me.

[Angel's Hell]

Originally posted by Count Rugen:
I post under my real name.Me too!

[Basically A Nice Guy]

[quote]Originally posted by Ralphie the buffalo:On the other hand, I can also forgive those who are wise enough to change for the better. Like you did.
Originally posted by Up Your Nose With a Rubber Hose:Blow me.[/QB]Classic.

[Doctor Depends]

Originally posted by product of communism:
There is nothing in any government document that prevents private citizens from discussing a criminal case, and forming an opinion on the case.Oh where would the cable news talking heads be if this weren't true? Nobody said you had to know what the hell you you were talking about to have a point of view. That's certainly true.

It would be nice though if private citizens discussed a criminal case intelligently before demanding banishment no matter the legal outcome. Don't you think? And shouldn't journalists, assuming you are one or at least know one, be more adept at using that responsibility?

I think so.

By the bitter tone of your rebuttal about personal responsibility I take it that you believe the whole journalistic community should prematurely assess the guilt of both people involved when all that is known is that they've been charged?

Or am I wrong? Is it instead your assertion that you have the unassailable right to be an ass? In that case you have certainly proven yourself correct.

[Kool Koozie]

Originally posted by Tally Atwater:
But the question remains: When did it become OK to "out" anyone on this board - regardless of their opinions?The posters here who "out" and those who openly advocate not only naming names but investigating the identity of certain posters are troubling. They are saying, as the Republicans currently do, if you disagree with the status quo we'll shut you up or we'll harm you. Either way it's a dirty trick.

Going to the trouble of "outing" someone is more than just curiosity. It's more of an obsession and the kind of psychic implantation that draws people away from reality.

[zeppelin42]

Let's face it. There are a lot of immature people in the news biz, and many of them come to Medialine to get their rocks off. Unfortunately for us, there's not much we can do about it except try and keep a cool head. It's very typical of myself and others to completely give into the urge to lash back at people like that. But while we have the intellectual capacity to examine ourselves and philosophise about our problem, people like that have not reached that stage in their lives. They don't stop and think "this might hurt someone" or "this is wrong".

I post anonymously on this message board because - in all honesty - I don't want to wake up to find that some nutty ML poster is standing at my door with a chainsaw. That aside, though, I know there are others on here who would get fired if the wrong person knew who they were. Still others are those with the power to do the firing. Anyways, we need to treat this site like a community of friendly familiars and hold everyone accountable for what they say. Apologies are not the end of the world, and those who won't apologise for being jerks should be swiftly banned.

It's so late that it's early, now, so I'm gonna stop typing before I sprain something. Tally, thanks for starting this post. We really need to think about what you said.
-zep

[Just a Reporter Guy]

Actually, it's quite easy to "out" someone, or at least find out from where they're posting.

What ya do is you put an image on your website, and post it here. Each time someone clicks on that thread-- whether they like it or not-- their domain will show up in your stats. Then, you e-mail the proper person..the ND if the domain names a specific station, or corporate if it's generic like Raycomm, and there you go. Then e-mail a screen capture of their IP, proving that employees are using company internet resources for personal purposes.

Will they get in trouble for it? Maybe not, but if a ND is looking for a reason to can someone, that could be it. &lt;shrug&gt; In any event, it's petty revenge, and a good way to "out" people.

[Speed Demon]

Profane or profound? This message board can be anything we want it to be, because we are the boss of it.

I don't mean for that to sound sarcastic or condescending. In fact, I actually think it's one of the values we have on MediaLine and one that needs to be shouted to anyone who'll hear: We know the world comes with limits built in, but we know too that so much of what our species just accepts as natural and unchangeable is actually human-invented limitation. And if we can create
problems, we can solve them (albeit with the understanding that all solutions bring new problems). If we can identify the human-invented
barriers, we can transcend them. If we can dream, we may be able to realize our dreams. We are the boss and can invent a fairer, more loving world.

"Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road," Sir Speedy said.

[LunchPenalty]

And thanks to YOU Speed Demon, your words, I mean Sir Speedy's words will live with us forever.

Thank you.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by Donkey Punch:
All of you need a Donkey Punch!

Bend Over!Funny, that's exactly what I told your sister last week. Who'd thunk it?

[The Sleeper]

So...here I am!
Out and no longer anonymous!
Can't post what I really feel for fear of my "bosses" seeing it. :rolleyes:
Can't post my political thoughts anymore because people would say it infiltrates my news judgement. :rolleyes: Because...you know...I sit in the morning meetings and say, "how can I screw republicans today?" :rolleyes:

[Produce man]

Originally posted by Ron Giordan:
So...here I am!
Out and no longer anonymous!
Can't post what I really feel for fear of my "bosses" seeing it. :rolleyes:
Can't post my political thoughts anymore because people would say it infiltrates my news judgement. :rolleyes: Because...you know...I sit in the morning meetings and say, "how can I screw republicans today?" :rolleyes: Since when did mco's have editorial power?

[mythbuster]

Originally posted by Just a Reporter Guy:
Actually, it's quite easy to "out" someone, or at least find out from where they're posting.

What ya do is you put an image on your website, and post it here. Each time someone clicks on that thread-- whether they like it or not-- their domain will show up in your stats. Then, you e-mail the proper person..the ND if the domain names a specific station, or corporate if it's generic like Raycomm, and there you go. Then e-mail a screen capture of their IP, proving that employees are using company internet resources for personal purposes.

Will they get in trouble for it? Maybe not, but if a ND is looking for a reason to can someone, that could be it. &lt;shrug&gt; In any event, it's petty revenge, and a good way to "out" people.It's even easier to spot Michael Crook.

Go away, Mike.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Speed Demon:
"Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road," Sir Speedy said.For God's sake, stop quoting yourself, Sir Speedy. You're about a subtle as a bus. (That means we all know you're the same poster who was named Sir Speedy until you were banned.)

[Speed Racer]

bump... for Tally

[Brain Cramp]

I now consider myself completely creeped out.
By whom, you ask?
I'm not sure. Either a dead old lady or her demented, suicidal son...or a demented man who is suicidal but very much alive and is living his warped, lonely life here ... or a really creative 16-year old who made up the characters of Clyde, his mother, Tally and his ex-wife, whatever her name is.

Nevertheless, I am still completely creeped out.

[I'm Betty Lou]

I guess first you have to want to be noticed before you want to become anonymous. Strikes me as a little schizo.

[Chief]

Yeah, and how about this:

The dead guy starts this thread awhile back and argues for strict anonymity among strangers.

Then his own daughter outs him as a fraud.

Weird.

[All Clyde All The Time]

Ike is Vulcan?

Whoa. Why am I ALWAYS the last to know???

[2:30]

I've stayed out of this entire flap till now.

But, now that this thread is back, I'm entering the fray, because it was this thread - and TA's personal message to me relating to it - that started our friendship.

The thing that's struck me about all these "Tally was X" messages is that not one of them has used her real first (much less last) name.

[Chief]

so, what are you saying? hoax or no hoax?

[All Clyde All The Time]

Let me guess:

Jimmy Hoffa.