So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[stamper]

John your analogy isn't very useful? You will be aware of the phrase...barefaced liars? No reference to you. I have four email addresses with different names. Depending on which one I use to register to a forum then it will mean a different name is being used. There is no way of finding out - unless you are an IT expert - which is the real me.

[john beardsworth]

This isn't a pub, it's the internet. Different rules and standards apply.

Sure, it's not a pub. But the analogy is true here. When someone hides their identity, they can't be surprised if others treat them with suspicion and less respectfully.

[Tony Jay]

With respect, there is nothing anonymous about John Beardsworth.
He is active on several forums using his full name.
The fact that he has recently decided to change his handle to his full name is to be commended.
He also has a website and blog and is the author of a book or two.
It is very easy to verify who he is and the consistency of his posting.

Maybe this comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but there is no doubt that anonymity on any forum does encourage bad behaviour.
I really value the fact, that despite the option of staying anonymous, I have got to know at least some members of this forum and them me.
I have had one or two sharp disagreements on this forum but have always, with one possible exception, settled any issues amicably, and probably made a friend or two in the bargain (the limits of communicating on a forum such as this accepted).

Tony Jay

[stamper]

Do you really not understand the difference between a pseudonym and anonymity? Do you not grasp that the phrases "hiding behind a mask" or "hiding behind a pseudonym" include the word "hiding"?

Was I hiding my identity when I used the pseudonym? Er, no. Was anyone in doubt about my correct identity? Doh, no.

You've made the same inane point before. May I recommend investing in a dictionary and working harder at your reading comprehension skills?

John

John your bluster doesn't work. If you weren't hiding your identity why did you use the pseudonym Beardy and why did you change it to your "real" name? Please answer the question if you want your posts to be taken seriously.

[john beardsworth]

John your analogy isn't very useful? You will be aware of the phrase...barefaced liars? No reference to you. I have four email addresses with different names. Depending on which one I use to register to a forum then it will mean a different name is being used. There is no way of finding out - unless you are an IT expert - which is the real me.

I genuinely don't get what you mean about barefaced liars, but there's a phrase about hiding in plain sight (I'm thinking of Savile and Stuart Hall). Sure, someone who doesn't appear to hide their identity may have bad intentions, but someone who does hide their identity attracts much more suspicion and disrespect - eg women in burkas.

[stamper]

With respect, there is nothing anonymous about John Beardsworth.
He is active on several forums using his full name.
The fact that he has recently decided to change his handle to his full name is to be commended.
He also has a website and blog and is the author of a book or two.
It is very easy to verify who he is and the consistency of his posting.

Maybe this comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but there is no doubt that anonymity on any forum does encourage bad behaviour.
I really value the fact, that despite the option of staying anonymous, I have got to know at least some members of this forum and them me.
I have had one or two sharp disagreements on this forum but have always, with one possible exception, settled any issues amicably, and probably made a friend or two in the bargain (the limits of communicating on a forum such as this accepted).

Tony Jay

Tony the fact that he uses the name extensively doesn't prove he is John Beardsworth any more than you are Tony Jay. None of this is personal. I am merely pointing out that finding out someone's real name on an internet forum is very difficult - or impossible - and futile. I feel that John was being disingenuous in attacking others whilst using two different names, one of which has been changed.  

[stamper]

I genuinely don't get what you mean about barefaced liars, but there's a phrase about hiding in plain sight (I'm thinking of Savile and Stuart Hall). Sure, someone who doesn't appear to hide their identity may have bad intentions, but someone who does hide their identity attracts much more suspicion and disrespect - eg women in burkas.

Again I ask the question how does someone "prove " their identity online. BTW the authors of books routinely use different names from their real ones. This issue about identities isn't going anywhere and people banging on about it are wasting their time.

[Tony Jay]

How forensic do you want to get?
With the information available from the net I could get on a plane to the UK and knock on the door to John's office in a couple of days.

Is this not getting a little silly now?
Ellis made the point earlier - time to shut this thread down.

Tony Jay

[john beardsworth]

John your bluster doesn't work. If you weren't hiding your identity why did you use the pseudonym Beardy and why did you change it to your "real" name? Please answer the question if you want your posts to be taken seriously.

I was simply bored of it. But it's irrelevant as I never hid behind it - there has always been a signature and profile.

So now it's your turn - convince everyone you're not allergic to dictionaries.

[stamper]

How forensic do you want to get?
With the information available from the net I could get on a plane to the UK and knock on the door to John's office in a couple of days.

Unquote

And you might find he is really Mrs Beardsworth...a transvestite?

[stamper]

I was simply bored of it. But it's irrelevant as I never hid behind it - there has always been a signature and profile.

So now it's your turn - convince everyone you're not allergic to dictionaries.

What is in a dictionary?

[john beardsworth]

I feel that John was being disingenuous in attacking others whilst using two different names, one of which has been changed.  

BS. I attacked others for hiding their identity behind pseudonyms, which I never did. Have you any O levels?

[stamper]

John your Reply #534

Anonymity facilitates and encourages antagonistic posts - as evidenced by two individuals in this thread. If people hide behind a mask, they can't be surprised if their opinions count for less or if they get sharp-tongued responses.

I think you memory is failing you?

[john beardsworth]

Please explain your question. Note I used the h-word again.

[kencameron]

Anonymity facilitates and encourages antagonistic posts...

That may be true, although I would want more evidence than two examples on a thread. But anonymous posters, and posters not using their real name, aren't necessarily antagonistic or, IMO, in fact significantly more antagonistic than posters using their real names. I just don't see the problem as significant enough to warrant the administrative nightmare of trying to enforce real names. And as to taking people seriously, what I take seriously (or not) are posts, on their merits. I may have positive or negative expectations based on what I know of the poster, but only up until the point where I start reading - then all bets are off.

[john beardsworth]

There are plenty of examples, Ken, and I only need whisper "dpreview" or our "deejaaa" who now hides behind another pseudonym. And yes, obviously, one begins by reading what's said, but when you see the same trollish contributions and from the same anonymous poster, it's a matter of it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck....

I used to moderate one forum (Peter Krogh's DAM Book) where we allowed anonymity only by exception and insisted on posters addressing each other by name. The latter was at Peter's insistence, not mine, but I came to think it worked well. Would it be a bad thing here?

John

[jjj]

Bang on Ken.
The problem here is not anonymity or failure to show photographs, it's what people post.
No one cares if a new id arrives and is helpful and constructive in what they write. A problem only arises when someone is antagonistic, troublesome and has nothing to offer.

Again, I think you are generalising illegitimately from your negative view of a particular individual. Or have you done a survey of Lula members who don't post photographs and/or don't use their own name? If you have, the results would be genuinely interesting - or maybe someone else has some information, eg on what proportion of people who post also show their images.

No not generalising from an individual. It's an observation based on nearly twenty years of being online and living in the real world. People who hide behind masks are more likely to be shit stirrers.
It's basic human behaviour. Not counting people who hide their ID because of persecution, that's self defence.
People who hide their identity are usually the crazy ones or come out with unsubstantiated rubbish in posts.

On a similar note, people's real nature can be revealed when they drive as they feel invisible/invulnerable with a big steel cage around them. And they will behave in ways they never would in normal company.

[jjj]

Some people seem to be struggling with the difference between nicknames/alternative versions of their names and anonymity.
They are two very different things.
I use a nickname, but am anything but anonymous as I link to my work and contact details in my signature and profile.
In the real world I am called by variations of my name or nicknames, all depending on where we met/context etc. I am no more or less anonymous if someone calls me jjj in the real world as  online.

[Chris_Brown]

Sure, it's not a pub. But the analogy is true here. When someone hides their identity, they can't be surprised if others treat them with suspicion and less respectfully.

I agree with this, and add that, unfortunately, rude persons, using grog anonymity as an excuse for their boorish behavior, cannot be tossed out on their ear.

[jjj]

That may be true, although I would want more evidence than two examples on a thread.

Try all of the internet. Chock full of examples there.

But anonymous posters, and posters not using their real name, aren't necessarily antagonistic or, IMO, in fact significantly more antagonistic than posters using their real names.

Except that is so not the case. People whose identities are known tend to be more civil. LuLa generally speaking is one of the more civilised parts on the online world, but if people are trolling it's usually under cover.

I just don't see the problem as significant enough to warrant the administrative nightmare of trying to enforce real names.

It's not about real names. It's about not being anonymous. An online portfolio of your work can be your identity. It gives context to your posts, for example….
There was an argument about something technical in another thread a few days back and someone posted that he had proof of his assertion as he had photos. But why not simply post them? Particularly as he was calling someone's else's bluff at the time about ever having used said camera.