Letters to the Editor
-
Jonathan...
Although we agree on many things, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one:
As I pointed out, that is a form of ad hominem. Deal with the post and not the poster is a rule of mine that I seldom break.
The rule I seldom break is the one I have about feeding trolls... which as this thread demonstrates, is not such a bad idea.
That is not to say that all Anonymous posters are trolls... but that they are indistinguishable from one another, and so each one becomes a multiple personality, once you start responding to a particular anonymous post at a particular time, and then another and another, some of which might be the same person... but not necessarily. These lengthy threads take long enough to read as it is. So, I start from the end and work my way forward, reading up the page, which makes it easier to skip the trolls, as well as those who are in the middle of a food fight with them, and move on to the meatier comments that are the reason we all flock to Glenn's blog.
Wear a mask, if needed, but not one so generic that you become indistinguisable from the others.
I have only posted anonymously when it was something personal enough that I didn't want it in my train of comments, and once, when I was trying to get rid of a troll, but did not want to be attacked, as I would have been, since he also had a habit of not just hijacking comment threads, but of attacking people in a very personal way. (not here)
I can't say that I've never responded to an anonymous post, only that I am less likely to...
-
P,S.: Jonathan
I used to use my full name to sign comments, and link it to my blog, until it became clear during one very heated comment thread (some time ago before GG was on Salon) that it might not be safe to...
and then there was that message on my home phone after a Chicago reporter quoted me (with permission) in a follow-up news story after I complained about his cleaning up GWB's syntax. I was surprised, and a little taken aback, that some strange man would go to the trouble of finding my phone number, leaving me a message, and then expect me to call him back.
So, I understand why some people want to comment anonymously; however, there are other ways to do so.
-
Thanks, Kitt...
I hadn't yet see your comment when I was posting my two...
-
Karen M
While there are certain valid reasons to post anonymously--e.g. someone who's just started commenting and isn't sure that they're ready to have an online identity and/or don't know the "rules", the occasional very private comment as you mentioned, or, back in the broken Haloscan days, the accidental anonymous posting--like you I tend to view them with suspicion.
Why is this person posting anonymously? Are they so lazy and paranoid as to not be able to come up with an impossible to identify them by pseudomym? Or are the adopting multiple identitities online, sometimes in the same thread--a very troll-worthy practice? Are they trying to have fun with everybody--also troll-worthy? Do they not want to be identified with their usual online identity or want us to know that it's actually X from Y blog? And so on.
So like you, I am leery of anonymous posters and tend to avoid reading or responding to them, unless they're very well-written and cogent, and deserve a close reading and perhaps response. Who knows, maybe it's Al Gore or Bill Clinton (although of course I seriously doubt it) and they post so infrequently that a pseudonym would be pointless? Most of the time, though, I just pass by them and move onto posts by people with actual online identities--especially the regulars.
And now please excuse me as I think I hear Tipper callling...
-
Thanks for carrying the water...
Kovie at 1:12 p.m., and Paul R. at 1:59 p.m.
-
Thanks, Kovie...
for that second pail. ;~)
-
A General Comment on Fallacies--Expanding On Kitt's Point
Kitt:
It's not an ad hominem to not reply to an anon poster. There are reasons for not replying to a post an anon poster. Some of them are just out of practicality.
Most fallacies are based on valid cognitive hueristics that are improperly applied, often rigidly or axiomatically to reach conclusions, rather than tentatively to begin thinking about things.
Kitt's explanation about approaching anonymous posters was a great example of how this works. It's entirely valid to consider where an argument comes from as a hueristic device (and to pay less attention when you don't know the source). Everyone who's here, rather than over at Red State or The Politico realizes that implicitly. The fallacy comes into play when you move from a probabilistic hueristic judgement to an absolute declarative one.
Another example that easily grasped is the post hoc (aka "Rooster") fallacy: A preceeds B, therefore A caused B.
Given the nature of our physical universe, it's a good idea to start looking for causes among the things that preceeded the occurance in question. That's the valid hueristic. That's just where the investigation should start. Stopping there and doing nothing more turns it into a fallacy.
When you think about it, this all makes perfect sense: fallacies derive their power from the fact that they seem like they make sense--and they do. But only as a starting point for investigation. If they didn't make sense at some level, they would neveer have the power to fool anyone.
-
Amusing..
That no one has yet said what it is that I wrote with which they disagree.
Since bebop-o's posts remain and mine are deleted, as happened on the next thread, I shall not be posting here any more.
Farewell.
-
But, Jonathan, I DID say what I disagreed about: the issue of anonymous posting
...and I would be very surprised if any of your posts really disappeared. However, those that you post anonymously or under another name, will not appear with the rest.
-
Re: @ ifthethunderdontgetya (Libertarian at Large @11:14 pm)
Hi Libertarian at Large,
1) That = that wretched article Mike Allen wrote, which Glenn dissected in great detail. Really, I was just pointing out the fact that Atrios linked to Glenn's post, and proclaimed Mike Allen "Wanker of the Day" (well deserved, imho).
Wanker of the Day
Mike Allen.
-Atrios 10:19
Comments (105) Trackback (0)
2) As for shooter 'mailing in it', I found the comments shooter made on this thread laughable. In fact, they mock themselves. This is in contrast to back before Glenn had the Salon gig, when if I recall correctly, shooter put more of an effort into making a pest of himself. Hence, "now he's just mailing it in".
3) So, what does any of this have to do with your post(s)? Nothing, I think I meant to respond to someone responding to shooter. (Perhaps Paul Dirks at 1:25, rather than your post at 1:32.) Please pardon me for any confusion, consternation, or aggravation I might have caused you, it was not intentional.