Monday, 11 July 2005

When bloggers have got reasons to hide

I'm still in two minds about anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers. Some are posting under cover because they've got something to hide -- Jim Peron for instance, seemingly posting as LiNZ (unintentional irony, surely) -- and some do so because of things like this: an American University professor who suggests that if you're a blogger then university search committees may hold that fact against you when considering whether or not to offer you employment. True story. [Hat tip, Noodle Food.]


  1. Well, you already know how I feel about this. (Look down a few threads to the "Business as usual" post). I'm not much of a fan of anonymous commenters, as in my experience people who leave no name or calling card whatsoever tend not to be leaving constructive comments. But I (obviously, look at my user name) don't have a problem with pseudonyms. Everyone has their reasons for choosing whether or not to use their real name online. Let them choose, I say. As long as people consistently use one name, own to their comments and are in some way contactable (either by continuing the comments thread, or by leaving a blog address or an email address) I have no problem with it. After all the real name Peter Creswell says nothing more to me, in and of itself, than a pseudonym would.

  2. I pity all those poor bastards that have to live in fear of not getting a job for pursuing freedom of speech. As far as anonymous blogging goes, I would no more take the opinion of an anonymous blogger than I would a news report written by a reporter for a media source who called himself "Peking Duck" or "Paris Pete". The idea is absurd. And for my pains in merely replying to BB's comment that he had no assurance that my name really was what I purported it to be I was deemed arrogant and conceited by BB's buddy, who also blogs anonymously. It's easy to make unfounded accusations about others when you can hide behind a cloak of anonymity, wouldn't you say? Oh well, I've certainly been called worse by better.

  3. And now a completely irrelevant point by "Secret Samurai". Hey, Sammie, you missed your cue.

  4. The most obvious reason, and my own, for using an online pseudonym is because of fear of problems with ones employer. In the case of Looking in NZ, I imagine trying to escape from history is his primary reason. (If he's who we think he is).

  5. Mark,

    Why do you continue to debate anonymous posters then? In newspaper articles columnists are expected to put their professional reputations on the line. Their job is about opinion, so they can't keep it out of their daily lives. My profession, academia, is more focused (contrary to what some pop-academic behaviour indicates). I certainly wouldn't want one of my students bothering me with something general they had read on my blog while I was conducting research in my own field, no more than a mechanic would want a customer doing the same while he or she were at work. Also, because I am involved in teaching people, somebody might take one of my opinions on a blog as an 'expert opinion,' when really I am commenting on something outside my realm of specialisation. Also, I don't particularly want blog readers from the rabid right hassling me at work. It's not that I don't discuss issues mentioned here outside the webesphere - most assuredly I do - but I want people to respect my boundaries. I expect Bear has his own, equally logical reasons.

    One of the consistent complaints I see on the web is that a blogger is engaging in 'ad hominem' attacks. Well, if it's the debate that matters, then what's in a name? If you're happy to use your real name, good for you. However, based on your earlier comments I would suggest there are less lofty reasons for you refusal to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, namely you are a political aspirant. For you, unsolicited attention is a good thing. For me it is not.

    'It's easy to make unfounded accusations about others when you can hide behind a cloak of anonymity, wouldn't you say?'
    - and as you prove by your posts, it's just as easy to make them when you are not anonymous.

  6. Good question. But if I say I'm done with you, I guess I'll be accused of turning tail again. But I am. Done with you, Sammie.

  7. I don't think it is Jim Peron. Jim is a better writer than this individual and better at putting his point of view across. Although the views are similar, the style of writing is not the same, nor as eloquent.

  8. I don't know enough about Jim Peron to know if the views expressed in LookingNZ are similiar or not. I go by writing style and the vibe I get from that style - and I agree with Blair, it's not Jim Peron.

  9. Good grief no! Is that what was thought?

    Of course that's not Jim. Jim can write and spell for a start and if nothing else convinces you think of how many times longer each item would have to be for it to be authored by our Balzacian exile. Blogging is not what Jim's do at any rate. No wonder I didn't pick up on this in the first place- it's too much wide of the wicket.

    Do come along PC (who has never been *caught* using a pseudonym himself)!

  10. ss - The 'Would I make this shit up' post on LiNZ sort of destroyed that theory. I don't know said person very well, but can't imagine he'd stoop to something that low.

  11. Go back under your rock SS (ha!), you cowardly fucktard. Why the hate - why the hate for Mark and for Peron for that matter. A pox on your houses, all of you.

  12. I have a cyberstalker now, PC! I think he likes me! LOL ;o)>

  13. Take2CupsofFlour12 Jul 2005, 22:53:00

    LiNZ is Peron.

    When Peron abuses people out of public site this is exactly what he writes like. Most of your readers who have not experienced abuse at the hands of Peron would not be familiar with the style so it is understandable that they would be mistaken.

    This blog is anonymous, he is out of site, its Peron all right.

    LiNZ's blame everything on Christians approach is Peron's and the theological mistakes are unique, well not unique if you buy that LiNZ is not Peron...

    At the very least LiNZ is the person caught posting under multiple id's on kiwiblog abusing the Locke Foundation.

  14. If its peron then hes throwing in a few posts to put people off the scent.

  15. Yet another ego driven comment, Mark. Your tactics are proving childish. Your ego can not stand when someone presents a valid argument. It's clearly pushing you to the edge as your are now resorting to responding to others in an effort to get one last jab in and still give the 'appearance' of having dismissed what you deem an unworthy debate. It would seem they only become unworthy when they oppose you. Nice. Oh, and before you lower yourself yet to more profanity in an attempt to dimiss me, I'm dismissing myself, so no worries there. Enjoy your day. :)

  16. Take2CupsofFlour13 Jul 2005, 12:46:00

    Antarctic Lemur said...
    If its peron then hes throwing in a few posts to put people off the scent.

    Well wouldn't you do that if you wanted to pretend to be someone else?

  17. All my comments are ego-driven. I'm a blogger! Light up and try to have some fun already, PMCS.

    By the way, It's Paper Moon, Cardboard SEA, not sky. The sky is canvas:

    Wanted to point that out to you the other day, but you were in a real pissy mood. Thought I'd give it a day or two to tell you that yer all fucked up.

  18. Pssst, Mark, it's part of an inside joke you weren't privy to. I like the name as is in that it really lets people tell a story about themselves, at least those who feel the need to point it out. :)


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.