Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
mairead

Pseudonyms and other non thread issues.

A thread to discuss the merits/non merits of pseudonyms and other side issues.

Could we  please debate this here and stop disrupting other threads. I personally find it very tedious reading  non subject arguements.
Stevie

At last, a thread that makes sense,

signed Anon.
Alasdair

It's certainly easier to take someone a little more seriously when they use their own name.  Particularly when either you or the poster is new to the forum.

Twitter.  s***e for discussion and debate.  Too few characters to make meaningful posts or to debate with any number of persons.

Facebook.  Better than twitter, although the character limitation can be irksome on 'walls'.  Also that fact that posts get lost in the general hubub can be a chore.  Also, the groups seem to be overly populated although can be amusing from time-to-time.

The Boycott Scotland 'group' was particularly amusing being populated by people who were against the boycott (from all regions and countries of the world).

Forums like this one though, and PHP based ones in particular, are an excellent forum for debate offering a variety of functionality and an unlimited character count.

Some might disagree, I don't really care.  These are side issues to me Smile
Stevie

Alasdair wrote:
Twitter.  s***e for discussion and debate.  Too few characters to make meaningful posts or to debate with any number of persons.


I had a look at twitter and to say the least was disappointed.

Type Scottish independence and you  end up with all sorts of people who shove the words in so that you end up looking at their pseudo blog site.

And yes, too few characters and too little smarts.
Dave Coull

Under the "Defend Tommy Sheridan" topic heading, Jim Monaghan/Rinty wrote
Quote:
I use a nickname in this site but my own name (Jim Monaghan) most other places.  I make no secret of my name here but prefer to chat here as 'rinty' rather my own name as I am not here as a spokesperson for any person or group
The point being that, under his own name, he would be more likely to be seen as a spokesman for his political party, a role that Jim does in fact sometimes carry out. Here, he prefers to be able to take part in discussion without it automatically being assumed that he is speaking on behalf of anybody else.
Quote:
Sheridan is an issue where people have used a pseudonym to make direct accusations and/or personal attacks.
All those of us who have been around this forum for a while know that is true. Things have been said, here on this forum, from behind a false name, regarding named individuals, not just about Tommy Sheridan, but about Jim himself, and others. Things have been said, here on this Our Scotland forum, regarding current court proceedings, which, if they had been said using a real name, could possibly have been seen as contempt of court. Now, I personally am not a great respecter of courts, and it is not such a big deal to me whether a court thinks I am being contemptuous of it or not. But if I have something to say about somebody, then I am quite prepared to take the risk of saying it about them under my own name.
Rinty wrote:
This is very different from having a political discourse under a pseudonym.
EXACTLY. That is the exact point that I have tried to make, several times. I have no great objection to folk taking part in political discourse under a pseudonym. But it seems to me that somebody who persistently makes personal attacks on a real, named individual from behind a pseudonym is behaving in a fashion which is (1) rather cowardly, and (2) harmful to genuine political discourse.
mairead

I must admit I have never given much thought to user names. I just thought it was PC practice, but for anyone who is interested my own user name is simply the Gaelic version of Margaret and I don't use it to hide from anything or anyone.
landg

i use my my real name so you can take me seriously.laughable.
i HAVE to remain anon online because of my job.
mairead

I would imagine that there are some folk on here who cannot use their own names and speak their thoughts freely.
A bit like journalists who can only write on the political opinions of their editors.
I think the use of pseudonyms is perfectly acceptable in order to maintain freedom of speech.
Rinty

I agree Marie, no-one would expect people to risk their jobs and nicknames can be handy for that purpose
Alasdair

Granted Mairead, their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light where, by dint of you being employed, you may lose your ability to speak freely without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

Personally it's just the sort of authoritarian behaviour that makes my subversive sinew knot with intent ...
Stevie

Alasdair wrote:
Granted Mairead, their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light where, by dint of you being employed, you may lose your ability to speak freely without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

Personally it's just the sort of authoritarian behaviour that makes my subversive sinew knot with intent ...



You're swaying me to use my real name Alasdair.
Dave Coull

Alasdair wrote:
their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light
A society where many people, probably most people, are afraid to use their real names in discussion, because of fear of losing their job, or of being punished in some other way; or, a society where some people hide their real names because they would be too ashamed to admit to their own words; is, virtually by definition, an unhealthy society. People tell me that this symptom of a seriously unhealthy society has existed on the internet "for at least 20 years", but so what? On the historical scale, the past 20 years is a mere blip. And anybody who believes that this kind of morbidly unhealthy situation will always exist, and will always be accepted as "normal", in the future, must have an extremely pessimistic and authoritarian view of their fellow humans.
The Lithgae Jambo

Dave Coull wrote:
. Things have been said, here on this Our Scotland forum, regarding current court proceedings, which, if they had been said using a real name, could possibly have been seen as contempt of court.


It doesn't really matter which name they might be said under. If they're contempt under one, surely they're contempt under another.
Holebender

I don't think most people use made up names on the internet for fear of losing their jobs. I think it is fear of having the information fall into the hands of criminals who can misuse it. The fear may be exaggerated but it does have some basis in reality.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
Things have been said, here on this Our Scotland forum, regarding current court proceedings, which, if they had been said using a real name, could possibly have been seen as contempt of court.
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
It doesn't really matter which name they might be said under.
Yes, it does matter. A real person, using their real name, can be held accountable for what they say. In extreme cases, where contempt of court is concerned, a person can be sent to jail until such time as the court is satisfied that they are no longer in contempt. But a court can not send a pseudonym to jail. Now, like I already said,
Quote:
I personally am not a great respecter of courts, and it is not such a big deal to me whether a court thinks I am being contemptuous of it or not.
In other words, I would be quite prepared to risk being jailed over something which I considered to be a matter of principle.
Quote:
But if I have something to say about somebody, then I am quite prepared to take the risk of saying it about them under my own name.
That is why I think some of the things that were said here, from behind pseudonyms, not just about Tommy Sheridan but also about Rinty (Jim Monaghan) as well, were pretty contemptible. Not "contemptible" in the sense of "contempt of court", but in the sense of me thinking that some of those who made these unpleasant personal attacks from the deepest cover they could crawl under were deserving of contempt.
Rinty wrote:
This is very different from having a political discourse under a pseudonym.
And yes, I think that  is the crucial point. Using a pseudonym is okay if it is for purposes of taking part in a discussion about political principles, and policy, or about history, or something like that. However, using a pseudonym becomes morally questionable when it is for purposes of personal abuse. Using a pseudonym for such purposes doesn't help free and open political discourse    -    quite the opposite, in fact. It turns discussion away from matters of policy and principle, and pulls the discussion into the gutter.
Lord Pitsligo

This might have been my real name if things had gone differently in 1746...
Ultra

It's all about freedom of choice and protecting yourself from identity theft or worse.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
It doesn't really matter which name they might be said under.


Yes, it does matter. A real person, using their real name, can be held accountable for what they say. In extreme cases, where contempt of court is concerned, a person can be sent to jail until such time as the court is satisfied that they are no longer in contempt. But a court can not send a pseudonym to jail.


OKAY EVERYBODY!! Get yourselves out there commiting as many crimes as you can - just be sure to use a pseudonym and not mention your real name. Laughing
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
It's all about freedom of choice and protecting yourself from identity theft or worse.


But following this logic we'd spend our off-line life using pseudonyms too.  It requires far more data than simply a name to steal an identity in the true sense.

Address is vital, if not proof of address.  DOB, NI No., and a miriad of other things may also be required.  But a name in itself, is simply not enough.

If I want to rob your bank acc. online I need your bank name, your name, your password/s and in some cases a global key number provided by the bank.

If I want to do it in person, I'll need your bank card and pin no.  If I don't have these I'll need ID, proof of address and possibly a password.

The risks of identity theft are overblown if your sensible, and revealing a name online is no more risky than revealing your name in 'real life'.
landg

Alasdair wrote:
Granted Mairead, their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light where, by dint of you being employed, you may lose your ability to speak freely without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

Personally it's just the sort of authoritarian behaviour that makes my subversive sinew knot with intent ...



my god, you really are that stupid.
might i suggest you look into the codes of conduct for some professions.
codes pof conduct that protect not only the professional but you as well.
but you, being the fool you are, are completely ignorant of that.
Ultra

Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
It's all about freedom of choice and protecting yourself from identity theft or worse.


But following this logic we'd spend our off-line life using pseudonyms too.  It requires far more data than simply a name to steal an identity in the true sense.

Address is vital, if not proof of address.  DOB, NI No., and a miriad of other things may also be required.  But a name in itself, is simply not enough.

If I want to rob your bank acc. online I need your bank name, your name, your password/s and in some cases a global key number provided by the bank.

If I want to do it in person, I'll need your bank card and pin no.  If I don't have these I'll need ID, proof of address and possibly a password.

The risks of identity theft are overblown if your sensible, and revealing a name online is no more risky than revealing your name in 'real life'.


You aren't following any logic. Thats just the way fraudsters operate. They build up a picture of a person to steal their identity.

Alot of mail for the likes of catalogues and banks has account number on them.

What if you want to apply for credit in a persons name which is the most type of identity fraud?

Most people use user names on line on forums as they have no real interest in the other users of the forum.

By your logic, do you go about tell complete strangers you meet in the street your name, address, and family circumstances? You don't, so why tell complete strangers on line?
Dave Coull

"Ultra" asked Alasdair
Quote:
By your logic, do you go about tell complete strangers you meet in the street your name, address, and family circumstances?
No, of course nobody does that. But it's a false analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be with some kind of real-life discussion forum. For instance, a few years' back, I was at a quite well-attended forum where the public could put questions to the candidates standing to be our MP. Another example, also a few years' back now, I was at a quite well attended university seminar where folk were putting historical points to the historian Tom Devine. I put a point to him which he described as "quite tricky". In many real-life discussion forums, whether about politics, or history, or whatever, those "chairing" the discussion do ask speakers to identify themselves; and, even if they don't, speakers often do identify themselves; and even those speakers who haven't already identified themselves do tend, if asked by the "chair", to give their name. Anybody who actually lied about their name, or refused to give it, in a real-life discussion forum, would lack credibility.

A situation where many folk deliberately seek to hide their names while taking part in discussion may have been "normal" amongst (for instance) dissidents in Stalin's USSR, but it should never be accepted as "normal" in a broader sense. It is an unhealthy situation, and reasonable people must hope that it will eventually turn out to be a temporary situation. In the meantime, it is acceptable for folk to use a pseudonym in order to take part in reasoned political discourse. But anybody who chooses to hide their identity and yet indulges in personal abuse of those more open than themselves is not furthering reasoned political discourse, and so is liable to be regarded with a certain degree of contempt.
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
You aren't following any logic. Thats just the way fraudsters operate. They build up a picture of a person to steal their identity.


Of course they do, but they still need more than a name.

Ultra wrote:
Alot of mail for the likes of catalogues and banks has account number on them.


Yes they do, but you would be a complete tit if you used this info as a username or posted it on the web wouldn't you!

ultra wrote:
What if you want to apply for credit in a persons name which is the most type of identity fraud?


What if you do?  You still need ID, I'm not sure printing out a screen dump from some forum featuring a name will be accepted, do you?

Ultra wrote:
Most people use user names on line on forums as they have no real interest in the other users of the forum.


I'm not sure if you could say this with absolute certainty, what is certain is that the convention is not to use ones own name.  

Ultra wrote:
By your logic, do you go about tell complete strangers you meet in the street your name, address, and family circumstances? You don't, so why tell complete strangers on line?


No, by my logic I see no harm in people knowing my name.  What you suggest is a nonsense, I don't tell people as a general rule unless they have a need to know.  But then most people in our local community know my full name, they know where I live, it's a fact of life.

The point I was making was that if all people need is a name to steal your identity, which was one of the reasons given earlier as to why we shouldn't use our real names, then we wouldn't give anyone our real name online or otherwise.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion in the last quote box above, seems a bizarre twist of what I had previously said ...
Fidget

Alasdair wrote:


The risks of identity theft are overblown if your sensible...


I agree with that. We seem to be scaremongered into believing that there's somebody waiting in the wings to pinch our identities at the first opportunity they get.  It does go on but it's not even nearly to the extent we're lead to believe.
Ultra

Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
You aren't following any logic. Thats just the way fraudsters operate. They build up a picture of a person to steal their identity.


Of course they do, but they still need more than a name.


Ultra wrote:
Alot of mail for the likes of catalogues and banks has account number on them.


Yes they do, but you would be a complete tit if you used this info as a username or posted it on the web wouldn't you!

ultra wrote:
What if you want to apply for credit in a persons name which is the most type of identity fraud?


What if you do?  You still need ID, I'm not sure printing out a screen dump from some forum featuring a name will be accepted, do you?

Ultra wrote:
Most people use user names on line on forums as they have no real interest in the other users of the forum.


I'm not sure if you could say this with absolute certainty, what is certain is that the convention is not to use ones own name.  

Ultra wrote:
By your logic, do you go about tell complete strangers you meet in the street your name, address, and family circumstances? You don't, so why tell complete strangers on line?


No, by my logic I see no harm in people knowing my name.  What you suggest is a nonsense, I don't tell people as a general rule unless they have a need to know.  But then most people in our local community know my full name, they know where I live, it's a fact of life.

The point I was making was that if all people need is a name to steal your identity, which was one of the reasons given earlier as to why we shouldn't use our real names, then we wouldn't give anyone our real name online or otherwise.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion in the last quote box above, seems a bizarre twist of what I had previously said ...


Feel free to use your real name or whatever on forums. It's your life after all. It's my opinion that it's not wise to use your real name on public forums on the net.

People who complain about things like ID databases in this country without having very much knowledge on what information already exists and is shared between things like the police, DVLA, insurance companies, finance companies, and what anyone can pull up on a person if they pay a fee over the net. Experian and Equifax make a lot of money through products which are aimed at protecting people from identity theft.

Pretty much all that would be required is a name and general location is enough to get the ball rolling. Plenty of sites which give the public access for a set fee each month contain name, addresses, DOB, telephone numbers, who lives at the address etc. All accessible from a simple name and general location.

I've said all I came to say on the subject. It's not really moved on.

You seemed to have missed the other point I made on fraudsters building up a picture on someone based on a name. No doubt because you felt the need to put up silly scenarios to try and justify your point. Let's hope you don't live in multiple occupancy flats with shares entrances and letter boxes.

In terms of freedom of speech, it seems you only like freedom of speech if the poster does not challange your beliefs or opinions. If they do it switches to using real names etc and not being credible opinion.  Rolling Eyes
Stevie

Alasdair and Dave have a good point, so I've put up my name, Stevie, from now on.

I was getting tired with Bravehand anyway...

In any case, I hope I wouldn't write anything that I should have to be embarrassed about or would be deliberately unpleasant to the folks out there.

Curiously, in general, the Brit Nats seem to want hide their identities.  They have nothing to fear considering they currently represent the established status quo.

Curious indeed.  Ashamed are we...?
Holebender

Stevie... you're not my niece by any chance? Lorna's youngest?
Stevie

I might be... uncle Holebender.
Holebender

How have you been? I haven't spoken to you since... well... ages ago. How's your sister and your dad doing?

And when did you move to France without telling us?
The Lithgae Jambo

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote:
Things have been said, here on this Our Scotland forum, regarding current court proceedings, which, if they had been said using a real name, could possibly have been seen as contempt of court.
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
It doesn't really matter which name they might be said under.
Yes, it does matter. A real person, using their real name, can be held accountable for what they say. In extreme cases, where contempt of court is concerned, a person can be sent to jail until such time as the court is satisfied that they are no longer in contempt. But a court can not send a pseudonym to jail.


A Court can do a helluva lot to find out who is using the pseudonym and take the appropriate action against them.

Contempt is contempt, no matter what the person who is in contempt chooses to call themselves at any particular time.
Stevie

Holebender wrote:
How have you been? I haven't spoken to you since... well... ages ago. How's your sister and your dad doing?

And when did you move to France without telling us?


Actually, more likely to be your nephew but alas I don't have a sister but I think of you as an uncle anyway.
mairead

Aw Stevie, I rather liked your Bravehand pseudonym. Wink
Stevie

Och, it seemed drole at first and then ultimately became a tired joke, but I was persuaded by the posts of Alasdair and Dave.

I am glad however you use maired.  Quite lovely, I prefer it to Margaret (hope that's not offfensive) because I've given my kids 'gaelic' names.


Oh, as an aside, and nothing to do with anything, Braveheart is finally coming out in Blur-ray.  Apparently, it's quite a feast for the Hi def eyes.

And Muriel Grey can go suck a Montrose.
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
I've said all I came to say on the subject. It's not really moved on.


Feel free to stop at any time then Wink

ultra wrote:
You seemed to have missed the other point I made on fraudsters building up a picture on someone based on a name. No doubt because you felt the need to put up silly scenarios to try and justify your point. Let's hope you don't live in multiple occupancy flats with shares entrances and letter boxes.


I didn't miss the point, but it was irrelevant to the discussion about the names used on forums.  Yes fraudsters can and build up a picture, but as you say yourself they need more than a name.

If we're so concerned about fraudsters, then it would follow that we protect our real names in the real world just as some people do online.  It's not a silly scenario if you are suggesting that all fraudsters need is a name.

Really though, it's more likely that they'll get your details from your 'recyclable' waste if you fail to destroy them there, from an old bank statement for example, than have a fraudster pick your name up from a forum, get your general whereabouts and attempt to build a picture up from there.

Ultra wrote:
In terms of freedom of speech, it seems you only like freedom of speech if the poster does not challange your beliefs or opinions. If they do it switches to using real names etc and not being credible opinion.  Rolling Eyes


Again, misrepresenting what I've said previously.  I suggested that when either someone is new to a forum it may be easier to take the people seriously who use genuine names.  Likewise, it lends someone at least a little credibility when they're new to a forum and use their own name ... first impressions and all that.

Of course, anybodies credibility can be shot to pieces once they start typing.
Dave Coull

Stevie wrote:
Muriel Grey can go suck a Montrose.
I've tried to figure this out and I can't. What does it mean?  Confused
Stevie

Dave Coull wrote:
Stevie wrote:
Muriel Grey can go suck a Montrose.
I've tried to figure this out and I can't. What does it mean?  Confused


I don't know if you remember her using her 'Scottishness' to earn a buck and some air time by appealing to her fellow Scots love of the highlands.

A Montrose is any 'mountain' of over 3000 feet and she did a TV show about climbing the Montrose mountains of Scotland.

It's a pity she considers people who do actually love their country as being Nazi like.

She's an opinionated scarecrow in any case.

The scarecrow reference is a cheap shot aimed at her scarecrow like profile and yellow spiky straw hair (yes, I know... beneath me but what does she care?).
Holebender

Ahem... that would be a Munro.
Dave Coull

Stevie wrote:
the Montrose mountains of Scotland
When I first started full time work, a few weeks before my 15th birthday, I used to travel to my job in Montrose by bike. This was a journey of about a mile and a half, but the good thing about biking in Montrose was that there weren't any hills. Montrose is in fact unusually flat, compared to many other Scottish towns. If the name was French, then it might mean Pink Mountain, but there are no mountains in the immediate vicinity, neither pink ones nor any other kind. Of course the name is just a Frenchified version of the original Gaelic, which means "the mossy promontory". Montrose is in fact on a sort of peninsula, a spit of sand and mud and gravel in between the North Sea on one side and the wide tidal Basin on the other, and that peninsula, in its natural state, before lots of houses were built there, would have been quite mossy. So the Gaelic name makes perfect sense, unlike the Frenchified version. There are no Montrose mountains.
Alasdair

Holebender wrote:
Ahem... that would be a Munro.


Hence the name of the TV show ... The Munro Show!
landg

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Granted Mairead, their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light where, by dint of you being employed, you may lose your ability to speak freely without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

Personally it's just the sort of authoritarian behaviour that makes my subversive sinew knot with intent ...



my god, you really are that stupid.
might i suggest you look into the codes of conduct for some professions.
codes pof conduct that protect not only the professional but you as well.
but you, being the fool you are, are completely ignorant of that.


well?
Ultra

Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
azzuri

Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes


This is a privately run forum, anyone who pleads for 'freedom of speech' is mistaken about exactly what this place is. The reason we pre-approve certain users' posts is because we have had problems with them in the past. Is this not a sensible thing to do?! Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.

Alternatively, as I've said many times, users are free to set up their own forums, and I'm always here for some free advice if people wish to do so.
Stevie

I haven't been following the history but azzuri has a sight more patience and tolerance than mods / administrators on the other political sites.

You must have been a tad naughty.

Personally, I don't like it when people personally insult others even if I disagree fundamentally to the core with the person being insulted because, it insults all of us who partake of the forum.

I'm still waiting for a certain individual to retract his Nazi assertions.  Until that time I can't take him seriously even though he can be quite drole at times and can't justify entering into conversation with someone who infers I'm of the ilk of a Nazi.
mairead

landg,
You may not approve of other posters views and opinions, you may even say these are foolish but please do not refer to posters as fools. That is insulting, particularly when you know nothing about the people you call fools. I can assure you that, while I may not be the brightest or most educated person on here, I certainly am no fool.
Ultra

mairead wrote:
landg,
You may not approve of other posters views and opinions, you may even say these are foolish but please do not refer to posters as fools. That is insulting, particularly when you know nothing about the people you call fools. I can assure you that, while I may not be the brightest or most educated person on here, I certainly am no fool.


You are not called Alasdair either.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Granted Mairead, their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light where, by dint of you being employed, you may lose your ability to speak freely without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

Personally it's just the sort of authoritarian behaviour that makes my subversive sinew knot with intent ...



my god, you really are that stupid.
might i suggest you look into the codes of conduct for some professions.
codes pof conduct that protect not only the professional but you as well.
but you, being the fool you are, are completely ignorant of that.


well?


Well, your tone and your moderation status means I can't be bothered keeping up with what you have to say.  Really it's too much like hard work to scroll up and view previous pages just to read your posts.
landg

Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes


but it adds to my air of mystery.i like it.
landg

Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Granted Mairead, their will be examples where freedom of speech is expressly denied by occupation, position, or party that individuals members of ... doesn't cast our society in a particularly great light where, by dint of you being employed, you may lose your ability to speak freely without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

Personally it's just the sort of authoritarian behaviour that makes my subversive sinew knot with intent ...



my god, you really are that stupid.
might i suggest you look into the codes of conduct for some professions.
codes pof conduct that protect not only the professional but you as well.
but you, being the fool you are, are completely ignorant of that.


well?


Well, your tone and your moderation status means I can't be bothered keeping up with what you have to say.  Really it's too much like hard work to scroll up and view previous pages just to read your posts.


awwwwwwwwnawwwwwwwwww.
Stevie

Thi 'fool' thing is what I was talking about.  There's no need and it insults us all.  Actually, is there any need for the landg and Ultra show to defend the flying insult of 'fool'.

Again, I didn't actually see the posts but on other less tolerant (and less fun for that matter) you'd be in danger of being banned for continually insulting someone.  

As President Jack Nicholson said to the martians, "Why can't we just all get along?".  Because, believe it or not, we won't rock and tremble the foundations of the world on this site by taking things a bit too far and a bit too personally.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Thi 'fool' thing is what I was talking about.  There's no need and it insults us all.  Actually, is there any need for the landg and Ultra show to defend the flying insult of 'fool'.

Again, I didn't actually see the posts but on other less tolerant (and less fun for that matter) you'd be in danger of being banned for continually insulting someone.  

As President Jack Nicholson said to the martians, "Why can't we just all get along?".  Because, believe it or not, we won't rock and tremble the foundations of the world on this site by taking things a bit too far and a bit too personally.


I haven't called anyone a 'fool'. So it's ok for you to insult people? Aye?
Ultra

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.



We've only got your word for that....  Laughing
Dave Coull

azzuri wrote:
This is a privately run forum
Ultra wrote:

We've only got your word for that
Azzurri set this Our Scotland forum up, and has been involved in the running of it. So Azzurri is presumably in a position to point out to you that it's a privately run forum.
azzuri wrote:
users are free to set up their own forums
Ultra wrote:
We've only got your word for that
No, I think it's a reasonably accurate general statement. There are thousands of forums of many different kinds on the internet.
azzuri wrote:
I'm always here for some free advice if people wish to do so.
Ultra wrote:
We've only got your word for that
You're saying you don't believe Azzurri would really give free advice on how to go about setting up your own forum? Personally, I think it's probably a genuine offer, but there would really only be one way to find out.
azzuri

Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.



We've only got your word for that....  Laughing


True; well, sort of. You could ask many of the users on here how many of their posts have been edited as a guide.
Ultra

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.



We've only got your word for that....  Laughing


True; well, sort of. You could ask many of the users on here how many of their posts have been edited as a guide.


How would any of the users know? Do they get to read moderated posts before they are published?

I am really struggling to see why Landg posts are moderated in the first place. You may not agree with him/her but seems like blatant censorship or discrimination on your part judging by the posts I have read. Not any worse than some of the comments I have seen by other users.
Holebender

I suggest to read a little more carefully. Azurri clearly says to ask users how many of their posts have been edited. In my own experience, none of my posts have ever been edited.

You have only been a member for two weeks and I don't know how far back you have read so I don't know how well you can judge the situation. Landg earned his current moderated status by making several unacceptable posts some time back. Perhaps he will be rehabilitated some day, but that's up to the moderators.
azzuri

Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.



We've only got your word for that....  Laughing


True; well, sort of. You could ask many of the users on here how many of their posts have been edited as a guide.


How would any of the users know? Do they get to read moderated posts before they are published?

I am really struggling to see why Landg posts are moderated in the first place. You may not agree with him/her but seems like blatant censorship or discrimination on your part judging by the posts I have read. Not any worse than some of the comments I have seen by other users.


Whether I agree with him/her is completely irrelevant. If disagreeing with someone's views meant that their posts were moderated, then every user on the site would have this done!

There are various reasons why this user's posts are moderated, none of which I'm willing to disclose but suffice to say we only do this in EXTREME circumstances.

Checking every single post of 'landg' on this forum wouldn't even begin to give you a clue as to why his/her comments are moderated.

You'll need to take my word on that.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
I am really struggling to see why Landg posts are moderated in the first place. You may not agree with him/her but seems like blatant censorship or discrimination on your part judging by the posts I have read. Not any worse than some of the comments I have seen by other users.


azzuri couldn't care less if he agrees or disagrees with a poster's views/opinions as long as the person is being honest and not deliberately a troll.

I'm quite sure I've posted things he doesn't agree with and I've not been edited.  I'm sure this place is more interesting because we are not all in agreement.

Dear Ultra, azzuri only does this in extreme circumstances.  It's reasonable to assume he has genuine reasons and it's unreasonable to accuse such easy-going moderators (too easy-going sometimes) of bias.

'rehabilitated'... like that.
Aventinian

So, Dave's pedantry thread, is it?
Stevie

Don't know what thread you're referring to but that is funny.

Shame you think it's okay to infer people are secret Nazis.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Don't know what thread you're referring to but that is funny.

Shame you think it's okay to infer people are secret Nazis.


What you do in the comfort of your own home is your own business.
Stevie

Cryptic.
mairead

I've been here for quite some time, been involved in plenty of disagreements, had a few rows even,  but I don't remember any of my posts being edited.
I think that it is fair comment to be able to say that a post is daft or nonsense or untrue or whatever, but posters themselves should never be abused or called names.
We ALL have opinions and the freedom to express them here, but name calling is a no no, and in my opinion indicates sheer bad manners and ignorance.
landg

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.



We've only got your word for that....  Laughing


True; well, sort of. You could ask many of the users on here how many of their posts have been edited as a guide.


How would any of the users know? Do they get to read moderated posts before they are published?

I am really struggling to see why Landg posts are moderated in the first place. You may not agree with him/her but seems like blatant censorship or discrimination on your part judging by the posts I have read. Not any worse than some of the comments I have seen by other users.


Whether I agree with him/her is completely irrelevant. If disagreeing with someone's views meant that their posts were moderated, then every user on the site would have this done!

There are various reasons why this user's posts are moderated, none of which I'm willing to disclose but suffice to say we only do this in EXTREME circumstances.

Checking every single post of 'landg' on this forum wouldn't even begin to give you a clue as to why his/her comments are moderated.

You'll need to take my word on that.



what a lot of rubbish. absolute twaddle. controlling twaddle.
in fact paranoid big brother twaddle.
it is not hard to find hard-core, extreme views and opinions on here from some members but it is not moderated.
utter hypocrisy and just an old pals act.
Holebender

Examples please.
azzuri

landg wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Landg wrote:
This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users.


Doesn't look like freedom of speech when posts are moderated and edited to suit.  Rolling Eyes
Posts are never edited, either they are approved or not.



We've only got your word for that....  Laughing


True; well, sort of. You could ask many of the users on here how many of their posts have been edited as a guide.


How would any of the users know? Do they get to read moderated posts before they are published?

I am really struggling to see why Landg posts are moderated in the first place. You may not agree with him/her but seems like blatant censorship or discrimination on your part judging by the posts I have read. Not any worse than some of the comments I have seen by other users.


Whether I agree with him/her is completely irrelevant. If disagreeing with someone's views meant that their posts were moderated, then every user on the site would have this done!

There are various reasons why this user's posts are moderated, none of which I'm willing to disclose but suffice to say we only do this in EXTREME circumstances.

Checking every single post of 'landg' on this forum wouldn't even begin to give you a clue as to why his/her comments are moderated.

You'll need to take my word on that.



what a lot of rubbish. absolute twaddle. controlling twaddle.
in fact paranoid big brother twaddle.
it is not hard to find hard-core, extreme views and opinions on here from some members but it is not moderated.
utter hypocrisy and just an old pals act.


Who said ANYTHING about moderating extreme views or opinions? Indeed, it is clearly stated in the forum rules that we EXPECT extreme views and opinions, such is the nature of the beast.
Stevie

I'm writing to the pope to start the process of beautification for azzuri.

His patience is apparently boundless.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
I'm writing to the pope to start the process of beautification for azzuri.

His patience is apparently boundless.


The pope's a nazi too.
Stevie

And who is the other Nazi?
azzuri

Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
I'm writing to the pope to start the process of beautification for azzuri.

His patience is apparently boundless.


The pope's a nazi too.


Thus is enacted Godwin's Law, and I claim my coconut!  Laughing
Ultra

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
I'm writing to the pope to start the process of beautification for azzuri.

His patience is apparently boundless.


The pope's a nazi too.


Thus is enacted Godwin's Law, and I claim my coconut!  Laughing


About a day too late. Nae luck.
landg

Stevie wrote:
I'm writing to the pope to start the process of beautification for azzuri.

His patience is apparently boundless.


and so is mine......................... Laughing
Ultra

azzuri wrote:
Who said ANYTHING about moderating extreme views or opinions? Indeed, it is clearly stated in the forum rules that we EXPECT extreme views and opinions, such is the nature of the beast.


So you condone sexist comments and chat about sex acts abusing users on a public forum?

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/ftopic6595-60.php

Shagpile wrote:
Removed by Admin


So you tolerate extreme views and opinions as long as it's one of your mates making the comments and not someone new?

Tells you all you need to know about this forum and people on it if that is the case.  Rolling Eyes

Having read Landg posts it does not even come close to anything Shagpile has written.
azzuri

I don't condone anything. Nor am I entering discussion about the moderation status of individual users.

As a 'real-time' forum, we can often only moderate posts when it is brought to our attention. If you have an issue with any particular post, I suggest you send a private message to either myself or 'Reluctant Hero'.

If you want a rundown on the complete forum rules, check here - http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/about2.html

Happy to help. Smile


Please continue on topic.
Stevie

Normally at least five years must pass before the process leading to “sainthood” is initiated. However, John Paul II, the current pontiff, has been accelerating Teresa’s passage.

In the Catholic system, becoming a “saint” is reserved for one whose holiness of life and heroic feats were exceptional. The prospective “saint” must be confirmed, however, and then recognized by the Church’s official processes of beatification and canonization.

Beatification involves an investigation into the supposed sanctity of a deceased Catholic. An enquiry probes the past of the candidate, looking at his or her deeds, writings, alleged miracles, etc. Usually, this phase lasts for several years. The pope makes the final decision as to the beatification confirmation. Once beatified, the candidate is acknowledged as “Blessed.”

Canonization is the subsequent procedure in which a public and official declaration of the virtue of the proposed “saint” is made. It must be established that two miracles have been effected at the behest of the candidate, subsequent to the beatification process. In Teresa’s case, a woman who prayed to the deceased “sister,” allegedly was cured of her cancer. Apparently this episode will constitute the nun’s first miracle.

This alleged “miracle” is discussed in a recent article in Time magazine (October 21, 2002). It involved a woman in India who was diagnosed with an abdominal tumor within a year after Teresa’s death. She was, in fact, undergoing medical treatment, and making improvement, according to her doctors. They even insist that she did not have a “full-grown tumor.” Nonetheless, supposedly, she applied a sacred medallion to her “tummy,” and was cured.

I think we can skip a few steps, have faith in miracles and simply canonise azzuri.

saint azzuri of the blessed moderation
landg

mcwowzers!!
i thought it was just me that was being controlled by the saintly interwebmessageboard gods.
dissapointed.i don't feel quite so special now.
Dave Coull

Stevie wrote:
saint azzuri of the blessed moderation
Bah, humbug!
Azzurri is a sinner.
Stevie wrote:
John Paul II, the current pontiff
A mere son of Adam, like the rest of us.
Stevie wrote:
Normally at least five years must pass before the process leading to “sainthood” is initiated
"Process"? There is no "process". There is only hope........

   Oh, when the saints go marching in
   Oh, when the saints go marching in
   Lord, how I want to be in that number
   When the saints go marching in

   And when the sun refuse to shine
   And when the sun refuse to shine
   Lord, how I want to be in that number
   When the sun refuse to shine

   And when the moon turns red with blood
   And when the moon turns red with blood
   Lord, how I want to be in that number
   When the moon turns red with blood

   Oh, when the trumpet sounds its call
   Oh, when the trumpet sounds its call
   Lord, how I want to be in that number
   When the trumpet sounds its call

   Oh When the new world is revealed
   Oh When the new world is revealed
   Lord, how I want to be in that number
   When the new world is revealed

   Oh, when the saints go marching in
   Oh, when the saints go marching in
   Lord, how I want to be in that number
   When the saints go marching in !
Stevie

As many know, I truly believe religion is poison.

But we can have the odd saint or two.

However, the Daily Mash reports :
Quote:

GOD FOUND EARTH AMONG SOME OF HIS OTHER STUFF, CLAIMS EXPERT    

A NEW interpretation of the Bible suggests that God did not create the Earth, but stumbled upon it while looking for a magazine.

God would probably have looked behind a chest of drawers like this one
Dr Nathan Muir, a leading Hebrewologist, said the misunderstanding arose from the traditional translation of the word 'bara' which, he claims, does not mean 'to create' but to 'move the chest of drawers out a bit because it could easily have fallen down the back'.

He said: "Genesis clearly tells the story of God searching for an old copy of Omnipotent Digest that contained a picture of an otter giving a 'thumbs up' gesture.

"He had told one of His friends that it was very amusing and had promised to see if He couldn't dig it out.

"The passage goes on to describe how, while searching for the magazine, God found His spare set of van keys that He thought He'd lost ages ago, and then a blue-green ball thing that He considered taking outside for a kickabout before realising it was covered in tiny creatures."

Dr Muir admitted that it was still unclear how the Earth ended up in God's vast living room.

"It seems God lived in an infinitely massive shared house with three other supreme beings, and one of them may have left it lying around. The text reads, 'And God said lo, is this anyone's, because if it's not then I might have it, if that's alright."

But creationists have dismissed Dr Muir's interpretation, insisting any theory other than God constructing absolutely everything in six days, five and a half thousand years ago was 'dangerously unhinged'.

Rev Martin Bishop, of the First Church of the Immaculate Contraption, said: "The passage actually reads, 'And God did ask the beasts of the field, 'has anyone seen the magazine with the picture of that universe I created?'"




Maybe he needs a high speed connection and that's why he never answers my emails.
magister ludi

A debate that has got me thinking........(thanks)

Obviously I'm a pseudonominous contributor. (I only read this forum in my own name)

Should I "come out"  and reveal my identity, say like Dave or Rinty?

Should I "come out" but merely reveal  my name? ( say, a forename)?

( there's a distinction, I think, between giving your real name and revealing your true full identity)




I'll think about it though.......


Maybe I'll do both......and keep ML as a sock-puppet.


Meanwhile, ponder........is revealing your identity anything more than a vanity?
Stevie

Many are sodomous contibutors, so pseudonomininous is as justifiable as any.

Do or don't, I was getting somewhat bored with 'Bravehand' anyway.  My first name is out there and it's no big deal.

But this whole vanity thing... maybe I should use a false 'real name'.  I fancy Horatio Humperdinkle; I guess I'll get bored with that too...
Dave Coull

I have no great objection to folk taking part in political discourse under a pseudonym, and a lot of folk who use a pseudonym (Holebender, for example, or Magister Ludi) do genuinely use this simply in order to take part in political discourse. It only becomes a problem when some folk using a pseudonym persistently make personal attacks on individuals who are more open than themselves. Behaving in such a fashion seems to me to be (1) rather cowardly, and (2) harmful to genuine political discourse. This problem does arise here on this forum, and, when discussion of topics got hijacked off-topic in the direction of (from my point of view) cowardly personal abuse, I have said that I considered such behavior unacceptable. I think I was right to say so, but Mairead considered the very act of me saying so to be itself "off topic", and that is why she started this discussion specifically about "Pseudonyms and other non thread issues".
magister ludi wrote:
is revealing your identity anything more than a vanity?
Maybe, in a context where most folk use pseudonyms, it could be seen as vanity. But in everyday life, the opposite would be true. Suppose (for example) you live in a community where you come in daily contact with your neighbours, and you work in a medium sized business, where you have contact with both your work colleagues and with customers on a daily basis. If your neighbours are Robbie and Fiona, and your work colleagues are Jimmy and Jeanie, and you insist on identifying yourself to your neighbours, and your work colleagues, and to customers of the business, as "The Master", or some other pseudonym, then that might be seen by your neighbours and colleagues and others as a vain thing to do. It is only in the weird, topsy turvy world of the internet that it can seem like vanity to be Dave, or Steve, or whatever. As for me, there was never at any time any "revealing" of a name. Right from the very first time I used the internet, I always just assumed that using your name was the normal thing to do. The reason I used my surname was because it turned out there were already a couple of other "Daves".
Alasdair

magister ludi wrote:
Meanwhile, ponder........is revealing your identity anything more than a vanity?


Indeed, but also ponder is choosing a name and an avatar not also a vanity.  Creating an identity, an image perhaps which you think might 'look cool' to other users?
Holebender

When I first signed up here there was another member using my first name, so I used a descriptive nickname. I later changed that nickname to another (Holebender) because the original was no longer valid; I no longer did what the nickname said I did. Holebender is just a jokey description of the work I do, and is sometimes good for breaking the ice as some people seem to imagine all kinds of strange practices.

Depending on the nickname, many people do display a sort of vanity when they choose them.
magister ludi

Ok, Ok, given my avataar we can now all agree (surely, for once) that I'm a  big, easy slow moving target on this one......and shamelessly vain.

I thoroughly agree, Dave, that hiding behind a false name to make personal attacks isn't on, and it's particularly offensive if the person on the receiving end is open about their identity as you and others are.

A bit of banter between contributors ( psuedos or not) who regularly cross-swords and are familiar with each others style can make for good and amusing reading, but it's tedious and disruptive (no doubt deliberately so)  when the trolls go hunting for sport.

What annoys me though about people who deliberately and consciously use avataars is when they use the " you don't know anything about me" defence in an argument

It's interesting  when two false identities have a go at each other; and a little worrying when this is obviously taken seriously and personally by the "false" name(s)......I can't help but think that if an attack on your "false" name causes that much distress it's time to reflect and pehaps let the false identity go.

Is suppose it all depends on why you are using a psuedo......to protect your real identity, or to live vicariously in the fabulous one you created.  That's me.  Sad and vain.
Stevie

My entire life seems to pass vicariously before my eyes at the moment.
magister ludi

hair of the dog or pre-prandial, mon brave?
Stevie

Lesson planning.

I don't have time for strolling in the fields of reminiscence.

Wish I did.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics