typisch | (no subject)

Life is ok.

Becky has been here again, and very very lovely it is too. I am much happier for having seen her as always :) I do however need sleep after a certain someone kept me up all last night :p

But but Becky made me breakfast in bed :D

(She's so sweet)

Uhm, there is a weird war film on tv.

I have no money :( Having to pay two lots of rent out of a single pay packet hurts lots. I think I have a fiver until thursday, and have to hope nothing comes out of my account. *sigh*

I was upset by that anonymous troll replying to my last post. Ok so (s)he was obviously a spineless arsehole afraid to put a name to their opinions, but things like that do still hurt a little.. *shrug* I don't want to make my journal limited to LJ users just yet, but I guess I'll have to eventually if this keeps on. (As an aside, what kind of person from the UK calls someone a 'tool'? I mean, really)

Um, that's it. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From: (Anonymous)

If my comments are to be taken at face value, then great. That is what I want. I rather think you've misused the term there, don't you?

You're the one who's hiding behind my anonymity and using it as an excuse to ignore my points. What is the point of me getting a journal? Would the fact that I had xxxx.livejournal.com as an empty page and a meaningless name make you happy? If so, why? It appears to be a rather convenient excuse. I am not slagging you off. If I wanted to do that, I'd do a far better job of it. I am making points which you are singularily failing to answer. Again, I repeat, I imagine you'd take someone who said something nice to you seriously, if even they commited the heinous crime of not having a journal.

Regards, AAP

From:

typical.livejournal.com

No, I don't think I've misused it.

I don't see any points that I've failed to answer. The only thing that you (AAP) has asked is about the anonymity, which I have answered. If of course that is an admission you are the other person after all, fine.

Oh, and the only people who have ever said anything nice about me and posted anonymously, have signed their names at the end. Odd that, isn't it? Do check, if you like.

But tell you what. Why not put your points down here, say as a list, and I'll think about responding to them? If you can get the courage to sign your name, I definately will. But I know you'll turn that challenge down, won't you?

From: (Anonymous)

This is getting rather long and rather circular. Hmm.

I think you have. 'Face value' is the true value of something, which is exactly what I want.
I don't want my opinions to be influenced by who I am, whether in a good or bad way.

I'm not the other person, as I've said. That other person seems to have rather a big
grievance with you hence my 'looks like someone knows you' comment. I don't know you and my
only point in this whole thread is the way you dismiss people who disagree with you or
post anonymously. I would have thought the difference in the writing style would be apparent.
Of course, it could be me trying to be clever and making you think it's two people when it's
one, but if it was I wouldn't say this. Or would I? Ooh. Double bluffing, how exciting.

I digress.

You keep trying to say I'm a coward just because I don't tell you who I am. Why are you so
transfixed on who I am and not what I'm saying? It is a very convenient excuse. If I was to
say something encouraging like 'why not join a rugby/rowing/whatever club in London, it's a great
way to meet friends and/or occupy your time so you're not so lonely?', would you be calling
me a coward? No, I doubt you would. You'd say 'thank you' and pretty much leave it at that.
I'm not meaning to be discouraging, I just dispute with what you're saying. As I said, if I
had a problem with you, I'd take the approach of the other poster. What good would it do if I left my name and EMail address? If I said I was Tony or Brian or Darren, why would that make such a difference to you? Why am I all of a sudden taken seriously? Why am I no longer a coward when I put down a meaningless name on my posts? You don't know me so why is knowing my name of any use to you? I don't know you and your name is of no use to me. I don't care who you are or what your name is, I disagree with you. Especially as you still have anonymous posting enabled. (more...)

From: (Anonymous)

(...continued)

And people who leave their names on the end of your 'positive posts' aren't being anonymous,
are they?

However, as you want my points in a list, here you are:

Why is someone who posts anonymously a coward?

Why is what someone who posts anonymously 'good for a laugh'?

Why is someone who posts anonymously not taken seriously?

Why is what someone who posts anonymously says deemed invalid? You claim that I'd have an agenda if I didn't leave my name. Why? Just because I've not said how wonderful you are doesn't mean I have an agenda. I have no agenda, I don't know you from Adam, I am making a point.

Why if someone has a journal and gives you their name and Email address, do they stop being
cowardly?

If I did 'take your challenge' and evidently prove my masculinity and leave you a name, how would you know it was my real name? And what would you do with it exactly? Nothing, because it's worthless to you.

Regards, AAP

From:

typical.livejournal.com

Indeed, face value is the true, immediately apparent value of something. The first thing any reader would see would be would be 'Anonymous'. I would say that immediately sets the value of your comments.

Evidently we disagree on what value anonymous postings have - I have already answered your points, but because you were not prepared to accept the answers, you accuse me of failing to answer. No wonder this is becoming circular. So, for your benefit, I will answer them again, more verbosely.

Why is someone who posts anonymously a coward?
Because it indicates that they do not have the courage to stand by their views in public, but rather can only snipe from the safety of anonymity. In fact, the 'other poster' made my point for me, upon saying they didn't want their views to "make [them] an outcast". That strikes me as cowardly. Perhaps it does not to you, but as always, I post here for other people to make up their own mind about me.

Why is what someone who posts anonymously 'good for a laugh'?
Because there is no other decent response to it. In fact, very little has been alleged against me here, but vague hand-waving and the subtext I am a 'bad person'. Well so be it. Once again, I think the people reading this have the intelligence to make up their own minds based on the evidence available - except of course, in this case, I believe no evidence has been offered - just vague hand-waving. That is what I describe as 'good for a laugh'. It is a sort of playground name-calling, done from the safety of anonymity.

Why is someone who posts anonymously not taken seriously?
What right do they have to be taken seriously? I go to great lengths to be transparent about my life. People can, as I keep pointing out, contact me at any point to ask me for clarification of what I say or what I think about someone or something. Someone who posts anonymously is not prepared to do that. They enjoy the power they get posting anonymously, not having to take any responsibility for their own views or comments.

Why is what someone who posts anonymously says deemed invalid?
See above. It indicates a lack of belief or of being prepared to take responsibility for their comments.

You claim that I'd have an agenda if I didn't leave my name.
I claimed that everyone has an agenda. I have an agenda both in replying to this post, and writing this journal in the first place. You clearly have an agenda in commenting, because otherwise you wouldn't comment. So yes, you have an agenda whether or not you leave your name - but the fact you didn't gives a strong indication of what that agenda might be. Again, I'm prepared to let the people reading this make up their own minds. (That is, if anyone still cares)

Why? Just because I've not said how wonderful you are doesn't mean I have an agenda. I have no agenda, I don't know you from Adam, I am making a point.
Then you have an agenda. Simple. You clearly do know me from Adam, if you read my journal. Of course, the other possibility is you were brought in by the 'other poster' as backup. Perhaps I do not know you, but you know plenty about me from what I post here. That indeed is a secondary intention of this journal - the first being a space for me to record my thoughts and feelings. Please don't be disingenuous about this. You yourself identify interests of mine, so please don't claim you are coming from some 'blank slate'. You aren't.

Why if someone has a journal and gives you their name and Email address, do they stop being
cowardly?
Because they allow themselves to be challenged about their views, and show themselves to have the confidence to stand by the words they write. As I said, these anonymous comments are the LJ equivalent of graffiti. Like someone running into a cinema, shouting "fire!" and running away again into the night.

From:

typical.livejournal.com

If I did 'take your challenge' and evidently prove my masculinity and leave you a name, how would you know it was my real name? And what would you do with it exactly? Nothing, because it's worthless to you.
Perhaps. It could yield an email address upon which you could be challenged privately - either by me, or by someone else reading this who wanted to know more about your views. It would indicate some level of wanting to have a serious conversation on an equal level, rather than hiding behind the power of anonymity to snipe.

You ask why I haven't disabled anonymous comments, then you answer the question yourself:
If I was to say something encouraging like 'why not join a rugby/rowing/whatever club in London, it's a great way to meet friends and/or occupy your time so you're not so lonely?', would you be calling me a coward? No, I doubt you would. You'd say 'thank you' and pretty much leave it at that.
Indeed I would leave it at that. I would think about what you had said, I probably wouldn't give much of a reply beyond thanks. In fact I am giving substantially more time and thought to your negative anonymous comments than any positive one I might get, and I would be less likely to take positive anonymous comments seriously than negative ones. You probably don't believe me, but then how would you know? I've never (that I can remember) had a positive totally anonymous comment. Trying to alledge someunknown behaviour on your part is, again, pretty disingenuous on your part.

You ask why I have anonymous posting enabled still. Well, surprisingly not to allow anonymous postings. Rather, because whilst I believe anyone who wishes to comment could quite easily get an account, I don't want to force that upon certain friends I know who don't want to have such accounts. But in return for allowing anonymous comments I trust people to show responsibility in signing their anonymous posts. That had failed in the past a few times, but my friends posted publicly in response. Now that trust of people reading my journal is being betrayed quite spectacularly, but am still not quite ready to allow you to 'win'. In fact, I do wish to justify myself and make my case, to respond to the original accusations. But as long as the original poster hides behind anonymity I cannot (I would guess any sort of evidence they put forward would immediately identify them, anyway).

I give people the right to post anonymously to my journal and it saddens me when people take that right without displaying the responsibility I believe should come with it. That's their choice. But in my view that reduces their credibility. If you disagree, fine.. but you do so, once again, in my eyes, from a position of reduced credibility.