Guest guest Posted July 25, 2002 Report Share Posted July 25, 2002 Fernando and All, I agree with the idea that people should be responsible for who they are and what they say. However I take Jefferson quite literally when he says that freedom of thought and freedom of expression are our most fundamental liberties and that you cannot limit either of them in any slightest way without losing them both. I believe therefore that you should continue to allow people who want to masquerade as someone other than themselves to do so, since obviously it is an expression of some thought or other. I find them all quite fascinating personally, and would hate to lose the opportunity to encounter such expressions simply because I, or you, or anybody thinks it's important to be associated with our own points of view. Ken That is true when we ask for logical analysis or political opinion. sharp minded students have pointed out things I have overlooked more than once. However, it is often quite different when one asks for advice or interpretation based upon long study and experience. If Bob Flaws's posts were unsigned, would they have as much import? Or Z'ev's or Ken's. These folks all share many ideas that I cannot directly scrutinize for myself at my current state of understanding chinese. If I don't know who they are and thus their credentials, how am I to evaluate the correctness of their interpretations? If a student has made a comment, it is also helpful to know who one is addressing so you know what level of education someone is at and answer appropriately. Does anyone remember the brief member who asked what yin and yang were? that one slipped past my normal screening process. Anyway, all comments have potential value, but I still think it is helpful to know from whence they came in evaluating them sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2002 Report Share Posted July 25, 2002 , <yulong@m...> wrote: > > I believe therefore that you should > continue to allow people who want to > masquerade as someone other than themselves > to do so, since obviously it is an expression > of some thought or other. no decision has been made. But Ken, since you are not a practitioner, you may have less concern about " bad " advice. I guess we work with the caveat emptor rule. Do not assume because it was said on this list that it has inherent value. Scrutinize all comments here as you would a book or live speaker. (list owner for those who don't know) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Todd et al., Having been burned in the past by anonymous forum respondents, I say kick the ......, ....... ....... out. (Fill in the blanks anyway you want.) If one says something in public, then I believe one should honestly identify themself. Words have power. So they should be used with integrity. Willingness to say something in a public forum but unwillingness to identify oneself lacks integrity in my book. Bob Flaws , " 1 " <@i...> wrote: > , <yulong@m...> wrote: > > > > > I believe therefore that you should > > continue to allow people who want to > > masquerade as someone other than themselves > > to do so, since obviously it is an expression > > of some thought or other. > > no decision has been made. But Ken, since you are not a > practitioner, you may have less concern about " bad " advice. I > guess we work with the caveat emptor rule. Do not assume > because it was said on this list that it has inherent value. > Scrutinize all comments here as you would a book or live > speaker. > > (list owner for those who don't know) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Bob, et al: I agree. If anybody has things to say on the forum, one of them should always be their name---for the reasons you and the others have brought up. If someone feels compelled to post something anonymously, he should first send it to Todd for review. then, can choose to post it anonymously if and when he decides it is appropriate. Jim Ramholz , " pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001> wrote: et al., > > Having been burned in the past by anonymous forum respondents, I say > kick the ......, ....... ....... out. (Fill in the blanks anyway you > want.) If one says something in public, then I believe one should > honestly identify themself. Words have power. So they should be used > with integrity. Willingness to say something in a public forum but > unwillingness to identify oneself lacks integrity in my book. > > Bob Flaws > > , " 1 " <@i...> wrote: > > , <yulong@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe therefore that you should > > > continue to allow people who want to > > > masquerade as someone other than themselves > > > to do so, since obviously it is an expression > > > of some thought or other. > > > > no decision has been made. But Ken, since you are not a > > practitioner, you may have less concern about " bad " advice. I > > guess we work with the caveat emptor rule. Do not assume > > because it was said on this list that it has inherent value. > > Scrutinize all comments here as you would a book or live > > speaker. > > > > > (list owner for those who don't know) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.