|
autoharp
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: 13:06:22, 10-07-2008 » |
|
When one poster, for example, uses a cross-gender pseudonym, in part to be able to promote their own work Ah. Presumably a spiteful smear against Richard - and untrue. A cowardly attack, this. Ian - as much as I find you personable and friendly outside this message board, you can be abusive and disruptive on it. Much of your posting on this thread is to do with smokescreens and obfuscation. You don't apologise for causing offence and, as far as only you are concerned, you are always right. Apparently you must dominate at all costs. It's not pretty to behold. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:25:21, 10-07-2008 by autoharp »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #121 on: 13:12:09, 10-07-2008 » |
|
When one poster, for example, uses a cross-gender pseudonym, in part to be able to promote their own work Ah. Presumably a spiteful smear against Richard - and untrue. A cowardly attack, this. Not untrue at all - there is a difference between reading Veronika Lenz (when the identity of that poster was not generally known, on TOP) saying that some of the best works for a certain medium include those by Richard Barrett (and in some cases I agree), and those same sentiments having his real name attached to them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #122 on: 13:21:10, 10-07-2008 » |
|
Well, at least potentially, anyone could make such an allegation, without it being verifiable/contestable. If an unverifiable libelous claim is made a mod would remove it, or face the ISP pulling the site and a possible writ. But if it's backed by evidence which satisfies board management - it's their call - and they can keep the ISP happy, then imo it should stay up. What's the problem? The same principle applies in all walks of life: if you say something controversial be prepared to back it up. The problem is precisely the latter point, if someone is speaking supposedly 'from the inside', one needs to know who they are to be sure they aren't just making it up. And one can hardly expect moderators to be able to check such things in the way that is expected of newspaper editors. To take your example, supposing someone is claiming that there is systematic racism in an orchestra management, someone could post that here, but it would be a major undertaking on the part of a moderator to investigate that claim - furthermore, potentially the orchestra management could sue, and the board (not just the individual poster) would be liable. Is that a realistic course of action that the mods here would be likely to take? And how would they know whether or not the poster has other axes to grind? It would always be up to moderators to decide on whether and to what extent post content might risk attracting the attentions of the litigatory profession but, whilst I agree that this could in certain circumstances be an onerous burden that might even become unbearable in particular cases, this is by no means the same issue as that of poster anonymity per se; if a moderator genuinely felt cause to assume that a forum member was wilfully using a pseudonym specifically as an intended mask for the expression of such potentially risky sentiments, he/she could take whatever steps he/she might deem necessary, but I do not for one moment believe such a circumstance to typify the rationale behind most members' adoption of pseudonymic forum IDs and I sumbit that the post content of such members provides ample evidence to support that view. Also, for all I might agree with some of the sentiments expressed, I find the use of a pseudonym to initiate this thread extremely cowardly. That may or may not seem to be the case to you, but is it not conceivable that a moderator sharing such a view might consider exercising his/her right to PM the member concerned and give him/her a warning that failure to remove or otherwise amend such a post forthwith may result in his/her forum identity being revealed on the forum? If you're honest about this issue, Ian, you are, by the ample evidence of your own words on it, vastly more exercised over the pseudonymic forum ID issue as such than you are over how moderators might deem it necessary to exercise certain of their rights in a forum such as this one and it might therefore not be too much to say that you appear to be seeking to hide that agenda behind excuses about potential litigatory risk in rather the same way as you accuse certain mambers of hiding behind their pseudonymic forum IDs (although I would not necessarily go so far as to accuse you of "cowardice" in so doing)... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #123 on: 13:22:22, 10-07-2008 » |
|
When one poster, for example, uses a cross-gender pseudonym, in part to be able to promote their own work Ah. Presumably a spiteful smear against Richard - and untrue. A cowardly attack, this. Not untrue at all - there is a difference between reading Veronika Lenz (when the identity of that poster was not generally known, on TOP) saying that some of the best works for a certain medium include those by Richard Barrett (and in some cases I agree), and those same sentiments having his real name attached to them. There is, is there? Well, there is also such a thing as a sense of humour, too, although not everyone necessarily possesses one, it would seem... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Philidor
|
|
« Reply #124 on: 13:25:17, 10-07-2008 » |
|
To take your example, supposing someone is claiming that there is systematic racism in an orchestra management, someone could post that here, but it would be a major undertaking on the part of a moderator to investigate that claim - furthermore, potentially the orchestra management could sue, and the board (not just the individual poster) would be liable. Is that a realistic course of action that the mods here would be likely to take? And how would they know whether or not the poster has other axes to grind? If someone posts a racism claim, with no supporting evidence, a mod should take it down immediately, and send the member a spiky little PM telling them not to put the site at risk by publishing unsubstantiated defamatory claims. If they do it again their account should be suspended. But if they support the claim, say with a statement notarised by a solicitor which is found to be genuine and relevant, you probably leave it up. I say 'probably' because it's the mods' call. They're the ones in the hot seat, facing a writ should they get it wrong. Bringing the discussion back to anonymous MB membership, it's at this point, when forum management decide to permit the material to remain posted, that the anonymous screen name gets its power. The furious bigwig runs to his lawyers. They advise him: (a) how difficult and expensive it would be to mount a libel challenge. For starters they'd need to put private detectives onto the mods to see if they're worth suing, i.e. have any money; and (b) the added complication of needing to unmask the anonymous poster before a writ can even be issued. Here's the judgment in the 'Owlstalk' case. See what a mess the claimants got themselves into, over this precise point? Consequently, the argument is strong to maintain a system of anonymous posting: to protect ordinary posters, forum managers and free speech within the law. Sorry, but (to my mind) your points pale into insignificance set against the wider legal context. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:40:03, 10-07-2008 by Philidor »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #125 on: 13:32:12, 10-07-2008 » |
|
When one poster, for example, uses a cross-gender pseudonym, in part to be able to promote their own work Ah. Presumably a spiteful smear against Richard - and untrue. A cowardly attack, this. Ian, is this really what you were alluding to? I would second that itīs extremely unfair to assume that the intent was self-promotion. Doesnīt seem like Richard at all. But I guess you know him better than I do, eh? Youīd have to make a better case than you already have, unless you want to lose the few friends you still have here. Then again, that would be for a different thread, as I donīt think many people would be interested in reading it. Iīm not sure I can find the time either, to be frank, but since itīs something I asked for I suppose Iīd have to oblige. Sincerely P71l1pp 8lum3 {Admin Edit requested} |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:07:09, 11-07-2008 by John W »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #126 on: 13:32:28, 10-07-2008 » |
|
When one poster, for example, uses a cross-gender pseudonym, in part to be able to promote their own work Ah. Presumably a spiteful smear against Richard - and untrue. A cowardly attack, this. Ian - as much as I find you personable and friendly outside this message board, you can be abusive and disruptive on it. Much of your posting on this thread is to do with smokescreens and obfuscation. You don't apologise for causing offence and, as far as only you are concerned, you are always right. Apparently you must dominate at all costs. It's not pretty to behold. And having added thus to my previous post, others have appeared in the last few minutes. This is my last post on this thread. So no doubt, Ian, you'll take the opportunity to continue with your smokescreens. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #127 on: 13:36:28, 10-07-2008 » |
|
Also, for all I might agree with some of the sentiments expressed, I find the use of a pseudonym to initiate this thread extremely cowardly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #128 on: 14:05:25, 10-07-2008 » |
|
With respect to the case I was citing, it was in response to autoharp's naming of the individual and claim that the allegation was untrue. I don't particularly want to pursue it, but if wanted, I can go back to the old boards at TOP to find the posts in question. But that will have to wait until tomorrow.
Philipp, the whole 'Veronika' affair is indeed one thing I was alluding to when first raising the issue of pseudonyms. You weren't around on the boards back then.
autoharp, I am certainly not always right, but I don't apologise for having opinions that sometimes differ with those on the majority of the board. I have found your posts over the last few days very abusive as well. Smokescreens and domination don't always go that well together, by the way.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 14:08:33, 10-07-2008 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #129 on: 14:14:08, 10-07-2008 » |
|
With respect to the case I was citing, it was in response to autoharp's naming of the individual and claim that the allegation was untrue. I don't particularly want to pursue it, but if wanted, I can go back to the old boards at TOP to find the posts in question. But that will have to wait until tomorrow.
We'll all hold our respective breaths in anticipaceion, then... Philipp, the whole 'Veronika' affair is indeed one thing I was alluding to when first raising the issue of pseudonyms. You weren't around on the boards back then.
Nor was I, but this does not impact upon that fact that your observations on the motives behind Richard's adoption of that forum ID are, to put it mildly, far from complete or accurate. Smokescreens and domination don't always go that well together, by the way.
I don't think that autoharp suggested that they do, but in any event one may reasonably assume that, as a smoker (etc.), you ought to know... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #130 on: 14:21:36, 10-07-2008 » |
|
. . . the whole 'Veronika' affair . . . Veronica was the one who responded with a "yawn" to our attempt to rate all the composers according to objective standards. We understood "her" to be a bold German woman inviting us to her bed-room and we were ab-so-lute-ly horrified at the thought of it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Philidor
|
|
« Reply #131 on: 14:31:33, 10-07-2008 » |
|
. . . the whole 'Veronika' affair . . . Veronica was the one who responded with a "yawn" to our attempt to rate all the composers according to objective standards. We understood "her" to be a bold German woman inviting us to her bed-room and we were ab-so-lute-ly horrified at the thought of it. * goes weak at knees, thoughts turn to Anne Sofie von Otter * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdhRYMY6IEc&eurlSee 1:48. That freilein has the lung capacity of an air conditioning unit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #132 on: 15:19:06, 10-07-2008 » |
|
Also, for all I might agree with some of the sentiments expressed, I find the use of a pseudonym to initiate this thread extremely cowardly. Doh! I get the blame, again.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #133 on: 17:57:51, 10-07-2008 » |
|
Philipp, the whole 'Veronika' affair is indeed one thing I was alluding to when first raising the issue of pseudonyms. You weren't around on the boards back then.
On second thought, I don't want to get mixed up in this and I will not read the history thread when it does emerge. I will also ignore the remainder of this thread, though in my great desire to continue to deserve everyone's respect I have changed my profile information. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Antheil
|
|
« Reply #134 on: 18:33:10, 10-07-2008 » |
|
I don't particularly want to pursue it, but if wanted, I can go back to the old boards at TOP to find the posts in question. But that will have to wait until tomorrow.
With respect Ian, I don't think anyone wants you to dredge up old TOP posts. Whatever your perceived differences with Richard this is not the place to air grievances. The question asked was anonymity or not. I think the majority have opted for anonymity. As to the libel issue, I am sure our Mods would quickly stamp on anything contentious if proof of truth could not be provided. Like others I will not be reading this thread any more. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
|
|
|
|
