I don't disagree with any of that, strina (in general, I mean, can't speak for your particular case). It's really the question of accountability that I'm getting at. Even journalists who use pseudonyms (not a particularly attractive thing) can be held ultimately responsible (and, I imagine, their real identities divulged - I'm sure Private Eye have plenty of experience of this) if they write something libellous or otherwise in some type of breach. And what people say or do in private is their own business. But the fact that people can say all sorts of things in a public online forum, without such accountability for the most part, is what I take exception to.

There is a case reported here about which I hadn't previously heard.

Welcome to the Gooseberry Club, DB >= =<

So when you are asked in the street by an apparently friendly but unknown person whether you might be able to give them directions to a particular local street, are we to assume that you will require them to supply you with their correct name and credentials before you will regard them as a "real person" and answer their question? Perhaps, while you are at it, you will want reassurance that they hold the right attitudes to "contemporary music" and "music and politics", not to mention their views upon ethnicity and multiculturalism.

Some conversation!

Now we all understand that you will probably have had a difficult 4 or 5 years struggling with the current RAE, and have probably undergone innumerable tests and mock-assessments, leading to your final submission. You will probably even now be wondering whether your output will be judged "worthy" in the way you feel it should even. Accountability and credibility will be uppermost in your mind, as in the minds of your assessors. But this has nothing to do with the innocent conversations that take place upon internet messageboards between people of common interests who wish simply to communicate ideas with one another.

Baz

Well, writing as a hideous 'man of the forest' (or was that a mildly racist reference to t-p's residence in Ireland, the land from which the infamous O'Reilly hailed, or perhaps to the 'Manuel' character himself?), I have recently switched back to an old invented "nickname" at TOP. Using my own given forename had led to some twit confusing it with that of someone with the family name Jones. What a silly Bulgar.

A few years ago a student at Durham (not HH, I hasten to add) started posting insulting messages over at TOP about an old colleague and friend. However, he had been careless enough to use as his login nickname the same one he  used on his own website. He was most surprised when I took only a few minutes to track down his place of study and mention the somewhat less than flattering photograph of him exhibited on his website. I was not alone in finding him with such ease, either. He took down his website pretty damned quickly. The situation GG refers to re. Ian's effective identification of one of his own students in messages on these boards represents a similar level carelessness. However, in the former case, it was only the poster himself who was 'outed'. I consider Ian's lapse rather more reprehensible in that another was involved, presumably without their knowledge of permission.

May I just apologise for my absence during most of this? For reasons that I'll not bore you with now, I'm typing this this on a borrowed laptop whilst I'm elsewhere on urgent business, but I'll not have a chance to split posts off (or whatever) until I return to Castle Dough, at a time which I can't yet estimate.

But - er - would you not assume from the outset that they had already communicated the nature of their request? Or would you just stare at them with an open mouth, hesitating "just in case" they wished to ask you about other things? Who was it who stepped outside the brief of this thread Ian, not even patiently waiting to see whether somebody might (in passing) have been indiscreet enough to think of mentioning "other things"?

And, by the way, George...


...I should think carefully before going down that route. The said member is totally unreliable in replying to PMs - I know that because I sent him one following some questionable comments he made about me on another thread, and despite the fact that I posted it to him as long ago as 23rd June he has still not seen fit to show the courtesy of a reply. It maybe because "Baz" is not a "real persona" who deserves the respect normally accorded to humans, but then I doubt that "George" would be likely to fair any better.

Baz

Come on Guys.  All this is getting pretty silly isn't it?  Reminiscent of the tusk polishing in the undergrowth on the old r3 boards when points mean prizes.

I would point out our esteemed Mods all have pseudonyms.  Does that mean you do not respect their opinions or judgements because they are not "real persona"

If Ian thinks that posting under the name of Anna Edbrooke-Gibson turns me from a Dylan quoting hologram hooligan into a "real persona" then so be it.  I'll still spout the same rubbish, but at least I will be accountable.  To whom accountable I am not sure. the libel lawyers I guess from Ian's viewpoint, but when did we ever have libellous posts on here?

There have been harsh words about some contemporary music, as indeed there have been harsh words about the Unholy Trinity of The Bishops of Rochester, Durham and Carlisle, but not a libel matter I think.  Allthough, hang on, Ian did accuse me of being a Daily Mail reader ...........

I don't believe I did misunderstand them - but that is my last word on that issue.

I did once have a beard, Bryn, for a whole 8 years - bad, bad idea.