.jpg)
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Sacramentum cont'
I am amused by Sacramentum's disclaimer: "The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any other entity, agency, or organization." Uhm, Sacramentum, how COULD we ascribe your views to an other entity, agency, or organization WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE? Care to give us a clue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Well, you've got anonymous admins here, so people who live in glass houses . . .
As a real life contributor, I'm glad the disclaimer is there; it keeps me from having to do it in the post itself (see the very first CAAFlog post). Maybe the disclaimer exists on MJB for the sake of non-anonymous commentators that drop in.
I don’t know about CAAFlog, JO’C, or any other contributor to the site, but even though I’m curious as to Sacramentum’s identity, I don't begrudge anyone their anonymity. I think it has its place in a forum like this. I thought long and hard before using my own name on CAAFlog. It does cause one to think a little harder before launching a screed. I actually enjoy the mix of real and imaginary characters in CAAFlog. It reminds me of when I used to watch the Muppet Show and it seemed normal for a real public figure to exchange views with a sock. (Sorry Grover) And sometimes there are things that need to be said that an active duty person would be wise not to say out loud.
I’m enjoying Sacramentum’s new blog. I even tried to comment on the “New Article 120” piece, but he or she has enabled the function that requires administrator approval before a comment gets posted. Maybe it didn’t make the grade.
JO'C --
I try to figure out who they are too. :-)
I don't begrudge this Sacriligeous person his anonymity either. My only point is that CAAFlog seems to be harping about it and about half of the admins on his own blog appear to be anonymous. I know who one of them is, but not the other two, and I don't really care that I don't know. So it seems that CAAFlog's main gripe is that HE doesn't know who Sanctimonious is because it appears that anonymous admins are okay here where CAAFlog knows who they are.
JO'C -- I'm not griping. It's okay with me that he or she is anonymous. But I am curious, just as I am curious when there are anonymous posters on CAAFlog. Okay, no more public speculation.
Sorry, one final clarification about anonymous posters on CAAFlog. I believe that it is technologically impossible for anyone to tell who an anonymous poster is. Even if it were technologically possible, I wouldn't try. And, as the No Man well knows, even if it were technologically possible and I were to try, it is exceedingly unlikely I could figure out how to do it. So, to the best of my knowledge, anonymous posters have no risk that their identities will be revealed unless they reveal them. No Man, am I right about that?
Marcus
I never received your comment. I welcome comments. I just want to have some measure of control so I can avoid postings by commercial posters or by lunatics.
Maybe I didn't enter it right. Nothing profound. I was just commenting that as far as I can tell from the new Art. 120, it looks like you need more evidence to get an instruction on mistake of fact than you need to prevail on that same instruction. I've been wondering about this for some time, it seems to withdraw a material question of fact from the members to a degree I've not seen.
CAAFlog:
Absolute anonimity. The best way to post anonymously is to either post as "anonymous" (duh) or as "Other" and enter some name other than your own. None of it is traceable and we don't have any way of figuring out who was on the site when. When we say anonymous, we mean anonymous. As many know from the grammar of my posts, when I post from my Blackberry I enter my name in other and there is no link to my profile.
One of these days I'll actually have to log on to Sacramentum, but monitoring one blog (ok maybe two if you count legal tabloids) takes up enough of my time.
I think the "anonymous admins" that JO'C refers to aren't the comment posters, but rather those admins who contribute under various aliases, such as Guert, Bill and the Eye.
JO'C presumes that the other contributors, or at least CAAFlog, knows their true identities. From my perspective, I am curious, but understand some desire to protect identities, when the perceived reputation of being a defense hack isn't necessarily so career enhancing in the Navy's JAG Corps, at least.
EGN has it right. And, to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the decision of some of the admins on this site to use pseudonyms (as if it would matter if I did). My only point was that this site has recognized the propriety of having pseudonymous admins and so it was odd for this site to allow that practice and then have the site leader poking at Sacramentus for using a pseudonym.
I am unaware of any pseudonyms admins on this blog. For my part, I can assure you that I am very real and very dead. In fact, I had dinner with sacramentum last night.
For casual posters of a certain age, there is a alternate explanation: we may simply not remember our Google/Blogger IDs or passwords and "anonymous" or "other" reasonably accommodates our disabilities.
SD
Post a Comment