Nothing off topic about this posting - even though urwho may not like it.



Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Feb 5, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online

How refreshing and uplifting to this discussion it would be if everyone who posted used their real name - certainly there can be no fear of retaliation for commenting on this topic.

Instead what we are seeing are personal attacks by nameless individuals - to what end? -certainly not to have a 'thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.'

" the EDITOR saw it appropriate to limit discussion on the topic to registered users only"

Its the Editors' Forum so they get to set the rules.

Why do you find registering so threatening? Do you refuse to register to vote? Do you refuse to register your car? Do you refuse to register for Social Security? And all of those registrations create a public record whereas registering for this Forum does not.

What exactly do you want to hide?

It's the Editor's Forum?
Gee, by the amount of comments, I thought it was the "Peter The All-Knowing" Forum

It certainly is not my Forum - if it were then there would no unregistered anonymous posters. As it is not my Forum I just do the best that I can to help make it a thoughtful gathering place (rather than just wandering through from time to time).

Peter, I was not directing my critIcism toward you. Your views on anonymous posters are well known..I do not fault you at all for expressing those opinions every chance you get. My comments were directed toward the editor relative to an even application of the terms of use, as was my question as to why the thread was limited to registered users. Since you seem to have taken it as a personal attack on you, then I would have to ask why you responded by quoting only one of the three postings you made on that thread relative to anonymous posters. In addition to the rather tranquil one you quoted were, "...hardly an excuse for hiding ones identity" and "how would you like to be judged by a jury of anonymous people?" Both of which were directed at another poster who was on topic but with whom you disagreed. And to answer your question about being reluctant to register--again to quote you, "...whereas registering for this forum does not (create a public record)"--Really, you believe such records are not accessible if someone really wanted to? Just because I'm parinoid doesn't mean they're not after me.

[Post removed; stick to the issue and don't attack other posters.]

WhoRUpeople, I'm not sure which thread you're referring to that was limited to registered users because I'm not the editor who restricted it. But I'm hoping the following general information will be helpful.

Typically, editors restrict a thread to registered users when a problem poster or posters settle in and engage in personal attacks and unsupported accusations of unethical behavior or wrongdoing. Removing posts by the same TOU violator(s) over and over again becomes tiresome quickly, so we restrict.

If the thread you're referring to indicates "Editor" began it, it's probably because the first poster, who was the one to launch the thread off an Almanac article, violated the terms of use and the post was removed. When the first poster's name is removed from the field naming the launcher, the name is replaced by "Editor." A quirk in the system, and maybe too much information, but so it goes.

You're always welcome to begin a new thread, which will stay open to all posters as long as they are responsible in what they write.

ahhhh, don't get it, deleted when I only added the following comment as a sign of agreement to a previous poster:

"+1"

Is that forbidden?

Ms Batti, thank you very much for taking the time to explain the situation. Very clear explanation and perfectly understandable.