It's always been my own theory . . . despite being in the rather unique position of having to take a certain "Stench-who-shall-remain-nameless" to Court for cyber-stalking.
Given my "1-2-3" with "that Smell" (not to mention the bit about being a medical whistle-blower who, at one point, because of the legal bullies, was too terrified to say "BOO!" to a goose in public), I certainly understand why some folks prefer to try and maintain a buffer . . . even if a mere pseudonym really isn't much of one.
While we're on the subject (since several folks have asked), being a lover-of-free-speech, yet at the same time craving some of that civility in the blogosphere that so many of the Googlers & deaf/dumb/blind citizen-journalists in Greensboro lecture about, this private citizen is deeply conflicted about filing a libel claim against our local ether's resident angry-white-man-with-little-reason-to-be-angry. But I gotta say, in this particular instance, it's awfully tempting to slap "Fec" upside his spinning, bile-spewing head with a claim that could not be quickly dismissed on the merits . . . not to mention stomp a Roch.
Young's take on anons mirrors my own (again, given especially the "satire" and the "sources" our "Fec" was, at least at one point, publishing - I have not been back in a long while to see).
As a new blogger, I often look at those replies to my postings that are anonymous and think, “Who are you? Why do you think the way you do? Why will you not put a name and face to your thoughts?” My personal belief is that the anonymous person may lack conviction, confidence or courage. Would they be as brazen or critical if I could research their credentials?
I shared some thoughts on Kevin's thread:
I don’t suppose anyone here remembers Flea?
There are reasons to stay anonymous. But no one is actually truly anonymous on the Internet. I can say that with authority because sometime later this year, I’ll be confronting a cyberstalker in (criminal) Court, and it seems to be a fairly easy thing to do to chase down IP addresses (with a little thing called a warrant).
That, and the Department of Homeland Security likes to visit my blog on a regular basis. It probably has something to do with the less-than-flattering things I’ve said about Obama (and his Mrs.).
I blog under my own name because I came to the ether (five years ago) with the hope that the Internet exposure of what happened to me in my own hometown (twelve years ago) might facilitate some press attention and the righting of some very egregious wrongs (so far that hasn’t happened – it’s fairly clear to me now that I’m gonna have to sue somebody – again).
Instead, I’m watching one more crop of idiot know-it-alls trying to “reform” healthcare in Washington (mostly by giving the government more authority and more to do) without giving a second thought to the mistakes government programs have made in the past . . . or the bodies (like mine) lying in that road.
I am irreverent and quite snarky (just ask Kevin) – and as cynical/skeptical as (if not more so) anyone else blogging anonymously (indeed, on a recent “Grand Rounds”, I believe the word was “acidic”). I drop the occasional four-letter word. I blog about controversial issues like abortion and pedophile doctors and execution.
And NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, makes me happier than to make a blow-hard politician or hospital administrator sweat . . . especially the two overpaid, mill-town hosebags/unconvicted felons who did me wrong.
But using my own name keeps me honest and largely out-of-trouble. I am an independent-contractor, and I do not blog about current assignments or patient situations (somewhat of a restriction) . . . particularly if the institution I work with treats me nice (and the one I currently work with/for . . . that knows about the blogging . . . does;)
Patients and colleagues also know that I blog, and often give me suggestions . . . suggestions that many times I cannot take because they are even more “acidic” than I am.
Nurses, especially, can be pretty spicy;)
Comments here at Housecalls, of course, remain closed. The anon-who-isn't-really has put a bit of a damper on the free speech.
I expect he's very proud of himself.
Update: I don't know what is going on with the comments at Kevin's, but they are being dropped and/or not posted in order. Could be the time change, I suppose.
An anonymous (of course) commenter said this:
Homeland Security doesn’t visit physician blogs, come on. Sounds a wee bit paranoid to me.
I’m not a doctor so I can be anonymous.
I countered:
Not so much paranoid as amused;)
StatCounter does not lie. “Big Sis” IS watching.
In this era of “reform”, the point about leaders vs. followers is well-taken. Ditto for anonymity being any kind of vehicle to facilitate social change (social change being the reason I’m in the ether).
“You might as write graffiti”.
Exactly.
