Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Blogger anonymity, pseudonyms, and Donald Douglas

In reply to: American Power: Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics, and in particular, the following:

Now, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't out someone who writes anonymously (or "pseudonymously," as the case may be). repsac3 got mad at me once for using his real name in a comment thread. But he had posted his real name at his Twitter link, at he linked to it at the sidebar. So, it's kind of hard to get mad at being "outed" if you "outed" yourself.

Frankly, if a blogger writes under complete anonymity (or pseudonymity), that's his prerogative. And it's not up to me or anyone else, in pure spite, to reveal their identity. It's kind of cowardly, in my opinion, to use a pseudonym, but I can understand it. After the Repsac3 exchange, PrivatePigg, a conservative blogger and friend of mine, said he blogs anonymously simply to protect his privacy from the radical leftists he knows will stalk him and his family.

It happens. As reader know, I routinely wade into the comment threads at leftist blogs to debate and ridicule. I don't claim to be nice about it. I've even used profanity in a comment thread at "Dr. Hussein Biobrain's" blog. But I don't threaten people; I skewer. And some folks can't handle being revealed as nihilist America bashers. After commenting a few times at THE SWASH ZONE, I received this e-mail from "(O)CT(O)PUS," the blog's publisher:

DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.

I don't harrass. If folks can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or go to comment moderation at least!

But if there was ever good reason to blog anonymously, real harrassment such as this is it. "(O)CT(O)PUS" made the rounds at leftist blogs to brag about how he'd "kicked my ass." And he PUBLISHED MY WORK CONTACT INFORMATION so that his co-bloggers could call my college president. I wrote about it here, "American Power: (O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY"


---

Donald... You neglect to mention that your work contact information is as available on the web as is my name... I agree that I outed myself... But it's disingenuous to claim that Oct() did anything you didn't, as your work info is just as readily available to anyone with the ability to google Donald Kent Douglas (with or without) "long beach city college," both of which display the same info Oct() offered.

I think Oct() was wrong for pointing it out. But then, I think you were, as well.

But the fact remains, the same rules apply to friend & foe alike.

If you believe Oct() committed some kinda personal or blogger faux pas by pointing out that your work info is posted online, than you did the same by pointing out that my name is, too.

If, on the other hand, you believe that anything already posted online is fair game, than you should have no complaint with Oct() offering up your publicly posted info.

As I said, I think Oct() did a bad thing, and it isn't something I would ever do... (And having read the rest of the posts on the subject, even Whelan is sorry for what he did...) It's wrong not to respect the privacy choices people make for themselves and their families... ...even if you disagree with them politically.

---
Submitted for approval June 10, 2009 4:30 AM (AmPow Blog Time)

While preparing this post, I noted that Donald uses the "cowardly" link to take the reader to an "Outside The Beltway" piece critical of the outing, which never suggests pseudononymous bloggers are cowardly... Typical Donald Douglas...

"nihilist America bashers" The person at the other end of that link has nothing to do with the argument. It's just attack for the sake of namecalling... Also typical Donald Douglas...

If you read my comments at the "cyberbully" link, I made the same argument at the time that I do now... And Donald Kent Douglas has yet to respond to it in any meaningful way.

7 comments:

Donald Douglas said...

"And Donald Kent Douglas has yet to respond to it in any meaningful way."

What is your freaking problem, RepMasterBarebackerNihilist3?

I responded at the comments. Are you too lazy to responded at the post:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/blogging-anonymity-and-blogging-ethics.html

repsac3 said...

I posted that like 12 hours ago, Professor Douglas-of-the-endless-silly-namecalling...

I hadn't even seen that you'd responded, here or there, until about an hour ago...

No need to get testy, Donald.

Besides, you didn't really say anything new... You only changed the terms of the offense.

Yes, Oc() was trying to hurt you by pointing out that your work info is freely available online. He wanted people to go after your job, and he was wrong for doing so...

But that wasn't the discussion we were having, or the point you were trying to make in your original post. The subject was whether it is acceptable to divulge the offline info about another person when they don't wish to have it divulged...

The reason(s) for divulging the information, or whether you become any less morally culpable of divulging the information because you did so for a somewhat less malicious reason isn't all that relevant to the initial question...

If it's wrong to do, it's wrong to do... period.
If it's sometimes justified--which is what you now seem to be claiming---then who gets to make that decision, and why should others accept your (or my) definition of when such a disclosure is or isn't justified?

While your motives were less vindictive--you only wanted to give me a taste of Oct()'s medicine, to see how *I* liked it (which still makes no sense to me, because I had no part in doing anything with your work info), even after I explicitly said I did not wish to have that info disclosed--the specific act was the same. You took personal info you found posted elsewhere on the net, which had nothing to do with the conversation at hand, and reposted it on your blog. Oct() was trying to get a rise out of you, and you were trying to get a rise out of me. That you choose to justify one while decrying the other speaks volumes about you, Donald...

repsac3 said...

There... I responded at your site too, boy-of-many-silly-names (assuming you approve my comment, that is...)

By the by... Learn to post a proper link in comments, would you?

It isn't difficult... ...unless you're too lazy to bother doing it right, that is...

repsac3 said...

Comment offered June 10, 2009 11:27 PM (AmPow blog time), same thread as above.
---

Donald, I don't even know what you're arguing anymore, but it doesn't seem to be responsive to much of anything I ever said.

I never claimed to be anonymous.

It wasn't me, but you, who first spoke about my being outed, in your initial post. I agreed with what you wrote, repeating that I had "outed" myself. If that terminology no longer suits your ever-changing purposes, I invite you to stop using it.

I also already agreed that my twitter link was, and still is, posted on my blog. Like everything else up to now, this is not in dispute, so I fail to understand why you keep repeating these things as though any of it is.

Likewise, your work information was and continues to be posted at the LBCC site. It also cannot be outed, as it too is in the public domain.

You're welcome to try to sell the notion that Oct() is more guilty than you are, because his purpose for disclosing your info was more malicious than your reason for disclosing mine... Personally, I think it's moral relativistic tripe, but feel free to keep spouting it... But the fact remains that the disclosure of your info broke no more or fewer boundries than your disclosure of my info. The info about your workplace is posted for anyone willing to look, just like my non-pseudononymous identity.

Yes, Oct()'s reason was more malicious than yours, but his disclosure was no more or less moral than yours.

As for who I "hang out with," Oct() & I co-blog at some of the same sites, including one I started. Nothing more, and nothing less. This endless "guilt by association" meme you so like to engage in only seems to go one way, though... Seems none of you right-wingers are talking about your birther/Freeper pal, Jimmy von Brunn... I wonder why that is?

(No, of course his freeper/birther ways don't make you all domestic terrorists... One would have to buy into your guilt by association meme, to believe that... But it does explain why so many of you are so desperate to disown the guy, before idiots on the left start accusing y'all, the same way you & yours accuse them.)

repsac3 said...

And Professor Donald replies:
---
Repsac3:

WTF is wrong with you?

You started this new debate by questioning me "outing" you.


That is factually incorrect. Anyone interested can read the initial post here at IM, which is a copy of the comment I submitted at Donald's site. Nowhere in that comment or any other in the thread do I question Donald's "outing" me. As I pointed out in my previous comment, Donald first used the term, and I agreed with him that I outed myself.

But this will be the last word:

God, I love when Professor Douglas "wins" by picking up his little bag o' marbles & stomping home in a huff... It's so... ...him.

You say, "But it's disingenuous to claim that Oct() did anything you didn't ..."

Really?


In context, yeah, really... When one takes that sliver of my words out of context, as Donald does above & below, not so much...

Octopus wrote an entire post to initiate a campaign of retaliation against me:

"If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President Eloy Oakley at (562) 938-4122 or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz at (562) 938-4127 and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress)."

That is harrassment.


I agree. I think I said I agree in at least one of my previous comments on the subject. Oct()'s reason for pointing out that Donald's work info is posted online was far more malicious than Donald's pointing out that my name is available online. But both Oct() & Donald did the same thing, in pointing out that info was available online to anyone looking for it. No difference there. The reasons for the act were slightly different (Donald was being malicious, just nowhere near AS malicious), but the act itself was the same. And Donald knows it...

"Yes, Oct()'s reason was more malicious than yours" ....

You think?!!!!


I repeatedly said so, didn't I?

Stop YOUR freaking relative B.S.

When the facts trap Donald, he sometimes resorts to accusing you of the same thing you accuse him of, as though he's rubber and you're glue. Childish, but it seems to make him think he cleverly evaded your point...

Octopus is an evil man, and so are you.

Yeah, whatever you say, Donald. Perhaps one day you'll do more than accuse...

This thread is done. Write a fresh post. I'm tired of your bullshit. If you think that the mention of your name in a comment thread is the same as a full-on blog post initiatng a campaign of work harrassment are identical, you're even worse that I thought.

No, that isn't what I said, Donald. Keep rereading until it sinks in...

You are a hate sponsor, Reppy. I don't like you, you sick f**k.

Oh good, the Ad Hom portion of Donald's reply... No Professor Donald commentary is complete without it...

God man, you run an entire blog that designed to harrass and slander me as a moosef**ker...

I run an entire blog to make fun of your incessant and generally meaningless-through-repetition use of the word "nihilist" to denote anyone with whom you disagree. The moose-fucking is just a byproduct. (Which, as I recall, was initially a product of your claim at Bio's place that if one cannot prove a statement false, it may be true. When challenged to prove you don't fuck goats, you showed by your silence that you could not. And I guess what's good for the goat...)

You're psycho!

Surrounded by insanity, it is the sane man who appears insane. In other words, when coming from the likes o' Professor Donald, being called a psycho is a compliment...

Again, this thread is done, you freaking asshat.

MOSTLY KIND AND GENTLE TRUTH101 said...

Just between you me and Professor Douglas, Repsac, I thought the "Donald the Cat" and "Donald the Dog" posts were far better than the Moose one. But to be frank, had I known Donald's feelings would have been hurt this much I most likely would never had posted any of them.

Professor: if you read this know that you are welcome to TSR and you can call me an ignorant Nihilist troll all you want. We're not going to change anyone's life with our blogging so let's have a good time as fellow Americans. Even Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had some vigorous arguments.

Thank you for the forum Repsac. It's good to have you active again.

repsac3 said...

I'm pretty sure the Professor is crying crocodile tears over his alleged moose/buffalo statue rendevous. I'm pretty certain his hurt feelings are more affect than effect, if ya know what I mean...

And, while I'm no fan of justifying behavior based on "eye-for-an-eye" concepts, his penchant for namecalling and labelling others shows he has no compunction about the feelings of those with whom he disagrees politically. I find it takes more work to sympathize with a bully alleging mistreatment by others (assuming he is being mistreated, in the first place.). Donald Douglas is no innocent victim. All things considered, his critics generally treat Donald better than he treats them, though there are exceptions...

As far as my going inactive, yeah, I found I just needed a break, so I stopped for awhile (unplanned... It was probably three or four days before I realized I was on a break... I'm not even sure I'm back yet, though I have been posting a bit, lately...) The endless cynicism and negativity I read on some folk's blogs gets to me after awhile...

Anyway, thanks for noticing...