Incognito

[Ad van Tage]

Ad,

Read Horge's first two lines which refers to the issue of single/multiple registrations. That is what I am agreeing with. Horge brought it up. I agreed. Simple as that.

If I wasn't clear, I am not of the opinion that people must disclose their real identities. My last paragraph in my first post of this thread was basically recommending people identify themselves and their associations as a good faith measure for honest dialogue. But it's a decision solely up to their discretion. I'm not interested in enforcing this policy.

If it's not clear, what I mean by disclosing pseudonyms is that if Rover (for example) decides to post under the name Bobofet, Reefs.org reserves the right to disclose that Bobofet is Rover. That is all.

..................

Thanx Len for those clarifications! Appreciated

Here are the first coupla lines from Horge's post:

1) What ABOUT setting a policy or philosophy on the use of screen names?
2) One for this forum only.

He then goes on:
3) I mean, screen-pseudonyms are fine for dispensing the advice, humor or opinion that fills the other fora.
4) This however is a forum that deals with a rather serious pack of issues, and there is a keener need for honesty and transparency.

I don't see "single/multiple registrations"

He is asking for A policy [ applied to this forum ]
In line one he uses "screen names" In the third line "screen-pseudonyms". Do either or both of these translate to "single/multiple registrations"? Hmmm, I surely missed that if it does.

I think I should clarify that I read Horge's post as :

1) What ABOUT setting a policy or philosophy on the use of screen names?
2) One [policy or philosophy] for this forum only. [ And not applicable to the other forums < fora, as he calls them > as he elaborated in 3) & 4) ... ]

OR?

English is such an interesting language, n'est ce pas?
But it beats reverse Polish notation!

 

[Ad van Tage]

Glenn,
That was meant to be put out there in a "if the shoe fits fashion". Of course there are other things that can cause paranoid behavior.

YUP dizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy! Apparently so! All one has to do is show up on this forum, and make a few post.

Then the paranoia sets in:

"HEY WHO ARE YOU?"

"I'M not sure I can communicate with you, if I don't know your name!"

"What are you hiding?"

"Something must be wrong here..."

"You must have an agenda!"

"Are you a nudist?"

And on and on... now where did you say the paranoia was???



OH and if you want some BC reefers to get real dizzzzzzzzzzzy,
you will have to haul yoh a__ up acrost the border, ya hear boy! :lol: :lol: :lol:
WE don't deliver that real good stuff; it is smoked right HERE!

Best place used to be in ONTARIO... where they grew the stuff in an abandoned brewery!
Closer to Jenn's old stompin' ground, eh! But that place just got busted. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Now the Government still grows it underground in Saskatchewan,
but likely you'd get lost there dizzy... it's all FLAT, eh!
So people can see ya coming... and get out of yer way, eh... paranoia man!!!


Lighten up eh!

_________________
~ Ad aka Ecoworrier ~

"We are all here, cause we are not all THERE"...

PS MAC eat yer heart out;
BC reefers will never be certified!

 

[Anonymous]

Glenn,
That was meant to be put out there in a "if the shoe fits fashion". Of course there are other things that can cause paranoid behavior.

YUP dizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy! Apparently so! All one has to do is show up on this forum, and make a few post.

Then the paranoia sets in:

"HEY WHO ARE YOU?"

"I'M not sure I can communicate with you, if I don't know your name!"

"What are you hiding?"

"Something must be wrong here..."

"You must have an agenda!"

"Are you a nudist?"

And on and on... now where did you say the paranoia was???



OH and if you want some BC reefers to get real dizzzzzzzzzzzy,
you will have to haul yoh a__ up acrost the border, ya hear boy! :lol: :lol: :lol:
WE don't deliver that real good stuff; it is smoked right HERE!

Best place used to be in ONTARIO... where they grew the stuff in an abandoned brewery!
Closer to Jenn's old stompin' ground, eh! But that place just got busted. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Now the Government still grows it underground in Saskatchewan,
but likely you'd get lost there dizzy... it's all FLAT, eh!
So people can see ya coming... and get out of yer way, eh... paranoia man!!!


Lighten up eh!

_________________
~ Ad aka Ecoworrier ~

"We are all here, cause we are not all THERE"...

PS MAC eat yer heart out;
BC reefers will never be certified!

didn't you start out by making it a point to stress your anonymity?



you're being very inconsistent here

nothing personal intended, but i do smell a troll :?

 

[horge]

"Ad Van Tage",

I do not understand the agitation with which you have responded to my initial post. I am not familiar with you as a forum denizen, perhaps because my visits can only be infrequent these days. I am nowadays mostly directed by friends to specific threads.

My open suggestion was basically that transparency might serve us all. I do seek some disclosure for those who would engage in serious exchange of information and positions on issues. I suggest it as much for the purpose of better weighing the value of another's opinion/offer of 'fact', as much as encouraging restraint as attends dealing with a "real" person's knowledge, experience and sensibilities.

In a perfect world, opinions and positions stand purely on the merit of the reasoning and factual basis under them. The problem arises when the question of fact is unclear, and opinions and positions are so opposed as to make conflict personal.

If I were living and working in, say, Luzern, I might be taken less seriously when describing in detail how things actually work in Puerto Princesa; if I were an NGO staffer my offer of 'fact', on how essential more funding for the NGO's work is, would be suspect, and so on --unless better background is available to provide me with sufficient credibility.

As for my claim of personal risk, openly contesting the illegal use of cyanide in the trade here can be very deadly for a 'local'. It may not be as bad as it was in the early 90's, but I'd rather let someone else test the waters.

Regarding your quote from another thread: Chris and Mike took my advice to back off, and I dare say they were right to redirect themselves to real issues and real productivity. You pretended to defend their right of free choice, but declined to reveal that they MADE their choice themselves: to follow my suggestion.

That's all this is, really, a suggestion.
If I had time to navel-gaze, I'd rather spend it at the range, the mud flats and reefs, or heck, padding my post count on RDO so it would better suggest how long I've been here
:roll:

Maybe if one posts often enough that will develop credibility?
Many of the posters here have a solid body of work and/or experience and/or access to facts that would be otherwise hard for 'navel-gazers' in the "peanut gallery" to obtain. I'd known of Jessica's work since 1999, and so can more easily understand where she's coming from on issues. Same goes for Mike, Steve, and for Chris (who is impressively young for his talent). Despite our past exchanges, I respect and understand better where Peter and John and Mary are coming from.

Knowing 'where someone is coming from' helps reduce the number of misunderstandings that have plagued this forum, and increases the potential for productive discussion. There's real work to be done, and a fair bit of it CAN be done, and close to immediately (even in the Philippine context).

On that note, I'm off (again) to work.