--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" <danfriedman2002@...> wrote: > > Richard, > > Thanks for the background. I too was shocked to find > that a FFL Member had Googled my wife and reported the > results back to FFL.
Ahem. It may be good to roll back time machine and remind folks that *Dan* was the person who started his posting career at FFL by trying to get Rick and others to reveal to him the names of anonymous posters whose opinions he didn't like. But when Alex does what any Internet user can do and looks up the real name associated with his wife's email ID, he's "shocked." Not only a drama queen, but a hypocrite. 5/20/2008: > FFL seems to be a mixed place. I think I'll be > doing my sharing in the real world, where I can > see who's speaking. 5/21/2008: > Can you let me know your town. 5/23/2008: > You repeadedly request that "I live in the real > world", yet never respond to my request that > you provide your whereabouts. 5/23/2008: > You still display those big balls. Why won't you > let us know where you are. 1/20/2011 (after Rick forwards an anonymous post): > Rick, I am following this post with interest. When > you posted this, did you understand that you were > shilling for an anonymous poster, who's written a > letter that's hateful, but isn't standing behind it? > Did you read the innuendo? Did you see the self > promotion of the author? What did you see here? > In my opinion it's a nasty letter. Who is the author? 1/20/2011: > The author himself refers to his "cynical tirade", > so I guess he or she didn't write what you call > "some valuable observations in a humorous, ironic way." > Why post it without identifying the source? I'd like > to know who is posting a cynical tirade when I read one. 1/20/2011: > For clarification: I attempted to have an author > associated with the post. Probably a good idea for > all posts to have attribution, so there is not an an > annonymous rash of posts. 1/20/2011: > in my opinion, the annonymous post defames a group. 1/20/2011: > I live in a world where anonymous letters defaming > groups exists. I am trying to change those acts that > I come across 1/20/2011: > Who said anything about the ANONYMOUS WRITER > defaming me? He's defaming gurus anonymously. 1/20/2011: > As I've repeatedly written, I believe that attack > letters should name the attacker. 1/21/2011: > A secret ballot, or protecting the freedom of the > press, is a far cry from hurling insults or accusations > anonymously and your grievance is endorsed by the > moderator. Not every request for authorship is an > attack on Democracy. 1/22/2011: > I think it is reasonable to have a name associated with > the defamation of any group. In this case I am shocked > to see a Group Moderator do the posting, repeatedly > support the anonymity, and provide his endorsement by > affixing a subject line which reads: "Wise thoughts > from a psychologist". ...etc.
