Couple years back things were going hot & heavy between me and a Net gf, we decided to meet r/t. She lived four doors down, on the other side of the street. Different ISPs, she thought I was in Prince George, I thought she was in Kamloops or Kelowna. Saved a lot of driving…
Stupid thing was we already met before and didn’t notice each other.
As a reporter, you chose to be a public figure and, thus, open to being personally taken to task for your stories and editorials.
In HTMF (and most other web forums), it is, essentially, a private club, requiring membership to participate and its members must abide by the rules, which are clearly stated. Anonymity allows for a more free discourse, eliminating such things as ratting out to a guy’s girlfriend or taking a jab at his family.
I, Steve Simons, am totally anonymous here.
That aside; this is one of the only local forums I know of so if I were to ever bash someone on here so much that they’d want to kill me… they’d almost know where to find me. I guess anonymity can be a good thing if a person comes here to really speak their mind. Can also be a good thing for someone who wants to speak his/her mind but is in a position where they can’t (ie; MPs, MLAs, RCMP, City Council, Business Owners, etc.) without getting it thrown back in their face later.
Here is an interesting article from the cbc.ca website:
"The Los Angeles Times has suspended the blog of a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who posed as a reader to defend his own column and attack his conservative critics.
“[Michael] Hiltzik admitted … that he posted items on the paper’s website, and on other websites, under names other than his own,â€
My folks read what I post on here, they read even more HTMF than I do.
In the past it was common that I might hear from my Moms about some topic that she’s read where I’ve posted, or mentioned to me something that she’d read on HTMF that I haven’t seen before. There’s been more than a few times where I’ve got caught about something that I’ve done and posted about (but this is junk from YEARS back), not knowing who might be paying close attention to Charles_T.
These days, my folks don’t know what to believe (my Dad at least)…
I post what I know and keep most everything else outlandish.
Yeah, that’s easy to believe.
We have a high ratio of “readers” versus “posters.”
We get over a thousand unique IPs a day on HTMF, and about 70% of them are in Rupert.
On the topic of anonymity (man that’s hard to spell):
A P.E.I. business owner is offering $1000 to expose the identity of an anonymous blogger.
Hey if he wants to expose my profile, I’ll take that 1000!
[quote=“SteveDVS”]I, Steve Simons, am totally anonymous here.
That aside; this is one of the only local forums I know of so if I were to ever bash someone on here so much that they’d want to kill me… they’d almost know where to find me. I guess anonymity can be a good thing if a person comes here to really speak their mind. Can also be a good thing for someone who wants to speak his/her mind but is in a position where they can’t (ie; MPs, MLAs, RCMP, City Council, Business Owners, etc.) without getting it thrown back in their face later.[/quote]
Any relation to John and Marg Simons??
Do they live in England? I’ve only got relatives I know of in PG, Squamish, and England, but John and Marg sound familiar.
[quote=“MiG”]On the topic of anonymity (man that’s hard to spell):
A P.E.I. business owner is offering $1000 to expose the identity of an anonymous blogger.[/quote]
Anonymity
Firstly - good job MiG. I believe that the conviction you show on the subject to be valid and of true integrity.
Newspapers, media and so forth have a duty to the people they report to. They also have a duty to the people that are reported about. Because of this push/pull both parties should be done the due diligence of protecting the other. In this case HTMF is the media and we know “both parties.” Unless a judicial system were to deem Poolboy’s comments slanderous or against some kind of ethics code or otherwise lawfully accountable- I for one - am glad to see that his identity remained anonymous.
I like others choose to have my identity masked by the internet so as not to be identified by persons who would disagree with my opinion or outlook; person(s) who might use my convictions against me in everyday life. Although - with the right computer tools and city contacts I imagine that could be exposed just by posting here or at any other forum/website. This of course is not to say that in everyday life I would choose to forego defending those convictions. Quite the contrary. However, as most people know, you pick your battles and have to know when it’s important enough to stand for something. In my opinion, only a fool would defend his beliefs when there is no strife to stop, no persecution to intervene or that your beliefs or convictions are not being forcefully prohibited.
I have knowledge of a letter that was written to the Daily News a while back regarding a matter with the RCMP. The hand that wrote the letter (I was told) was local and the person was worried about being identified or singled out by the RCMP if they were named. The Editor chose to not print the writer’s name which I heard drew fire from the RCMP. Because of this integrity- in a small way our democracy and the fundamentals of the Canadian soceity were upheld, in my opinion.
I guess my point is in the words above. I believe I’m trying to convey a feeling that accountability to a person is not always the issue-and sometimes is wrong.
The issue at hand is often times put forth in the body of the text and should not be disrespected because a person cannot verify it’s origins. The word’s existence is evidence enough that there is a point of view that is been expressed that is obviously from a person who, for whatever reason- chooses to remain anonymous due to a fear of conviction from other entities. breathe This should not invalidate the expression - if anything in my opinion it should bring true validation to it because the writer has wished to remain anonymous due to reprocussions.
Of course - the other side of the coin usually proves that there is someone there to exploit and abuse this right. There must an intervening party and I think MiG hit it on the dot with the reference to the judicial system.
Personally I think one entity is more worried about the public opinion that may result if some fact is indeed proven.
I guess we can say hello to the modern day propaganda machine-from all sides accountable.
Anyway - Good job HTMF.
Nope, in Terrace. Thought you might be a relation.