Which is Worse?

....could you explain the difference?

.

Okay, so a group of nuns is called a superfluity. What should be call a group of anons? A disgrace? A regrettability? A pity?

Anonalgy?

Anon-starter ?

A 'stealth' of anons?

Like a 'whored' of prostitutes in that both are collective nouns?

Perhaps an 'embarrassment' of anons.

.

I like the 'whored of prostitutes' reference. It was inspired to look it up and I also found 'stable' which makes sense, but I also found 'anthology' which really has me puzzled. Anyone have insight into likely origins of that?

.

There are a number of others new to me as well:

.

An impatience of wives

.

A bloat of programmers

.

An attitude/grunt of teenagers

.

A hack of smokers

.

A conflagration/blaze of pyromaniacs

.

An odium of politicians

.

A flood of plumbers

.

A formation of geologists

.

An exaggeration of fishermen

.

A complex of psychologists

.

....and several others.

Is there such a thing as an agnos-tech ?

Agnotech? ...as in someone who believes there is insufficient information to know definitively whether or not technological advances exist?

.

There are Luddites, Neo-Luddites, and technophobes, but I am unaware of agnotechs.

.

Perhaps you don't mean a denial of the know-ability of technological advances, but a denial of the know-ability of things for which strong scientific evidence has been presented..... there are a number of different names for people like this. Most not too flattering, though a few may actually be the name the group identifies with, e.g. Creationists.

A combination of words AGNOStic and TECHnician or TECHie.

Agnos-tech.

A word play on AGNOSTIC, the person on the fence RE God.

I understood the combination, word plan and reference to agnostics....and even made a reply in kind.

And then you left out the S.

Whatever.

I also dropped the hyphen. It looks and sounds more like a 'real' word that way....but that is just my opinion. Can't really be wrong any more than it can be definitively right, since it isn't standard yet anyway.

.

Whats-ever.

Nuts can be dealt with. ANONS, however, are just that, ANONS, and you can't deal with those you don't want to be known.

valid points

There is no reason to post anonymously.

The threat of being flamed or fired is no excuse for hiding behind a cloak.

If you are afraid of retribution for an inane question, come prepared with enough knowledge to pose a reasonable one instead. The rules ask the posters do some research independently of the forum. I know, nobody reads the FAQ's and rules anyway.

But, really the questions posed by the pipe person who was looking at ASTM docs for process instructions and wanting to know the chemical formula for proprietary plastics compounds instead of compatibility information are two glowing examples of helpless people want knowledge injections instead of looking for the answers first.

We all help AP's with legitimate questions but I don't understand the reluctance to take on an identity and become an active member instead of lurking behind a mask.

Legitimate questions are fine and welcomed for sure and I see no need to post anonymously either. I have read a lot of "common knowledge" in this forum, which is why one should thread the whole thread before commenting. I know I do and, therefore, not a lot of comments or ideas from me. Why re-iterate!!

"one should thread the whole thread"

and then Google....

"Internet research" if you'd please!

(Lyn made me say that!)

Principles are better than principals.

them Brits are sticklers for grammar and spelling

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that most of us here protesting Anonymous Posters are posting under pseudonyms chosen for the very purpose of preserving our anonymity?

If instead we had chosen names like Anonymous Poster #1, Anonymous Poster #2, etc., would we in fact be any less or more anonymous? Functionally the effect is the same. Hell, we even have an Anonymous Hero in our midst! The only reason we have different pseudonyms is so that we anonymous posters can tell each other apart, yes?

Methinks we anonymous posters protesteth Anonymous Posters overmuch.

When you use a name consistently and exclusively in a group, that is a name like any other. You are a personality with a persistent name.

.

Are there people with whom you are an acquaintance that know you by little more than a one (possibly two) word name? Even though they do not know your address, social security number, date of birth or even your full legal name, you still don't consider yourself anonymous. This would seem to be at least in part, because when they recognize you tomorrow, your interaction can be presumed to be somewhat self-consistent.

.

If on the other hand, you began to wear a standard mask that several other people also wore at times, you could be anonymous and it would remove both the intake of information from which the 'norm' is derived, and any measure against such 'norms'.

.

People have many different personalities, depending on the context of the interaction. Your name, even though chosen here and without physical face to face interaction, is not less real than some other nicknames that might be used.

Yes, I said all of that....in one sentence.

No. Apparently you missed the point.

.

"...The only reason we have different pseudonyms is so that we anonymous posters can tell each other apart, yes?...."

.

No. The fallacy is in the false premise. We can tell each other apart, so we are not anonymous.

So what you're telling me is that, for all the good our real names will do us, your last name might just as well be 'Compromise'?

Close. If this line of arguing really makes a difference to you, this is how you should thing of it.

Given name would be 'Truth'

Middle name would be 'Is'

Sir name would be 'Not a Compromise'

.

"What's in a name?"

Yes but.........................................................You, I and many others here are well known (for better or worse) by our chosen, made-up, names. Those names carry with them our accumulated historical record.

When you see my name, you automatically know who I am and that I am an arrogant, overbearing bastard who occasionally helps EVEN anonymous posters and will, given some details and a prolog by the OP, spend time and effort helping those with legitimate problems.

Anonymous posters accumulate no such identity or history and are therefore always an unknown quantity. (More often than not AP's are lazy people who don't want to be bothered looking for an answer, or trolls).

I formerly used my complete name until I started getting harassed by trolls and idiots.

I say no APs.

<Edit> Yes, I said it all again, more eloquently, I might add! :>)

And now you're no longer harassed by trolls and idiots because you changed your name from what could just as easily have been one pseudonym to another? How does that stop the trolls and idiots of which this forum has seen its fair share?

APs don't bother me. They simply don't unless they're trolls. I don't find the anonymity of those who aren't trolls to be a problem. It doesn't prevent me from engaging them in dialog. It's an inconvenience in that I cannot put their comments in the context of others they have made, but I don't find this to be a show-stopper in the least. For some, their (relative) anomymity grants them the freedom to say things that may need to be said but which may very well draw abuse and harassment from some who would disagree. Perhaps such who are given to abuse and harassment are the trolls and idiots of which you speak?

For my part I feel that the freedom to post anonymously meets an important need and should be preserved. With that freedom of course comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Those who post anonymously in order to avoid continued harassment from trolls and idiots should be allowed the freedom to do so.

It is not the posting anonymously, per se, that I find objectionable, but its abuse BY trolls and idiots. Fortunately the identities of all APs are known to the Mods and so those who are found abusing the system may find themselves dragged to the curb!

But not everyone is a troll simply by virtue of their posting anonymously. IMO these should be allowed the freedom to post anonymously without the hassle of being dogged thereafter by the trolls and idiots on THIS side of the AP fence.

You are trying hard to make some associations stick. Repeating two words in close proximity several times is a method that has been shown to be effective on many, so your effort has probably had some influence.

.

Despite that, the choice to post anonymously is not well aligned with what most people consider freedom. Choice and freedom are often easily confused in today's world....just because you can choose between 15 different brands of toilet paper or cereal it doesn't indicate you are free. You aren't even necessarily more free than 10 years ago, even though you only had 10 brands to choose from then.

.

Freedom isn't just a matter of rules. Freedom largely depends on participation, taking risks, owning your rights/property. The prison gate may be unlocked, but if you never step through personally, it doesn't matter if it is locked or not.

.

Abolishing the ability to choose to post anonymously on CR4, does not meaningfully degrade your freedom. That is a narrow and weak definition of freedom if it does. Efforts to associate the ability to hide behind anonymous postings with freedom are misguided and at least a little bit insulting considering those who have served to protect real freedom.

.

Considered from a different perspective; if we have no vested persona in our CR4 identities (which I dispute) and are therefor as anonymous as you claim, why would anyone need to post anonymously? Obviously if you maintain there is a need for the ability to post anonymously, then there must be some quality beyond that of mere place keepers to our CR4 identities.

.

I encourage you to point out specific instances of hassling, harassing, and otherwise unacceptable trollish activity as it occurs. It is important to be specific, not only about what part of a comment you find unacceptable, but why it is unacceptable. Harassment should not be tolerated, and neither should unsubstantiated vague accusations of harassment.

How would you know what I am "trying to do" or if in fact I am "trying to do" anything at all?

What you are doing is called 'projection.' In a nutshell, what you are really telling me is what *you* would be doing (or not) if you were me, whilst knowing nothing at all about what I am doing (or not) as *me.*

Pray continue. I am learning all kinds of interesting things about you!

If you were not trying to do it, you have a very influential subconscious, or a very insistent repetitive style of doing something you didn't intend.

.

Associating two ideas by frequently repeating those words in close proximity to get people to associate the two ideas is a tool that can be used effectively. The use can also be reinforcing a valid real connection, or it can be used to further a deception.

.

Sure I will use that tool when it is justified. That doesn't stop me from calling attention to its misuse. The widespread confusion between 'choice' and 'freedom' has gone so far that many seem willing to trade away freedoms as long as there are plenty of (consumer) choices. Anytime I see something that works to further blur those lines, I'm going to speak up.

.

Just as a note of something curious....why did you react so vehemently when I called attention to something you wrote (that still appears highly unlikely to be accidental) and the logical motivation likely behind it, only to follow up by engaging in the very behavior that got you so riled up. Amazing that you feel like you can learn so much about me, but consider yourself to be an impenetrable enigma, opaque to any valid analysis.

.

By the way, you pretty much destroyed your 'we are all anonymous and our CR4 names are just placeholders so no one gets confused' argument when you suggest that you are 'learning all kinds of interesting things about' me.

.

Please try again.

You two girls should get a live!

Honestly I value both of you based on your comments and regards you as even in the way I like your posts!

So get over it!

So sensitive!

Thank you. I appreciate your concern and value your solid advice.

.

I can tell you that you have nothing to worry about. With a high level of confidence, I can assure you that this is not something standing in the way of Europium nor I. I know it isn't for myself, and I'm about as certain as I could be speaking in Europium's case. This isn't bothering either one of us.

Turning the brain inside out does not always make one look smarter!

Quarreling for the good of quarrelling does not make the discussion more interesting!

If neither of you is affected, the better!

Just saying!

I didn't mean to suggest either one of us was being disingenuous and feigning being bothered. I also don't think trying to look smart plays much of a role either.

.

I was bothered at the time. I'm pretty sure Europium was as well, though I can't be certain and I am taking some risk here in continuing down this path of writing out my assumptions about his state of mind....but I don't think it is that unclear.

.

I don't stay bothered long at things that aren't real meaningful problems of importance, and I'd be caught completely off-base, if Europium weren't just as quick to shed unimportant bothered states.

.

I have respect for Europium. It would be much more difficult to spin me up to the point of quarreling if that wasn't the case. So, I'm not harboring any bothered-ness and what was said when tensions were high won't set the tone of future comments.

Between them both it is probably CR4's GA/OT system that is the more abused. For example, my posts here were marked OT by parties unknown even though they are on the topic of APs, the topic of this thread? No biggie to me - in CR4's early years there were no GAs/OTs and we got along fine without them (probably better) - but I reckon not a few here use the system to 'punish' with OTs the posts of those with whom they disagree, dislike, etc. This practice has rendered OTs and GAs pretty much meaningless in their own right and has turned it all into a silly popularity contest.

My consolation is that my previous incarnation's 90 or so GAs plus $2.75 still buys a Latté Grande at Starbucks.

I see no 'OT' ratings for any of your posts in this thread.....not one.

.

It is important if you are going to make claims of harassment that those claims be substantiated and specific, otherwise it is you that is harassing.

I saw the OT and raised it a GA. couldnt vote twice on the other one. Posting ANON here for obvious reasons.

Thanks, whoever you are.

Even the Admin's 5 OT wrath is questionable in its true value.

You drink that crap?

Do I drink Starbucks coffee? Hell no. Not when they incinerate perfectly good coffee beans, mix the residue with water, glorify the concoction with a French name and then try to pass it off as an upscale breakfast beverage at an astronomical profit.

No, I drink Starbucks coffee only when I haven't any used motor oil on hand.

I'll put in a bad word for misspellers.

--Editor Crankshaft

ξ