USE YOUR REAL NAMES ON CC.COM

[billcoe]

Why don't you all use your real names? Occasionally someone steps up and does, like this example, but lots of ornery folks just want to anonymously spit on folks.

 

 

D-- ----, of ------ (Raindawg, Dwayner, Merv Griffin, etc.): I'm not in favor of removing any routes that I can think of at the moment. As I said, I'm in favor of working toward bringing about what we would like to see in climbing.

Matt Perkins

Hey Matt,

Since you are so good at outing people, how about you post Hugh Conway's real name and city just incase he threatens to "cape" me again. Or does this sort of behavior only get people banned when they do it to moderators? I like a lot of what you say and do here Matt but outing someone that way is really lame. Clearly the most questionable thing I have seen you do on this site. How about posting a listing of everyone's real name so we can all be on equal footing? How about at least posting a listing of moderators and their names and cities? Watch 80% of em scurry into the shadows like cockroaches.

[ivan]

i AM ivan beyotch!

[tvashtarkatena]

Why not share our psycho fantasies for a well armed stalking adventure to Seattle with everyone on the googlz? Fuckin-Fuckwad-Full-Disclosure or bust!

[mike1]

Good to meet ya Ivan, Bill.

Mike

[Frikadeller]

My real name is some über Scandinavian name that none of you native English speakers could ever possibly try to pronounce anyways, so I just use a nickname related to delicious Danish food.

[ivan]

my real name is an unpronoucable symbol

[chirp]

[Choada_Boy]

My name is Dr. Ryan.

[Off_White]

Well Bill, that would mean everyone would have to be accountable for their opinions and the things that they say, just like in real life. Frankly, I think its impossible to have an adult conversation about anything of substance (like climbing ethics, politics, or religion) that is the least bit controversial without that accountability. It might not even be possible with everyone just being who they really are, but 8 years of cc.com have proven that it's certainly impossible without it.

 

And I don't mean just stating your name once in a post in some thread, but registering under your real name, if nothing for the purpose of talking about things that really matter to you. By all means, keep your spray avatar if that's what floats your boat. I also understand that there are all sorts of things in many people's lives that they would just as soon keep separate from their work life: co-workers, clients, or supervisors. But really, using a false identity to talk about matters of import discounts your opinion by about 85%.

 

For the record, Off White does serve as a real name: it's what most of my friends and family call me, I get mail under that name, cash checks with that name, and have had most of the few first ascents I've made recorded under that name as well. My drivers license does say Douglas White, and some people do prefer that name for a variety of reasons, but Off White is not as anonymous as many might assume.

 

 

[G-spotter]

The assumption that an argument or position advanced has greater or lesser validity depending on the identity of the person who advances it is a common logical fallacy.

[tvashtarkatena]

The validity of any good argument or idea should be self contained within it. Debaters who must prop up their points with their credentials would do well to reexamine the inherent strength of their positions.

[tvashtarkatena]

For the record, in case anyone gives a shit, which I doubt, my moniker has been my email address since the late 90s. I selected it because I have an interest in space science and because Pat Gallagher is apparently one of the most common names out there...I quickly tired of searching for some fucked up, unique variant of it.

 

OW's assertion that posters here expend any real energy here to maintain their anonymity is, for the most part, crap. It seems to me that the avatars selected here are just for fun, which I thought was the purpose of Spray to begin with (in addition to shunting the bitching away from the climbing section). The idea that they're something posters are hiding behind? Yeah...get real.

[denalidave]

i AM ivan beyotch!

Ok, Eric, er Ivan.

[kevino]

<---- Kevin O. I'm a sarcastic asshole in real life too so thats why I don't mind using my real name here.

Edited February 7, 2010 by kevino

[richard_noggin]

Hey i am a Dichhead in real life so beotch

[prole]

Why don't you all use your real names? Occasionally someone steps up and does, like this example, but lots of ornery folks just want to anonymously spit on folks.

 

Could you please join a church-group casserole club, already? For fuck's sake...

[Off_White]

The validity of any good argument or idea should be self contained within it. Debaters who must prop up their points with their credentials would do well to reexamine the inherent strength of their positions.

 

Right, so Bill O'Reilly's opinion on climate change is as valid as any climatologist with an advanced degree.

 

Like it or not, climbing has always had many of the aspects of a meritocracy. Do you think that Alan Watts, who's argued climbing ethics with a variety of very talented climbers face to face, was wrong to decline to debate online with some anonymous internet troll?

 

Just because the internet gives everyone a stump doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. If you don't care enough about something to stand behind it, who gives a rat's ass what you think?

[Off_White]

OW's assertion that posters here expend any real energy here to maintain their anonymity is, for the most part, crap.

 

You're uniformed, I'm the one who gets the complaints from people when they've had their real names attached to their avatars against their will. People do actively want to prevent having what they say here attached to themselves in the real world. You, like G-spotter, and any number of durable persistent sprayers, are only thinly removed from their flesh and blood identities, and the connection can be found by anyone who really wants to spend the research time. Still, you, like Raindawg, are anonymous to anyone who drops into the site without a lot of history.

 

Logical fallacy or not, I believe this is the single biggest reason bolting threads ALWAYS degrade into anonymous abusive shit slinging character slurring debacles and get shipped to Spray. There has never been such a thread that has made it to page three without someone saying some kind of crap that they'd never say if their mommy was in the room to ask them, "Why would they say that to another person? Didn't I raise you better?"

 

If you're afraid someone is going to track you down and throw a brick through your window because of something you said on the internet, you'd best reexamine the way you treat other people.

[mike1]

OW's assertion that posters here expend any real energy here to maintain their anonymity is, for the most part, crap.

 

Logical fallacy or not, I believe this is the single biggest reason bolting threads ALWAYS degrade into anonymous abusive shit slinging character slurring debacles and get shipped to Spray. There has never been such a thread that has made it to page three without someone saying some kind of crap that they'd never say if their mommy was in the room to ask them, "Why would they say that to another person? Didn't I raise you better?"

 

If you're afraid someone is going to track you down and throw a brick through your window because of something you said on the internet, you'd best reexamine the way you treat other people.

Maybe, but I think there are just those here that feel safe from behind their keyboard whether they use their name or not.

[G-spotter]

The validity of any good argument or idea should be self contained within it. Debaters who must prop up their points with their credentials would do well to reexamine the inherent strength of their positions.

 

Right, so Bill O'Reilly's opinion on climate change is as valid as any climatologist with an advanced degree.

 

No, but not because of who they are - rather by how well their opinion agrees with the observed evidence and predictions from best generation of current climate science models.

[Raindawg]

If you're afraid someone is going to track you down and throw a brick through your window because of something you said on the internet, you'd best reexamine the way you treat other people.

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. What control does one have over the reactions of some of the immature or unstable people who post on the internet?

Should I alter my apparently unpopular perspectives because they piss people off? I don't think so.

 

Reread what "Bug" wrote....some people HAVE received threats of from anonymous wankers:

 

Hey Matt,

Since you are so good at outing people, how about you post Hugh Conway's real name and city just incase he threatens to "cap" me again. Or does this sort of behavior only get people banned when they do it to moderators? I like a lot of what you say and do here Matt but outing someone that way is really lame. Clearly the most questionable thing I have seen you do on this site. How about posting a listing of everyone's real name so we can all be on equal footing? How about at least posting a listing of moderators and their names and cities? Watch 80% of em scurry into the shadows like cockroaches.

 

The site supervisors/owners should make a decision: keep things anonymous (with no toleration for threats or "outing")or require actual names...after which, one can decide whether to continue to participate or not, especially in the latter case.

[tvashtarkatena]

Bill O'Reilly's statements would be bullshit no matter who uttered them. He entertains a fawning, filtered audience who already accepts his point of view, and so need not include any supporting evidence to back up what essentially are off the cuff remarks. Not a great example, there.

 

Alan Watts is also a poor example. Does his credibility stem from whether or not he chooses to post under his own name? No. It existed long before the internet. Were he to post under a pseudonym, I seriously doubt this audience (who would instantly know who was actually posting) would think any lesser of his postings because he posted under 'Adawg' or 'A&W' or whatever.

 

Now jump to a what is essentially an internet playground like Spray. Not a serious forum; certainly not moderated as such. Not too many Alan Watts types posting here, so nobody comes ready equipped with that kind of pre-existing reputation. In such an environment, is there an inherent credibility assigned to those who post under their own name as opposed to a nickname/avatar in such an environment? If Raindawg posted under his own name, would his anti-bolting raving be better received and listened to? I doubt it.

 

I've witnessed posters here who violently disagree with each other on almost everything join together in substantive advocacy, well outside spray and in the 'real world'. It had nothing to do with the whole 'real name/avatar' thing. It was all about the posts, which had to stand on their own.

 

Finally, posters here often crack off color jokes or make outrageous statements for humorous purposes...its part of what makes Spray entertaining, interesting and, on that rare occasion, compelling. They understandably would prefer not sharing such postings with their HR departments, which these days have taken a somewhat overly invasive interest in nearly every aspect of their employees activities. An avatar is a simple and appropriate way to maintain a healthy and warranted separation of church and state. You don't happen to have that worry, so you may not really understand it. Well, others do.

[tvashtarkatena]

OW's assertion that posters here expend any real energy here to maintain their anonymity is, for the most part, crap.

Still, you, like Raindawg, are anonymous to anyone who drops into the site without a lot of history.

 

 

 

You're kidding, right? If someone doesn't know me personally, reading 'Tvashtarkatena' or 'PatGallagher' isn't going to make a lick of difference in what they think, one way or the other, about what I post. It certainly doesn't to me, anyway. Furthermore, if they want to answer questions like 'who is this fucker...does he climb...blah blah", that answer's readily available, all under the same avatar (at least in my case).

[tvashtarkatena]

If the forum is "Vote for me for President", yeah, using your real name might be important. If the forum is Spray...what is essential in the above example becomes quite a bit more inconsequential.

[StevenSeagal]

I've got nothing to hide, though I admit some of my movies were a little embarrassing. Not enough to warrant an avatar, though!