« Is there anything to do but be? | Main | Let all of religion fall down. Every bit. »

February 21, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear "tucson" (= "Tucson Bob"?),

Unlike those of you who do not give your real names, I have consistently given my birth name in all of my notes to this blog. I am not the one who has failed to provide a name in the note you complain of. Your suspicion against me is a false one -like various other complaints/slanders against me in this forum. (Nevertheless, I do much appreciate the sentiments that were expressed in that note without a name.)

Robert Paul Howard


I can't speak for everyone but I don't think anyone really gives a shit whether or not you have "consistently given my (your) birth name in all of my notes to this blog" just as long as you attache some consistent name to your comments.

I could care less what your real (or fictitious) name is. And no one knows whether or not it is actually your real name anyway. You can use any name you like, and no one would be the wiser. I could even call myself Jim Dandy or Howard Paul Robert for that matter, but to what end? How would anyone ever know if that name, or your name, or anyone else's name is actually a real name? The fact of the matter is that ANY name will do, just as long as it's consistent over time so that other readers are able to identify which comments belong to who.

You SAY that you are "not the one who has failed to provide a name in the note you complain of" and that "suspicion against me is a false one". I suppose that Tucson had reason to wonder about that because actually your comments are very similar (and almost identical) to the 'anonymous' commenter's comments, and vice versa. But you say that you are not the same person. OK... but this is exactly the problem that is caused by other people who cowardly refuse to identify themselves by leaving the name box blank.

So I have a serious suggestion as to how to resolve this problem: I suggest that Brian consider automaticaly deleting any and all comments that do not have an identifying name attached to them. That way, if someone really wishes their comments to be read and heard and remain posted, then they will have to and must attach some name to their comments. Otherwise, their comments will be deleted. That will solve this problem at least as far as blank un-named commenters goes. So I would ike to ask Brian if he would consider doing that for awhile.

Robert said: "...like various other complaints/slanders against me in this forum."

-- But how about the "complaits/slanders" that you have made against me in this forum? You are concerned about yourself, but what about others ike me whom you have slandered? I understand how you feel, but then you should practice what you preach.

Robert said: "Nevertheless, I do much appreciate the sentiments that were expressed in that note without a name."

-- But then this is exactly why folks like Tucson tend to think that you yourself are really the anonymous poster. You say no, so I will accept your word for now... but then perhaps could you elucidate more upon just exactly why it is that you "appreciate the sentiments that were expressed in that note without a name"?

tAo, a belated reply to your suggestion. I'm not big on rules, especially with blogging.

I don't see much, if any, difference between someone making up a "posted by" name (which could change with every post) and not leaving any name at all.

I'd prefer it if people would use either their real name, or a consistent made-up name. But sadly, the world often doesn't heed my preferences.

The problem with annoymous comments like this one is that when you click on the annonymous comment it takes you to your original post in the thread and not the annonymous comment. You have to scroll down to the comment, or in the case of some very long threads, go through several pages of comments. This can be annoying for those who wish to read the comment AND for the annonymous commenter who would like their comment, that may never be found, read.

So, even if someone wants to use a different name every time, it seems to me a good idea to require a name for the sake of convenience and efficiency. Yes?

OK, good point. I missed that -- that comments with no name lead only to the post, not to the comment, since there's no name to click on.

Your comment above has a direct link in the "March 17..." identifer. It's just that TypePad doesn't include that link in the sidebar list of comments unless a name is attached.

I'll point this out to TypePad as something they should address.

There aren't many no-name comments, so for now I'll add a name to them (aside from the preceding). That way the name can be clicked and the comment will appear, not just the post.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.