Re: Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba

[Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>]

gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> : The only exception I see is if
> : someone threatens the life or wellbeing of another. Then I can understand
> : why someone that posts anonymously should get into trouble.
> 
> So when someone posting anonymously makes statements about YOU that are
> outright lies what will you say?   Will you consider that part of your
> exception (falling under the well being of another) or will it be under the
> protection from the government part? 
> 
> You totally missed his point and turned it into a freedom of speech thing. 
> 
> Well guess what bozo, it's NOT within someone's rights to post lies about
> another person.  THAT's why it's being done anonymously.  It's not fear of the
> government that's keeping the anon asshole anonymous. It's knowing that if
> his/her identity is discovered, he/she could be held accountable for the
> _LIES_.

What part do you expect the goverment to play in this scenario,
though?  Shall they establish an "Internet Truth Police" squad?

The problem is, for just about every accusation there is another
voice saying that the first accusation is false and counter-accusing
that the original accuser is a "filthy rotten liar".  Neither of
these rival accusations deserves to be believed without supporting
evidence.

It's obvious that when you refer to one party in a debate as an
"anon asshole" that your mind is already made up and you're really
afraid of hearing all the facts.  It is evident that there are a far
larger number of NON-anonymous "assholes" on the net.  Such ad
hominem anti-privacy bigotry only betrays the weakness of your
position.  Ideas can stand on their own and if you must resort to an
ad hominem smear campaign to make your point, you are already well
on your way to losing the debate.  Are you implying that if an
"anonymous asshole" were to say, for example, that the world is flat
that you'd prefer to know the person's name so that you could dig up
dirt to smear him with rather than simply refuting his IDEA?

Why do I get the impression that your modus operandi is to
intimidate potential opponents into remaining silent rather than
refuting their ideas in reasoned, rational debate?

To anyone who hates privacy so much, I'd invite them to post their
snail mail address, home phone number, Social Security number, and
date of birth lest they likewise be accused of "hiding" something.
Most are too hypocritical to do so, of course.

--