[TPIN] Anonymous credibility

[Michael Anderson]

I agree when it comes to valid discussion issues. However, when you are
slamming someone undiplomatically and questioning their sincerity or
credibility or even their opinion, hiding behind a pseudonym is lame and
spineless and without merit. If you go on a discussion forum to cause
trouble and get people worked up for the sport of it and least have the guts
to sign your name like Ellis does. ;-)

Boozo the clown is a troll. Plain and simple. A classic example too.

MA


> From: Glenn Bengry <soundpretty at hotmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:11:51 -0400
> To: Boozo Destructo <boozo.destructo at gmail.com>, <tpin at tpin.okcu.edu>
> Subject: [TPIN] Anonymous credibility
> 
> 
> Mates,
>  
>        My boy here has some strong points.  People on the other side of the
> argument have a formidable debate opponent, regardless of his name, pedigree,
> quality of his double C.
>  
>  A good argument or point can stand on its own just like good science.
> Scrutinize the statement.  I The idea of hiding implies that people need to
> know someone's name so they can attack the person or the person's credibility.
> If you got a problem with a statements facts or logic, then challenge the
> facts and logic.  If you have to resort to attacking the messenger, then,
> perhaps, your rebuttal is not as strong as you thought.
>  
> glenn, I don't have a signature, bengry
>  
>