Saturday, July 21, 2007

That whole "anonymity" thing -- Part 2.


Back here, one "Patrick Ross" has been on an absolute mission, badgering me incessantly to get me to reveal who I am, as if that would somehow contribute to this discourse in some meaningful way. This leads me to ask the simple question, Patrick: If I told you who I was, what would you do with that information?

What would be the value of that information, Patrick? Would it make my posts suddenly easier to address or refute? Would it allow you to more thoroughly engage me on the field of intellectual combat? What? Because I'll tell you what it would allow.

It would allow people like Celestial Junk's Paul to exercise his rather peculiar notion of "free speech":

Civil society offers us legal remedy via the courts. The Left has fought for this more than any other group ... so, Mr. CC would have to face the very institutions and standards that have largely been advanced by the Left.

In CC case, I doubt that the courts would be necessary ... a simple exercise in free speech by the other side would likely have him groveling like a kitten. But you see, the other side can't exercise their right to free speech unless CC were known. And that, is where he and others like him are operating outside the bounds of civil society.

So, apparently, the "other side" has been utterly unable to respond to me and exercise their right to "free speech" because ... they don't know who I am? Yes, let's ignore the dozens and dozens of comments I've allowed them to leave on my blog, and let's ignore their freedom to have written dozens of posts, expressing their opinion on the subject because, in Paul's opinion, that doesn't qualify as "free speech".

No, in Paul's world, "freedom of speech" must necessarily involve, as you can read above, having the ability to make me "grovel like a kitten." So let's strip the veneer of civility off of this discussion, shall we, Mr. Ross? Because, quite simply, for Paul (and a frightening number of people just like him), the only definition of "free speech" that means anything to them would be the freedom to learn who I am so they can take it from there.

That "freedom" would undoubtedly involve harassing me incessantly, leaving threatening messages on my answering machine, maybe vandalizing my car and, hey, probably just plain tracking me down to physically assault me. Don't believe me? Then explain what Paul could possibly mean when he writes that he and others can't exercise their right to "free speech" until they find out who I am.

You think I exaggerate? Not even a little bit. And there is, at that comments section of Paul's, this comment directly underneath the one I quoted:

Ah, but Paul - someone out there knows who CC is. An ego like his is unable to keep silent. All it takes is one of his entourage to let slip the information.... And that shouldn't be hard. An offensive individual like that is bound to seriously annoy someone close to him, annoy enough to provoke creative retaliation. Unless, of course, CC has no friends at all, and is shunned by his family, always a possibility.

One thing few people realise is that no one is truly anonymous on the internet. A good techie could track CC down. Anyone out there want to give it a shot?

Anonymous | 07.20.07 - 7:09 pm

And the point of "tracking me down" would be ... what, exactly? To personally engage me in witty, intellectual banter? I think not.

These people have had unfettered freedom to exercise their "freedom of speech" every which way from now to Sunday but, apparently, there's something they can't quite do until they find out my true identity. Now what could that be, Patrick? Hmmmmm? What could that possibly be? Think hard ... given time, I'm sure it will come to you eventually.

So how about you put away that childish attitude, Patrick, where you keep challenging my "courage" for choosing to remain anonymous. I have my reasons. Now it remains to be seen whether you're too fucking stupid to finally realize what they are.

6 comments:

thwap said...

Whoa there cowboy! The well-hung intellectual heavyweight patrick ross didn't want to know you're identity! He said so! He didn't want your address. Just your name!

So, that he could, um, ... well, ... as you say, ... address your arguments better.

I'm afraid that I really don't understand, because I'm not as big an intellectual heavyweight as patrick ross.

F'r instance: I fail to grasp how you're a hypocrite for not allowing anonymous comments, instead forcing people to adapt at least a fake name, before commenting here.

the rev. said...

Given the venom of some to of the anonymous posts and the one from the jackass who claimed to be a member of the NDP and wrote "CYNIC YOU'RE FUCKED, LEGALLY AND OTHERWISE ONCE WE FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE, AND WE WILL! C YA ROUND." I think I would be taking great pains to stay unidentifiable if I were CC. Some of the dumb fucks can be dangerous, just ask the people who work in abortion clinics.

Ti-Guy said...

Who cares about Patrick Ross and his tongue which is hinged in the middle? Paul is the real fascinating head case here. I can't imagine what you'd have to do to make a kitten grovel. I've never once witnessed that behaviour in either a kitten or a full-grown cat. Paul seems to know what that looks like, however and I wonder under just what circumstances the kitten-groveling occurred.

thwap said...

Besides having a huge cock and being an intellectual giant, I also note that "patrick ross" is "the best at what [he] do[es]."

By which, presumably, he means blogging on his own site. Which is entirely possible.

Patrick Ross said...

Hold on, there, Ann. I think you need to get back on your meds. Valeri is really worried about you.

Cynic, you've made your reasons for choosing anonymity really clear. It's so you can be as vicious as you want (and, as it regards Wanda Watkins, you have been), and never face any sort of consequences from you. You yourself posted that, in your own words.

That is the very definition of cowardice.

Furthermore, don't lecture me about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech brings with it a lot of power, and as a great man once wrote "with great power comes great responsibility". Freedom of speech doesn't come without the responsibility to take responsibility for the things you say. You trample freedom of speech every bit as anyone who advocates any form of censorship when you use it irresponsibly.

What really occurs to me, though, Ann, is that you as yourself and you as Canadian Cynic aren't a damn bit different. When you wrote that column making fun of John Edwards' dead son, you were acting in precisely the same spirit as when you, as your alter-ego, wrote that article telling the mother of a fallen soldier to "fuck off".

Whether or not the Blogging Tories did the same to Cindy Sheehan (apparently, some of them did, and it's no more acceptable) is only marginally material. Aren't you trying to be different?

Apparently not. You're just trying to be vicious and anonymous, and you don't care if you have to trample the sanctity of our freedoms in order to do so.

You lessen yourself, you lessen our freedoms, and you sure as hell don't qualify as a "progressive".

Adam said...

I don't get it, you often organize public events with location and time given, where you apparently go and meet with people in person and drink/talk. Hardly anonymous at all. If anyone really wanted to know who you were, they can go meet you, or get someone else to. And as they've so innocently pointed out, tehy could just figure out who you are via the internet and its wondrous lack of total privacy.

I'm also with Ti-guy here...when do kittens grovel? A noun and a verb combined don't necessarily make sense, you know. That read like a Mad-lib. I'd go with "fawning like a Red-tailed Hawk" instead, jsut to be extra confusing.