|Don't ask to ask, just ask|
anonymous Monks: a double-edged sword in an argument.by hackmare (Pilgrim)
|on Feb 04, 2002 at 12:33 UTC||Need Help??|
Sociology is a funny thing, isn't it?
First of all, let me make my point clear so this does not start yet-another-anonymous-monk-is-appropriate-or-not flame war.
Now, I'm going to relay something I just experienced.
There I was, browsing my old postings to see if anything new had happened to them, when I read through one that had turned particularily nasty at the time, and which had subjected me to one of the nastier episodes of flaming I had experienced.
Intrigued by the posting's appearance, I was further intrigued by the fact that it was posted anonymously. So I read it and found that I actually experienced an unexepected combination of appreciation and dread.
The appreciation I felt was in seeing that someone was backing me up and telling off a poster whose rant ahd truly become bellicose.
Ironically, however, the dread came from the same fact!
When I read the posting, I found myself worried that it looked to the uninvolved reader like I had written it myself, telling off the offender without having the backbone to say it under my own name. This would be a major sin...
And there is the downside of being supported anonymously by someone. I appreciated the jesture and liked that the community supports its members against abuse from others. But I was unsettled that this was done anonymously.
So in the future, I would respectfully suggest that people might reconsider before posting anonymously, as the very fact that ti is anonymous stains the opinion. After all, what is the point of having an opinion if we hide from others that it is our own?
still, thanks for backing me, whoever you were, anonymous one.
I do not know if it was because the flame came from a Saint, or if it was becausy you did not wish to be associated with my opinion but did want to make a point. I appreciated the support, anonymous as it was.