Thursday, November 15, 2007

Anonymous Commentors = Cowards Without Credibility

One of the cowards who hides behind the cloak of anonymity tried posting a comment on my blog from yesterday blasting the Chamber of Commerce, making a bunch of generalizations, and claiming that none of us had any credibility. I had to just sit back and laugh at the audacity of this pompous blow hard. Telling me that I have no credibility when they don't even have the guts to sign their name to anything they have to say. Credibility is something that is tied to you as a person, to your history, to your accomplishments, to the things you've contributed to in the community.

The height of the lack of credibility would be tied to someone who chooses to remain faceless and nameless. Why would anyone believe anything they had to say? They have no track record, no history, no reputation, no community involvement, no service, nothing! They are just a little spineless coward hiding in the bushes spewing their venom trying to infect as many people as they can. For someone like that to make any claims of someone else having no credibility is the height of irony and stupidity.

Needless to say I didn't publish the comment, I really could see no point in it. After all, why would I want to publish something from someone with no credibility whatsoever? Yes, I like having comment moderation on a blog, it is not for meatheads who just want to cause problems. It is for me to share my pictures and stories, and to occasionally comment on something that really gets me going. But that does not mean that I have to allow the idiots to publish their garbage here, and I won't, case closed!


Mike Ernest said...

I've always, for some reason, like the term "meathead" which is strange, because I was too young to watch All in the Family (that's the Archie Bunker show, right?)

Tell people like that to get their own blog, so we can ignore it or read it if we want.

I've never understood why someone would want to go on someone's blog and start a fight with the author. I just don't get it.

Bruce A. Bateman said...

The root of the problem lies in their anonymity, Harry. It provides the coward, a voice, which he/she normally can't use because of their fear of being exposed.

It allows for political and social opinion without conscience and without regard to the audience being able to gauge what is said against what the writer's biases and self interests are.

Same with this weasel coward Pee Pee calling for boycotts while hiding behind an anonymous alias when he owns a competing business.

Cowards are basically all alike. The best way to deal with it is just to permanently delete the junk when it occurs and move on. Just like you are doing.

O. Calimbas said...

I think writing anonymously can work but is very hard to pull off effectively. The words and the argument have to justify themselves, or the person behind the nom de guerre loses the battle.

Sure, not everyone can be Mark Twain or Voltaire, but I agree with you, if you can't pull it off, all you do is alienate others. Hence your ban.

I think the fear of some form of retaliation, maybe with your employer, or some other form of social ostracism, can be a valid reason to use a pseudonym. But that doesn't mean you can get very far by merely mud-slinging.

Jeff said...

What kills me is this same anonymous putz after bruce and me says "he" doesn't matter because people will just focus on him, the author, and then he makes it all about Bruce and me. Boycott Bruce's bar. I'm a bad teacher because I won't give him a platform on my blog that I built up, and won't let him piggyback on. Harry had this right before a lot of us, and his reasons on credibility are spot on.