Unfortunately in today's world - you are completly correct Craig = now days it is shoot first and ask questions later if you can.

Yep. Lefties are unhinged in today's world. No doubt there would be vandalism and assaults after identities were revealed. Witness the guy who brought the firebombs to the capital last month.

A friend of mine got death threats after his letter to the editor (signed) was posted on the Milw Journal Sentinel. Since he is a gun owner, this is also a demonstration how the 2d amendment protects the 1st.

Refresh my memory for me, red: when did a schizophrenic who's off his medications and carrying non-flammable materials (according to the Madison Fire Department) into the Capitol become a "lefty" with "firebombs"?

What exactly does your friend receiving death threats after expressing himself in the MJS letters page have to do with the 1st Amendment? Were the death threats from the government?

Bren, that is a nice comment that I can agree with.

@Bottom Line....I don't think it matters whether one remains anonymous. By using one's name is putting one's family and neighbors at risk, get real please. The most vitriol comments towards me have come from the extreme right and usually from an anonymous commenter.

Lyle ... I agree that nasty comments from every direction ... but sophomoric comments are not going to hurt you, your family, or your neighbors ... hardly the same as having your tires slashed, mailbox blown up, lug nuts loosened ... etc.

Lyle that is a good point, but notice the Conservative or right still obey the laws unlike your side of the aisle. You don't see conservatives "Occupying" any thing other than their place at their JOB. You don't see conservatives invading the Capital, or marching and protesting in front of a governors house. You don't see them threatening businessmen who dare to support a politician who opposes them. Need I continue?

I feel the same way, the vitriol and hatred to me has come from lefties.

Lyle, the firebomb guy at the State Capital was a lefty.

Segue boy who sang a happy song to a daughter about the death of her father is a lefty.

The radio guy who describedRebecca Kleefisch as participating in sexual orgies is a lefty.

Walker got hundreds of death threats from lefties. So did Alberta Darling.

Jared Loughner who shot Gabby Giffords can be determined to be a lefty above and beyond his psychosis. The VA Tech shooter was a lefty.

ConspiracyT - lookup Suffragette or Civil Rights, sometimes those "obeying the law" aren't necessarily the good guys. Just saying...

The Anti-Alinsky -

YOU are EXACTLY why people should be using their REAL NAMES on this and any BLOG!

There are far too many people on this blog and others, who are business people, lawyers, political activists, teachers, “business creators “some are even those "pillars of the community" that we often read about, after they have been convicted of child molestation, OWI, spousal abuse, etc. and they hold very "public positions."

It is not that their "real name" gives any more credence or weight to what they say on this blog; it is the matter of now we know who you really are as a person. If Jim Senselessbrenner posted on the blog, using his real name, I would give it the same credence and weight that I would if it was anonymous: NONE!

In America, we do have FREEDOM OF SPEECH and that is protected by the CONSTITUTION. If people are afraid to post their thoughts on a blog under their own name, just what does that say about that person! What does that say about Wisconsin and America?

Yes, some duplicitous, racist and just plain mean-spirited and gutter talking folks would indeed leave this blog – Facebook does not shut down, BUT THEY DO HAVE SOME CONTROL! On the other hand, you would probably attract a higher quality of blogger and reader here. I personally know many women who would care to post on the Patch, but they are shocked by the tenor, sarcasm, racists and meaningless snarkiness of many of the comments made here.

We are writing about COMMUNITY here…

@John Wilson -- Some posters abuse their anonymity while others do not. I'm disappointed to learn that you feel I lack credibility.

Furthermore, while Anti-Alinsky has some very pointedly strong views (imagine that with a screen name like 'Anti-Alinsky!) he's not racist, abusive or markedly profane.

Randy, glad to see we can agree on this topic.

I find it interesting that John Wilson still runs around throwing out phrases like:
"Jim Senselessbrenner"
“Your nose is growing... boring...”
“You folks are entirely clueless!”
“Is English your FIRST language?”
"Conservative cave dwelling cretins KNOW THINGS…"
“judy kozlowski -Well, I know for a fact ONE of you are... (a fool)”
"your phenomenally intellectually challenged leader, who refers to himself as “the great Boffa.”
"You set the bar so low for Ryan that if he said fire was hot, you would probably build a church around him."
"You folks are entirely clueless!"
"...perhaps it is time to rethink some of your “beliefs” or maybe, just maybe, seek some psychological help."

while claiming to that forcing people to use their real names will cut down on the vitriol and hatred on this blog.
(BTW-that took all of five minutes and I only used the one-liners)

Of course, I am assuming John Wilson is his real name...

Randy1949 –

“I'm disappointed to learn that you feel I lack credibility.”

I really do not get why you think I said “you lack credibility.”

I did say, “If Jim Senselessbrenner posted on the blog, using his real name, I would give it the same credence and weight that I would if it was anonymous: NONE!”

I fail to see how that refers to you, unless you are conflating “anonymous” with Senselessbrenner. [I would recognize Senselessbrenner’s incoherent, angry ravings if they were written in invisible ink.]

I have not taken the time or effort, ever, to check on anyone… I get enough of a sense of where a person is simply by what and how they write; that is enough for me.

I have encountered about 6-8 people on this blog who I regard as having a good sense of empathy, compassion, intelligence, education, and a mature social development; you are one of those.

We are, however, not going to agree on everything; I just happen to favor the real name scenario.

@John Wilson -- If a blogger's tone and general demeanor are what gives us credibility, then why should a name make a difference?

The Anti-Alinsky -

Humor and helpful suggestions are not in any sense "vitriol and hatred."

Senselessbrenner, with his REAL ID, which he slipped into a "must pass" appropriations bill in 2005 is funny! How is that REAL ID going?

IF I find someone's post so far "out there" that logic forces me to ask them to please rethink their ideas or perhaps seek some psychological help, I am truly attempting to be helpful.

YOU may see them as "vitriol and hatred" which only leads me to question your vision or interpretation…

Randy1949 -

"I have encountered about 6-8 people on this blog who I regard as having a good sense of empathy, compassion, intelligence, education, and a mature social development; you are one of those."

I do not think that the word credibility appears there. I am always ready to give more credence to anyone who puts there real name… out there.

Think of it in terms of a voter who is equally undecided between 2-candidates, then, the media breaks the real news that one of the candidates is really named, Jane Fonda… Oops!

"I have encountered about 6-8 people on this blog who I regard as having a good sense of empathy, compassion, intelligence, education, and a mature social development; you are one of those."

Thank you for that. However, you do realize that this blog is about whether or not anonymous posters should continue to be allowed to participate on Patch. That exclusion would include me, even after I have tried to explain as politely and patiently as I could why I choose not to share my real personal information. That goes for Bren too.

@John Wilson (if that is indeed your real name),

I don't think ANYONE would find those comments funny, and how do you consider them helpful? We all know that they are your attempts to stifle people that disagree with you by belittling and bullying them.

Thanks John Wilson

Well said.

ASSIST???? all they do is prevent free speech unless it fits their lib agenda .They are the type that never urinated in the shower cuz the book says use the toilet.

Bob McBride -

NO! This is just a CYA piece for the Patch.

They will now say, "Based on our - unscientific survey - of people currently on our blog, the vast majority of folks would appreciate remaining "unknown"; therefore, you may continue to post anonymously, be as vulgar as you may desire, and rest assured, that, as long as you have a personal relationship with one of our editor’s, you will never be censored or prevented from posting…

John, they've been recycling other topics that have garnered heavy comment participation as well. I think this is just more of the same. But you're right in that they're unlikely to do anything that directly inhibits the ability/willingness of anyone to participate here. Particularly in light of Patch's increased reliance on user generated content.

Why not stand behind your opinions. Why the need for anonymity if what you are opining is what you believe. Although it may help those who make make ill informed statements derived form the Blame Stream Media, The anonymity affords them the chance to avoid having to say they were wrong.

Why not stand behind your opinions. Why the need for anonymity if what you are opining is what you believe.

*******************

I think that's been made abundantly clear. Not everyone has the luxury of not having to worry whether or not they're going to express an opinion that will end up upsetting an employer, customer, family member, etc. It doesn't have to be a particularly radical opinion, either, to fall into that category. If that's the case, would you prefer a system whereby they're unable to express an opinion because of fears in that regard? Should we limit that ability only to those for whom that's not a concern?

Jason J –

If you hold that “far out” ideas and are so frightful of disagreements in the political arena, perhaps it is time to rethink some of your “beliefs” or maybe, just maybe, seek some psychological help. You do sound just a little paranoid…

Being able to remain anonymous was the idea behind white hoods. Those folks had their doubts about freedom of speech when it came to burning crosses on Negro's front lawns.

So now Patch is a Klan meeting?

@Randy1949 Is this the real Randy or the impostor Randy? I cannot tell the difference.

The way you tell is to check for -- how shall I put this -- inflammatory content. I mostly try to avoid that because, real name of not, I want to protect the credibility of the screen name. But all it takes is to click on the name to view the profile.

Randy1949 –

Did it ever occur to you that people just might take a RATIONAL DISLIKE of you and your opinion?

I certainly do not like everyone or everything that appears on the Patch, and I certainly am not afraid of any potential blowback either. After all, thanks to Cowboy, Gov. Walker, we are all packin’ and all ready to protect ourselves, our family, our children, the great state of Wisconsin and the homeland.

What is there to fear, except fear itself?

Does DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM OF SPEECH really just simply make us all COWARDS?

@John Wilson -- Yes it has occurred to me, but those aren't the people I'm worried about. In my time on the net I have run across one or two definitely irrational people, and I'd just as soon not give them the ability to Google my address.

So far, I haven't abused the privilege of using a screen name to hurl personal insults of profanities. I think some of the members on the other side of the political spectrum will confirm this. I'm a liberal. Is it really liberal remove another person's choice, so long as they're not breaking any riles?

I refuse to live in fear of some mental case who is so wrapped up in the Paranoid Style of the Right Wing, and that said person would be willing to search me out. I am a Liberal with a gun, and I have no uneasiness with it.

On that point, I would recommend all gun owners to keep an eye out for the compromised gun rules that may come out of the Congress. If it states anything regarding the illegality of importation of weapons or the receipt of guns from another country. Then we should rally our gun owner forces. Because if that is set in law, what will we do when we have to rise up against our Government and be prevented from accepting weapons from a country which agrees with our intent to over throw the current government. China, Iran, Russia I am sure would be willing to help the up rising. We can't do it with Walmart weapons.

Or a couple of them...you could argue with and threaten yourself all day long...

This is true, although I didn't want to be the one to point it out. The Patch editors might be able to see our IP addresses, which would allow them to spot multiple accounts using different names, especially after one account has been deleted for cause. But the internet provider will not reveal personal information except under some fairly dire circumstances -- like threats of violence.

There are also ways to disguise the IP address if you're tech savvy enough.

Don't think that hasn't happened before, McBride. It's part of the fine art of internet trolling.

Very well aware of it, Randy. Part of what I used to do on AOL was monitor guys who did that in chat with multiple computers and accounts that they'd recreate as fast as we could kill them.

Former Sysop at Compuserve here. The philosophy back then was as long as the new account behaved itself, we'd let them be.

These were guys with phished CCs/accounts or utilizing phony generated CC numbers that cleared the account creation process (the latter, obviously, never would have made it through one billing cycle). The objective was to tie up as many monitors and internals as possible for kicks. The whole idea was to misbehave.

I dealt with the kind who just liked to foment discord. As for arguing with oneself, there have been a few boards where I had more than one name, but I never stooped to that except for once, when my two screen names had an epic insult contest done for laughs, and just about everyone was in on the joke.

I really don't see the need for a real name as long as the rules are followed.

Greg -

You had better get a dynamic IP address along with many other fake things if you even want to attempt to hide. [On a computer, Smartphone, tablet or any electronic device that sends or receives data, that can always be traced, quite easily, usually simply through your IP address alone.] Although the Patch does allow you to have multiple accounts, you still must have each screen name associated with only ONE email address.

Therefore, please know that all communication with the Patch is archived, and can be easily traced back to you, either through the Patch staff, local law enforcement, FBI, Homeland Security and the Almighty NSA… or even by a fairly computer literal HS sophomore.

Therefore, you would need many homes to both send & receive from, and if police records show no "Mr. Nice" person at that address, they will know. That knock on your door will be the police or some other governmental agency, coming to take you and your computer or other electronic device to some place where you will not be having so much "fun”.

Actually, chances are almost Slim to none that the Patch would VERIFY your ID, unless you did something really obnoxious on the Patch; and we all know that Slim has left town a long time ago… the important piece of information to remember here is that, what you put on the internet NEVER GOES AWAY… IT IS ALWAYS IN SOMEONE’S DATABASE.

John,
What does the police or FBI have to do with the discussion at hand? I think that you went a little off base while trying to show how smart you are. As it applies to this blog, I stand by my original post.

David, respectfully, what about vandalism and assault? How can you not acknowledge that reality?

@Bottom Line This country was not built on fear of speaking out ........ and certainly vandalism and assault are not confined to those with an opinion. The gunman who killed all those people at the Sikh temple --- should they change their appearance out of fear, or keep their self respect.

Black people could not hide from the KKK or the radical Aryan Racists of today --- they make a statement every day --- even if they would rather not !

John, Bobby, Martin, Malcolm and countless more were all killed for their beliefs and because they were not afraid of espousing them.

I would not say that being paranoid is stupid --- a respectful dose of paranoia can be healthy --- but being paranoid can be crazy and self defeating if it leads you to paralysis of expression.

Lord only knows that there are more than enough Wackos out there spouting off all kinds of crazy stuff --- when good people remain silent, they leave the world to those Wackos.

Some people take themselves too seriously, this is a comments section of a blog site.

David Tatarowicz, would it change your mind if I were to tell you that I will never shop at Jeremiah Wood Finishing Supplies simply because I have disagreed with everything you have said on this site?

OK, truth be told I am a realist. I know not everyone will agree with me and accept that I have to interact with them often. If you offer a better price or service I would shop there, but there are many out there that wouldn't.

@ Anti Alinsky I do not publish my political views or moral views for that matter as part of my business.

However you are right -- there are probably people out there who would not shop with me, due to my views -- too bad and too sad -- but I won't sty up at night worrying about it -- and in the long run, I guess I am better off without that person as a customer anyway.

I am also on the other side of the coin too ! I shop and I can make decisions on where I shop. I do try to respect someone's personal views -- unless they make them part of their business, I don't care. But if they were for instance flying a swastika on the flagpole -- I would take my business elsewhere.

Clint Eastwood, in my opinion, made a fool of himself at the Republican Convention -- and in this particular election I did support Obama over Romney (I have voted for candidates from both parties in the past)

Despite Clint's performance -- I would not boycott his movies.

On the other hand, I do not watch Jane Fonda movies --- no matter what your view of the Vietnam war (which I thought was a mistake) --- she went way beyond a protest I could respect, and I regard her as a traitor to our country.

Woody Allen, by his personal behavior with his stepdaughter in my opinion is a slimeball and I don't watch his movies either.

There are a lot of facets to this issue --- for me, I prefer to comment on this forum in public, but I don't advertise them in my business.

David Tatarowicz -

I am 100% with you, all the way... FREEDOM ISN'T FREEDOM UNLESS YOU CAN USE IT...

John, Bobby, Martin, Malcolm and countless more were all killed for their belief

See, there we go again. John Kennedy was killed by a guy who had clear ties to Cuba and to Russia. He had documented lefty views.. unless he was some kind of double agent. He was killed by a Mafia operative. So which of Kennedy's beliefs led him to be killed by a leftist..spy..mafia operative?

Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian. Its a huge same that after all these years Sirhan Sirhan has not confessed what is motivation was for killing Bobby but some have said it had to do with mideast politics.

Malcolm X was most likely assassinated by the Nation of Islam iteslf for his movement away from their religion.

Of those you mention only Martin Luther King can be truly and verifiably said to have been killed for his beliefs in the sense that the left has trumpeted for decades.

Patch can address these miscreants that you are bothered by, and I strongly disagree that they are in the majority.

Ahem, well, opinions differ on that. I try to be coherent regardless. I find myself far more bothered by someone making a clone account with my name and behaving like a jerk than if someone calls me a jerk. We do become quite protective of our screen handles.

Yes, the police will tell you that. So will anyone who has been on and around the net for a while. It's simple prudence.

Talk about the First Amendment all you like, but we can't live in the expectation that people will be sane and law-abiding all the time. There's a law against car theft, so I SHOULD be able to leave my keys in my ignition and come back in two hours to find my car still there. But I don't do that, and neither should you.

jbw -

Yes, the police are the first ones to tell you not to give your real name and personal information on the internet; try making an internet purchase and see where that goes.

On the other hand, the police then insist on you giving them your real name, address and personal information… then, if there is a reason, they enter all your personal information into their database, then the FBI database and on and on, and, eventually your name and personal information ends up being on the internet anyway, thanks to hackers, journalists or folks who track internet sites to let you know there is a child molester in their neighborhood.

In the case of posting on the Patch, as I have said many times, post your REAL NAME or go home and just play in your little sandbox.

Randy1949 –

Come on now… a name is the same as a car? [They call it, A FALSE EQUIVALENCY ARGUMENT]

Someone actually allowed you to work around computers with that logic?

I really do not believe that we have any more “crazies” around America than we had 50-years ago. I do believe, largely because of computer technology, and the media, that we now give them an inordinate amount of press. 9/11 only extremely exacerbated that. Use Pareto’s 80-20 rule: 20% percent of the causes determine 80% of results.

Put another way, 20% of a wide range of social and psychological malcontents, determine how 80% of the rest of the world is going to respond. Does the TSA, with facial recognition software, x-rays, taking off your shoes and doing cavity searches, really make you safe? Understand here, the bulk of the cargo that they carry, along with your luggage simply is not screened at all!

America, largely, sells illusions…

@John Wilson -- A name and a general location, such as being registered on the Brookfield Patch, gives a person access to your address. That could potentially lead to complications more dire than having your car stolen. And yes, the small percentage of miscreants who would actually steal my car lead me to remove the keys. It's simple prudence.

The person who 'allowed me to work around computers' actually advised the use of a screen name given out to the general public for reasons of personal security. Your ISP will know your true names and address, and those will be given to law enforcement if there is a need. But a total stranger with whom you may be discussing anything from politics to horticulture, has no business unless you yourself choose to share it.

@John Wilson What is it that you want to do with my "real name" so badly that you must demand it in an angry, insulting manner? Threaten, intimidate, defame, or discriminate against me in some way? If you stopped "playing in your little sandbox" and gained half my intelligence, you could easily find me and attempt to commit whatever criminal act you desire.

I'd also have to point out the huge difference between posting my personal information on a public forum and placing a retail order by phone or Internet. My name and address are already a matter of public record along with my property tax bill; but I don't post them all over the Web for the same reason I wouldn't post a big sign in front of home stating what hours I'll be away - there's an important difference between pointlessly advertising information to everyone and having it theoretically available to someone who really wants it.

What if I say my real name is John B. Wilson? Does that make you feel better? I frankly don't believe your real name is John Wilson, because I find hypocrisy extremely common and I am skilled enough at critical thinking to question what I am told. Also, I knew John Wilson when he was editor of Computer Gaming Magazine, and you don't sound like him at all.

jbw –

The information you share with a retail provider goes over the same Internet that your posts to the Patch does; the technology and vehicle is the same, even if they might be using different servers.

You do realize that you just provided another simple avenue to trace who you are, among other things, by referencing your property tax bill.

Anyway, your beliefs are not relevant to me at all. The very simple issue here, on this particular blog today, is whether I prefer a user to post their real name.

I do and you do not.

Finally, if you have to tell someone how very intelligent you are, you have probably overestimated something...

Aaron Perry –

Now that’s a man with integrity!

GREG: I reread the following many times searching for the part where is referred to this tread as a Klan meeting. Can not for the life of me find it. Although, I do get the case against anonymity.

"Being able to remain anonymous was the idea behind white hoods. Those folks had their doubts about freedom of speech when it came to burning crosses on Negro's front lawns."

It was your comparison, not mine.

That's his real name.

I find it interesting that the righties are the most fearful, which pretty much sets the premise for most of their politics.

The ones who are the most out of control, who have the guns and have gone after people, are those on the right. If you have a job, you have a greater chance of losing it or feeling the heat at work if you are working for a conservative.

I still feel that if you don't have courage of your conviction in this country to stand behind it with your name, you shouldn't be expressing it. You shouldn't be afraid, especially after the nonsense that I've had to take beyond what is being discussed.

Find it especially funny that the very people who hide behind the screen names are the ones who will dredge up stuff -- much of it wrong -- about people who do. How would you not view that as chicken crap and gutless?

We need a brave country, one where people can enter the public square and boldly express their opinions, even if that public square is digital. This country is not built on scared people, and we should not admire those who fling invective behind the cover of a screen name.

Geez Keith - maybe it's people like you that keep others from their true identity. I am a conservative - I am not out of control, do not own a gun or desire to own one. I do not support conceal and carry at all. Most people know who I am because this is my nick name. I do not dredge anything up - I make sure I have facts before I say them. I have actually found it is liberals that are more unhinged and out of control. I have had to stand and listen to more ranting and raving, even after the election, by liberals.

Keith Schmitz -

Spot on... not much more to be said than that!

Cricket -

Perhaps that really is your experience... my experience has been along the same line as Schmitz, and I know I travel in a much larger social circle then you do.

See the post above about the firebomb guy at the Capital last month.

@Randy
A more relevant question is whether they have room within the comment boxes for you to use 'Randy One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine' rather than the nickname you have been using.

That would actually be Randy The Year One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-nine, Common Era, to be precise. :P

Using your real identity is important because it shows that you are not, hiding, a coward and that you have balls.
I post nothing that I would not say face to face, I may even show a few of these courageous real name users my balls.

So will I. I have a basketball, two baseballs, a variety of nerf balls, and some cat toys with bells inside.

@Randy
Funny, I had expected you to have a BCE surname. :)

Randy1949 –

Part of me wants to say that people who hide behind screen names are cowardly, frightened people or perhaps they are a bit paranoid, introverted, or maybe they are just so socially inept and full of self-loathing that they can only spew their venom when behind the curtain. For some it is a matter of social exposure and, of course, money…

That might be a bit unfair or too harsh.

I just like the transparency; mainly because we have so very little of it these days.

Funny my impression of those who use their real names on posts is that they are all-knowing blowhards who want to run the lives of others. They seek to be the over-class in the coming socialist bifurcated society and to control every moment of those they consider inferior, but describe in term of emotional caring and solicitude. (When they aren't just grabbing a big slice of the pie in their self-righteousness.)

"Part of me wants to say that people who hide behind screen names are cowardly, frightened people or perhaps they are a bit paranoid, introverted, or maybe they are just so socially inept and full of self-loathing that they can only spew their venom when behind the curtain."

You know, John Wilson, I can take that, because catching heat from both the Right and now the Left in the same week means I must be doing something right. But I do take offense on the part of other anonymous posters like Bren and Free Thought Troy, who haven't spewed any venom that I can think of.

Randy1949 –

“But I do take offense on the part of other anonymous posters like Bren and Free Thought Troy, who haven't spewed any venom that I can think of.”

IF you choose to take offense at my opinion – especially for other people – that all people on the Patch post their real name, and you disagree with that opinion that is on you…

As far as I am concerned, all of this has been “asked and answered”.

If it is posted it would be libel, slander is spoken.

My mistake - thanks.

Sunrocket -

That is both sad and unfortunate; that is also, what our Constitution was written to guarantee.

If, indeed, your neighbor has exceeded the bounds of acceptable and protected FREE SPEECH there are legal remedies open to you. That may help solve the issue or it may escalate the issue that is the chance you have to take or at least consider.

Sometimes, videotaping or even simply audiotaping these incidents may be used as proof of harassment in court. If you decide to do something, you do not want to go to court with a “he said/he said” argument, because you will lose.

I could not nor would not live with that situation, but that is me. You really only have 2-choices as far as I can see, a) live with it and try to make the relationship better b) get evidence and take him to court, understanding that you will lose ALL of any relationship with this person, and perhaps he might just escalate the situation. Of course, you could move, but that is a largely untenable solution in many ways.

Greg –

People may say inaccurate things about you – slander – and they may write – libel – inaccurate things about you, and they may do so largely with impunity. The LEGAL BAR for slander or libel is really quite high, at the very least, you have to PROVE damage to your reputation, and in most cases MONETARY LOSS.

Those are fairly large BARS TO CROSS, AND PROVE…

John,
You are correct. I just provided the correct term for the OP I did not challenge or support the context.

Your post is very conflicted.

Uh, Susan, no amendment has no more weight than the other. Are you some Constitutional attorney or someone that knows what the Supreme Court or the rest of us don't? Is that your real name? I could care less.

Oh Susan - I do hope you use your real name and I do hope that your employer some days cans your a$$$$$ because they don't like what you post - be real - most people now days don't use their real name because they fear that their employer will fire them for not following their beliefs including how they vote.

You might think that you are protected by the first Amendment, but it really doesn't protect you from retaliation should you speak out against or are critical of your employer on here. The same holds true if you state a position that is disagreeable to your fellow employees--can you imagine the workplace hostility that would follow should a public school teacher expose himself as a Walker supporter on this site?

Susan Conner -

Go Susan!

I am with you all the way!

$$andSense -

The 1st Amendment is the very bedrock of Democracy and all the other amendments and our Constitution!

Ann -

Unfortunately you are correct.

That is the ONE VALID argument that I have found here.

You will note also, that IF an employer does terminate you for what you stated, they will NOT give that as a reason for your termination! They will come up with something that will logically prevent you from filing a "Wrongful Termination" suit.

CowDung -

Your right to "Free Speech" is NOT ABSOLUTE... The Supreme Court has already ruled on that; you are never free from the repercussions of your "Fee Speech."

Did I claim that it was, John?

Lets see - Nuitari - I am guessing this isn't your real name

It doesn't seem to only go so far when it involves conspiratorial statements with no substance behind the statement. Is that free speech. Is riling up peoples negative emotions free speech, is demonizing other people unfairly freedom of speech, destroy peoples reputations, is that freedom speech. Of course ther are slander laws, and defamation laws, but did they come from the 1st Amendment or the need of a society to control the misuse of Freedom of Speech. Each generation is faced with where the line is drawn regarding Freedom of Speech.

It is not a simple proclamation when one declares all statements are protected by Freedom of Speech.

I don't completely understand what Freedom of Speech means in 2013 as opposed to 1776.

Advertisers want some idea of how many eyeballs are going to be viewing their ads--fewer people commenting means fewer views of their ads. The fewer views of the ads, and the less Patch can charge for advertising space...

Yes, I agree, however I don't think whatever tone the comments sections may take on is of much concern to the advertisers. I assume Patch provides the statistics to potential advertisers in terms of views per day per ad (or whatever the commonplace metric may be). Advertisers may get a general feel for the traffic from the amount of comments they observe. However if you check the lists of most popular articles in a particular grouping contained within the box to the right of the body of any given article, they don't always correspond directly to those articles with the greatest number of comments.

If I am cited as a source of news, I'm not sure that I'd be any less credible than the many 'real name' posters around Patch that routinely base their entire blog articles on falsehoods.

I think we see plenty of examples of people using their real names on Patch, yet continue to post vitriol, lies, personal attacks, etc. Do you honestly think that those people have more credibility than a Bren, Randy or FreeThoughtTroy, who usually post in a respectful and thoughtful manner?

Mr. Lundt, consider what you are contributing to an exchange that might fuel the emotional attacks you experience. For example, starting your thread to me by attacking me as being naive is probably not going to generate the results you are seeking.

My post referenced "cowdung," which probably wasn't a good example for me to use because there really is someone who wishes to be referred to as cowdung. I shouldn't expect him/her to appreciate my choice of example anymore than I appreciate you attacking me.

If you believe that there are no possible repercussions f r people following your posting guidelines then you are, in fact naive. The evidence is overwhelming and I gave an example of it.

The fact that people do or do not post their names has ZERO correlation to intelligence or nature of the post.

Again it is naive and baseless to suggest otherwise.

Mr Lundt--I never made a correlation to intelligence, but it sounds like you are. I said "credibility." IMHO, you can be intelligent and still not credible. If you are suggesting that intelligence = credibility, well, then I'm sad for you because that is truly naive. Good luck.

Marvin
You are putting words in my mouth and then attacking me with your lame straw man arguments.

Good luck to you.

Mr Lundt, really? Are these not your words:
"The fact that people do or do not post their names has ZERO correlation to intelligence or nature of the post."

I used the word "credibility" in my original post and you wrote about some "correlation to intelligence." I'm just trying to figure out if your comment was the straw man argument.

A public employee, therefore untouchable. Thanks for commenting your emminence.

I agree Geoff. I also think that if it was not screen names, it would be something else.

I've had the experience of an end to anonymity on another board, where some people had used it to be downright abusive. Ultimately, the effect was to stifle candor in the members who were providing polite, if unpopular, feedback.

All that the First Amendment means is that we can say what we like without fear of reprisal from the government. That doesn't mean people won't think we're jerks, stop patronizing our businesses, fire us from our jobs, or perhaps even take real-life physical retribution.

Oh, now that's rational.

Hahaha. That's comedy gold!

Waukesha more dangerous than Milwaukee.. woo hoo!

Freedom is slavery
Black is white

Greg - A short, dismissive comment coming from one of the most fervent right wingers I have ever encountered, you are a very suspect judge of what is rational. That is where you think you are the "good guy" carrying the gun, and everyone else should back off.

It is far more rational to avoid potential gun situations than to participate in them. And why would your extremist cadre be indexing most "liberals" in Wisconsin online by putting all those names and addresses into a database of everyone that signed the Walker recall petition?

Gun nuts keeping book on people that disagree with them politically is cause for concern indeed.

And it doesn't get any better.

@Red - I just know I would rather take my chances away from armed liberal/ moderate hating Rednecks strongholds. It's not just the shopping areas or entertainment, I have seen road rage with a gun involved. If you have the right to carry a gun in public, often openly, because you have these fears, why do I not have a right to avoid you by not going to Walkersha County, particularly to businesses that are not gun-free zones?

@Greg - "And it does not get any better" in response to my comments about fringe right wing individuals like you tracking down liberals.

This is why anyone that gives their real name in online blogs is naive in this wacko political gun crazy day and age, and this entire blog topic of wondering whether people should do so voluntanily or should be required to do so is ludicurous, even dangerous.

So Dirk Gutzmiller is not your real name?

Craig -

We were not required to, however, I did so proudly and would gladly do it again and again, and still again!

How'd that work for ya?

Greg - "How'd that work for ya?" I was not in Madison, but Tammy is in, Barrack is back, and Walker is never going to come remotely close to his job numbers, if he is not indicted first. Walker's second term is definitey in play.

John I understand where you are coming from, I do the same when I go to vote.
The people working the polls actually appreciate it because it helps them find my name on the list easier.
The original comment was in jest...but you have your right as an American. Many men and women have died in order for us to have that right.

Dirk,
Since you weren't there I'll fill you in. You drum banging fools lost bigger than you did in 2010.

Greg - The "drum banging" REALLY, REALLY bothers you and others of your extreme persuasion.
Why?
Of course, a totalitarian state would not allow it.
As for your believing the Tea Party scored big in 2012, now that is irrational. That is why Walker turned into a pseudo-moderate Republican.

Dirk,
I think you have really lost it, the discussion is about MADISON and the RECALL protests.
Nothing to do with Tammy or Barry. Nothing to do with believing the Tea Party scored big in 2012.

Actually I disagree. Sometimes we do agree despite great differences. Not often but sometimes, and that is a victory for all of us.

Dennis - Getting all the bloggers together physically would be indeed scary. Would it be a true gun free zone? I would not come otherwise. And would the pictures of the "liberals" end up on the Internet soon thereafter, like the names and addresses of the Walker Recall petition signers? .

Christ Dirk, how many recall Walker signers have been picked off?
You can't be serious. Paranoia can be treated.

Craig - I am not the one wearing that Glock around. like you. How paranoid is that? What are you so very afraid of anyway, to endanger others? Your more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a family member than some bad guy attacking you. Get real with the guns.

Sorry dirkie, not a fan of Glocks.
Keep trying.

Dirk,
How's that not wiping thing working for you? I think the rash has spread to your brain.

@Greg - You have a thin veneer of civility. Get you a little excited, and you turn scatological and scary hateful. And you want to collect the names and addresses of "liberals" and carry a gun around.
It might be best if you not get on Patch right after the Super Bowl and all that PBR.

Craig - Not a Glock you carry? Open carry of a Bushmaster then?

I think that little man Dirky is about to cry.

"@Greg - You have a thin veneer of civility. Get you a little excited, and you turn scatological and scary hateful."

Me? I think Dirk is doing a little projecting. Every one of his posts screams bat crap crazy. He is the poster child for anonymous posting. He has given a new definition to the term going postal. His rants, about guns and tracking people down, are scary.

Dirk again you show your ignorance. Bushmaster is bush league when it comes to quality firearms- it may be right for you, but it isn't even near the top of my list.
I'm guessing you also drive an old Yugo?

@AA If you ever do visit our humble little shop -- let me know you are AA and I'll give you some free professional grade wiping stain samples :-)

Maybe you wouldn't sound crazy if you expanded your thought about Muskego. Some of us are not participating in your delusions.

Jerry you are eating too many Beans, and not passing enough gas. Holding all that methane in is giving you shitty ideas.

Jerry - though your words are extreme, your premise rings true with me. There are people that claim to be "patriots" that are, in fact, terrorists, and believe in killing those that would support Obama or Tammy, rational gun restrictions, or even Social Security.
It is a different world now, with concealed and open carry, the lifting of the assault weapon ban, a radical NRA, hate media, much less mental health monitoring treatment and confinement, Stand Your Ground, the Castle Doctrine, etc.

There is help
There is hope
There is mental health facilities.

I would love to hear Jerry's reasoning for calling Muskego "a whole tinderbox of crazy".

Craig - Thanks for the mental health chants, apparently you learned them in the exercise yard at the complex.
If I have any mental issues, I am not packing a rod and going out to public spaces, and constantly trolling Patch and posting crappy putdowns.of anyone with whom I disagree.

Now that is scary behavior

More scary is all those voices in your head.
You are just jealous because you don't have a "rod in your pants", guess CC isn't an option with mental illness.

They already know who you are, where you live and what you did.

Eib.

Uh - oh. What did I do now? Are Carlson's dreaded drones already heading my way? Does a tinfoil hat really work? Do I need to start digging foxholes and stashing firearms and ammo? Oh my, what to do, what to do!

Gofaq

Way to go. Now you upset a number of posting Truthers. Hope you are happy. I am shocked by your outrage. This is exactly why the 1st amendment needs to be modified like the 2nd, those idiots in the 1700's were just so short sighted.

Therefore, the Patch editorial committee hereby will apply the penalty of walking ten laps around your living room, barefooted mind you. Maybe that will bring your senses back.

William Eib -

I read that days ago; it is a great story, more about the intrusion of RELIGION into EVERYTHING THOUGH...

http://www.alternet.org/belief/war-over-roses-rhode-island-vendors-refuse-business-atheist-teenager?akid=9999.991099.1K9fQ8&rd=1&src=newsletter787219&t=9

Nope, there are extremists in both parties. I see Rush Limbaugh, some TEA Party demonstrations, and, golly, some posters here on Patch as being just as strident as anything the left can produce. It all depends on whether you agree with them or not.

Randy - I totally agree with you - I just don't like being painted with such a broad brush. It does go both ways.

Sunrocket –

I think you may have gotten closer to the sun than you thought.

Clearly, the Tea Party, Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann. Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, and the entire Faux News Cabal were all the quintessential philosophers, as they met peacefully and calmly discussed how they could make the tanned man a one-term president, as the White man took back America from that Kenyan…

Regarding Ted Nugent, is he dead or in jail? I thought he stated that he would be one or the other IF President Obama got reelected... Aha, the hubris...

Sunrocket: You understand I am correct. Otherwise you wold have come up with a riposte of your own.
The GOP is the football team in last place looking to spitefully ruin some other teams season. They formed a PAC to prevent Teahadist Party Candidates from being elected. They are now going after the Party they let loose in the first place, because they thought they could control the amateurs the Teahadist were sending to Congress. Wrong!!!

Teahadist pushed the GOP so far to the Right, it cost the GOP the Presidential election.
One little jobs bill would have won the election. The GOP could have campaigned on that and won the Presidency and the Senate.

The Teahadists made the GOP into an Anti Poor, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic Party. Let's not forget the Blame Stream Media, they share a big part in losing the election for the GOP.
One little compromise on a jobs bill, and the election would have been the GOP's.

Steve ® -

"We created the Internet as a private entity and made it what it is. Freedom."

First of all, the internet is not free, unless you are hacking into someone’s modem/router.

I suspect that if you do some basic research you will discover that the government largely created the INTERNET.

I do not know who the “We created… “ You are talking about as the funding and research was mostly provided by the federal government…

Regarding the real topic of this blog, I would be very surprised if the Patch made any changes to the current policy.

You fail so bad at reading/comprehending. Freedom does not mean free of monetary cost. The Internet as we know it today was built, developed, invested, improved by many private businesses and its billions of users worldwide.

The Internet is the last freedom we all share with very limited government regulation and control. Keep it that way.

Steve ® -

"The Internet is the last freedom we all share with very limited government regulation and control."

Your ISP gives the government everything that you do on on net, and the NSA does not stand for No Such Agency, creates massive databases out of everything that passes over the net. You may think that is FREEDOM or how do you put it, "very limited government regulation and control."

Will you please share with me whatever it is you are taking?

Sounds like you should worry about what you post here.

Why is apple pie American? I thought apple pie was Dutch, but I went and looked up and it appears it was actually brought over here by the English. They had to bring the apples with them from Europe because the North American continent does not have any native apple trees.

Tunnel vision and more reading comprehension issues with your brain.

The gobument gets its dollar bills from rich private business owners. They make it rain.

Steve ® -

The government used my tax dollars to create the INTERNET; they continued to fund and improve it – subsidies – with the private sector, again, using my tax dollars.

Now that it is up and going well, it is still funded, and researched for military applications, while the private sector continues to, as you state, “… make it rain.”

Yes, the rainfalls to the private Internet corporations, the same ones I helped build with my tax dollars; now, I have to pay additional funds to the Internet corporations - all of whom include a mandatory arbitration clause in their contracts and they own the arbiter - additional federal, state, and county taxes…

The cost to an Internet corporation to send a text message is .02 cents; the charge to the texter .20 - .30 cents… that’s a fantastic profit margin!

When does the taxpayer get the rain?

John Wilson (if that is your real name),
Once again you have gotten waaaaaaaay off topic, but since you brought it up,
I would like to see your data on those costs and charges. While a simple analysis may indeed show the actual cost to the .02¢ , what does that include? And based on the number of comments you shoot out, how can you afford that at .30¢ a pop?

Talk about the tangent king. Most carriers and plans include unlimited texting. I don't even know how we got to SMS from the op.

The taxpayer is the mist. But businesses make it pour while getting raped.

The Anti-Alinsky –

I really didn’t bring the Internet topic & Freedom up; Patriot did.

I am really not at liberty to disclose who provided that .02 and the customer charge of .20 - .30 charge, other than it came from a Vodafone financial manager in Germany, approximately a year ago – they own Verizon. I am sure that they or Verizon would not be overjoyed with sharing that information with the general public.

Furthermore, the data is proprietary information and as such would certainly not be available to an outsider such as you. I am equally sure you would not want to share your profit margins on each banana sold from your cart with the general public.

John Wilson (if that is your real name),
I am having a hard time finding where Patriot brought up the Internet and Freedom. I'm guessing you are crossing blogs again.

You wrote: "I am really not at liberty to disclose who provided that..."
That Johnny, is known as hearsay. In a court of law it would be inadmissible. In the court of public opinion it is merely rubbish and adds another notch onto your "I know it to be true but can't prove it" belt.

The Anti-Alinsky -

Oops... that was Steve who wandered into the INTERNET AND FREEDOM area, not Patriot.

Steve ®

6:21 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

"Our government is already too large. Why are we wasting our time with this when we have a president spending us into bankruptcy? We created the Internet as a private entity and made it what it is. Freedom."

"WE CREATED THE INTERNET..." (Caps are mine)

As I have indicated in a previous post to you, I suspect you may have a vision and possibly an interpretation issue, as well.

I have answered your question truthfully and as fully as I am allowed to, owing to privacy concerns; if that is not good enough, I am sorry. Conversely, I could make a “YouTube” presentation for you, as ALL of your “legally qualified evidence” or “Opinions” for the Patch seem to be substantiated only by a reference to a YouTube site…

Meanwhile, I sincerely hope your banana sales are going well.

You forgot the rest of the quote

►We created the Internet as a private entity and made it what it is◄

What IS the internet? It's a wide open and woolly place where you have to use your own judgement about what is 'true' or not. A person can say almost anything short of a TOS violation, which varies from ISP to ISP.

Some boards are tightly moderated. You can't cuss. You can't use so-called personal attacks without being terminated. And yes, in a few places you 'must' use your real name, although even at Facebook that rule is ignored. The point is, we agree to certain rules when we sign up. I agreed to rules that were within my own zone of comfort, and I would be unhappy to see them changed a year and a half into the process when I've become a member of the community and become friends (or 'frenemies') with certain people.

Randy1949 -

I understand what you are saying and I both can and do empathize with you.

No sarcasm or snarkiness intended, but life is CHANGE. Most of the ISP contracts and posting sites include in their ToS a "right to change the conditions" of their "agreements" with or without your consent. Then, IF you continue to use the site, you are bound by those new conditions. ISP’s are notorious for putting these notices in 4-point type along with your paper bill or simply add it to you online bill.

Candidly, I would have liked this article to read, “We Are Changing the ToS for This Site.” Then they could enumerate the changes and ask for your comments. There really is no need for this article, as I have been told it appeared before. Further, they are going to do what they think is best for THEIR BUSINESS/SOCIAL INTERESTS… and that is that.

I do not think that anything, at least in terms of “real name” v “anonymous” is going to change, but only time will tell…

Steve ® -

I did not forget... it is in your original post, my follow up post and in part in other responses. There is no need to post the one sentence quote in its entirety in every post; I do suspect that people can follow the dialog if they care.

WE = GOVERNMENT

@John Wilson -- I'm sure no sarcasm was intended in this post, but you did employ it in a post to me yesterday, use of your real name or not. That's all right -- it falls within the rules of acceptable (if annoying) rhetoric.

And, bottom line, you're cool with a change in policy that would send people like Bren and me out of here. Is that really what we want to have happen?

Randy1949 -

These are the last posted terms of the patch; it is rather interesting what type of behavior they call for, and yet state that they are under no obligation to enforce their rules of bad conduct...

http://www.patch.com/terms

Randy 1949 wrote: "...And, bottom line, you're cool with a change in policy that would send people like Bren and me out of here. Is that really what we want to have happen?"

Actually Randy, not to sound conceited, but it isn't you, Bren, Lyle or even Schmitzy that John Wilson (if that is his real name) would love to see gone. It is myself, Steve, Greg, Craig, $$andSense and even Hoffa that he would love to kick off of here by changing the terms of usage.

You, Bren and the others would just be collateral damage. But after all, why would he need you when his typical brilliance would then go unchallenged here?

The Anti-Alinsky –

As indicated in my last post to Bren, “People who post on the Patch are really a cross-section, generally of SE Wisconsin, and they run the gauntlet from the certifiable to the sublime.” I have a suspicion that you would be some infinite distance from the sublime end of that gauntlet.

That said, I do not control nor do I have any power or influence in the decision-making processes of the Patch. I have indicated my personal preference; many of the posters here agree with my preference. Should they require a “real name” to post on this Service, and for whatever reason(s), you find you do not want to comply, then that is YOUR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE…

[No victimhood allowed in a mature world]

Further, with over 7+ Billion people on the planet, and some thousands of blogs, some coming into existence daily, surely you are free to seek many places to find and make “cognitively well balanced friends” or simply engage in civil “dialog.”

Very few fringe people "on my side" are carrying weapons and advocating for more, more, more guns and lesser restrictions. There is a big, big difference.

There is no Leftist Teahadist Party. Our older Leftie citizens would never pretend they were Patriots or play dress up in Colonial Garb. Their behavior went beyond what Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals:, suggested they do to organize. Yes the Teahadists read Saul Alinsky's Book to build The Teahadist Party. They crossed the line when they tossed civility out the window. And the Tri corn hats, please. These are adults playing pretend Patriotic Citizen. A bunch of gray haired White people behaving like brats.

That's a False Equivalency.

Each Party may have a fringe, but they are not alike. The Fringe is the home to the quick draw brain. "I say it, therefore it is true!"
Right Fringe: Legitimate Rape.
Left Fringe: Legal Abortions

Lika, this isn't the IRS or court of law. This is a place to state your opinions and your reasons you support them.

Lika,
I would like to hear more details of the problem above. Did it happen on Patch? Do you have a link or a title for the blog?
I would think that anyone that runs an advocacy, like yours, would be all for anonymity. Most watch dog groups would be dead without it.

Hershal ... While I assure you that Lika is sharing accurately, she is not thorough in her plight.

Her partner, the anonymous Eurodanceaddict, was quite the antagonist on many different forums. He was involved with YVI, and some that he had offended lashed out in kind. One in particular seemed to have a great deal of animosity, actually chasing them from site to site ... I couldn't determine the merit of either position, and it wasn't my issue anyway.

Lika is determined in her venture, I give her credit for that. I differ with her more often than not, but she has been respectful.

Good Luck, Lika.

It would be a lot better if you did not show your little donny to us.

Pull your pants up, your gutzmiller is showing.

Da Don-E Show: Mighty White of you. Boy those lefties have really crawled way up your butt. You are a racist and have no idea what disenfranchisement is. You're an elitist snob.

EX: Poverty is the problem, not the Poor. But your leaders, being the clever birds they are, knew if they demonized the Poor, schmoos like you would eat it up and move the discussion away from Poverty and put is on the Poor. Dem Negroes. Talk about divisiveness.
Starving people out of Poverty will not work. Genocide is not the answer.

Do you honestly think that race baiting and making baseless claims about leaders 'starving people out of poverty' isn't divisive?

Eib: You've used the N word and the n word many times lately, it is inappropriate.
This time it was the little n but still; it is not something to use in regular conversation.
This only gets others to start escalating the race issue, you know who they are.
Please -don't go there.

I kinda like that idea, but it might be hard to follow the flow of conversation/discussion, or to indicate the person to which one is responding.

Well, I think if you reference the post numbers when responding (or continue to have a reply function in conjunction with that), it might work. I could see getting used to that.

Might be worth a try...

If we are assigned numbers, I do not want 1488.

I want BR549. If it can be alfa/numeric.

If it can be alpha-numeric, then I'll claim 'Randy1949' as my assigned ID...

Are you saying that those not using 'real names' fail to defend their ideas around here?

Some don't. Some do.

This is a knee-jerk attempt to put a band-aid on the problem of a relative few posters who do become profane and abusive, which is already against the TOS that I recall when I signed up. Will requiring our real names enforce a higher degree of cordiality around here? Possibly, but it would come at a price.

So what if someone calls me a big poopy-head? That sort of thing just splashes back on the sender rather than the recipient.

It is also important to note that some members of the 'profane and abusive' group use their real names to post.

I'd rather see active moderation to weed out the few 'problem posters' rather than the implementation of a 'band aid' that isn't likely to fix the problem, will inhibit free expression of ideas, and will drive many people away.

I still go back to requiring the originator of the blog to monitor the posts with explanations so the thought can be re-posted properly. The community can continue to flag inappropriate posts with a 24 hour return time if the moderator does not respond.

The Anti-Alinsky -

FROM THE PATCH ToS:

"Acceptable Use

While we encourage people to be honest and post what’s on their mind, communities thrive when people care about each other, and as such, Patch expects all of its users to be respectful of others. This means that whether you are being complimentary or critical, whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with the subject of an article or another user’s comment, you should act in a civil manner and refrain from personal attacks – after all, these are your neighbors.

[Arbitrary enforcement...]

[Patch is under no obligation to enforce the Patch Terms of Use on your behalf or based on a claim by you that another user has violated it.] While we encourage you to let us know if you believe that another user has violated these terms of use or has engaged in other unacceptable behavior, by reporting it to support@patch.com, Patch will make the sole determination as to whether Content is acceptable for the Service.

Bren –

“I'd just like to point out that bona fide journalists receive some measure of protection through their employers. Citizen journalists and commenters do not.”

The people here are citizen “opinion sharers.”

I sincerely hope that you are not attempting to conflate true journalist (Time, NYP) and the very limited legal protections afforded to them with the people who post on the Patch. One important difference is that real journalists actually have standards before publication; another would be that they are paid for their job. People who post on the Patch are really a cross-section, generally of SE Wisconsin, and they run the gauntlet from the certifiable to the sublime. They do deserve the protection of all of our laws, and “true journalists” really do not get much more than an employer, who may or may not have some hefty connections.

“That's why the discourse should take place in the safety of anonymity until discourse can be uniformly civil.”

I am humbled by your idealism. The [“until discourse can be uniformly civil.”] Is especially humbling, and well beyond the bounds of my experience; it is an ideal that we can all hope for. I know that I will not see it in my lifetime, and I know you will not see it in your lifetime, either. We can work together to cut down on the incivility on this blog, however, it will always be there. I’m not being overly harsh, I am just being pragmatic...

I know humanity from an entirely different perspective.

John, while I have found some "citizen journalism" to be of very high quality (e.g. investigative reporting that compares favorably or rivals that of understaffed major news desks) I would not conflate the two. My point is that citizens do not have the protection of a major news organization behind them if they expose significant wrongdoing or anger powerful and/or unstable individuals. That's why anyone involved in citizen reporting, unless they already have a high profile, should do so anonymously.

I also wouldn't suggest that all who post here are opinion sharers only. On both sides there have been strong persuasive arguments. That's why I think Patch fills a unique niche and frankly, should be left alone. When folks have to defend one's positions the "talking points" if invalid, are exposed. That way we all learn.

Bren –

I do understand your point(s)… probably more than you think I do. I suspect that you are in a position whereby the use of your “real name” would, in some manner, compromise or endanger your personal safety, employment, business or personal friendships. [Ahh…“to do or not to do…”]

One of my points is that the large “safety net and extra level of protection” that you keep alluding to for “Professional Journalists” is greatly exaggerated if not entirely an illusion. Major news organizations are all owned and operated by billionaires or huge corporations. The “news” that flows from these organizations is filtered by these folks, checked with and approved by government resources and then fed to the citizenry. There is nothing that issues forth from the news organizations that is not approved by the newspaper owner and the government. We get the pablum, along with the inevitable spin that they think we can handle. Hence, there is not even the remotest chance of a "Professional Journalist" being in any real danger.

“When folks have to defend one's positions the "talking points" if invalid, are exposed. That way we all learn." [They can do that under their “real name” too.]

I suspect that the Patch’s message has been received; the tenor and tone of vitriol, race baiting, etc., has gone down significantly since the appearance of this particular article. Do you think, maybe, perhaps, possibly, that was the true intent?

Perhaps it was the moderators' friendly attempt to tone down the rhetoric and vitriol.

The compelling aspect of anonymity, as others have pointed out, is the ability to interact without the burden of other people's preconceived notions. Here, you're only as good as your best argument.

Bren -
"Here, you're only as good as your best argument."

That may be true for most people; I find myself too put off with the vitriol, puffery and mean-spirited diatribes that I either "Flag" it or just move on to a more mature and coherent post, if I can find one.

Time will tell regarding what the Patch is going to do here; I remain rather firmly convinced that this was a not too subtle “Heads Up.” Additionally, I do know at least four people, all women, with great educational and professional backgrounds who would like to contribute and post here… they just do not want to put up with searching through a mountain of manure in order to find that little gold nugget.

Finally, the only time I would want to experience “The compelling aspect of anonymity…” would be when I was driving a 40-foot flatbed truck loaded with gold away from Fort Knox…

"I find myself too put off with the vitriol, puffery and mean-spirited diatribes that I either "Flag" it or just move on to a more mature and coherent post, if I can find one."

That's pretty funny, John. It seems that many of your comments/posts are filled with vitriol, puffery and mean-spirited diatribes...

CowDung –

“That’s pretty funny…" As long as you can laugh, you will probably be well.

Some folks do not really read, they read “into things”, intentions, motives, etc., that really are not there.

Additionally, different people have different degrees of those uniquely human qualities, called comprehension and sensitivity; some have none and others on a sliding scale think that anyone who disagrees with them is a personal attack upon their entire belief system, and some feel that their “opinion” is simply beyond challenge, because they have internalized the entire ideology, complete with predigested “talking points” and bumper stickers, and thus they are beyond challenge. This does apply to the entire mass of posters here, the D’s, the R’s the I’s and the I just don’t give a damn group.

My methodology, mixed with humor is logical: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I do use much humor in my posts, sometimes, blatant humor, which most people seem to get; subtle humor, which not many people understand, and a combination of subtle and nuanced humor, which I fear only one or two people understand.

EXAMPLE:

“Bren also commented on 'Binders Full of Women,' Sparring Over Libya Highlighted Debate, Insiders Say.”

"John Wilson, you have given me my first laugh today, thank you. Unlike some, I know this is humor. ; )"

"What is rational is real and what is real is rational."
--Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

John Wilson (If that is his real name) wrote: "...My methodology, mixed with humor is logical.."

John (if that is your real name).....it has to be funny to be considered humor. Very little of what you write is considered humorous. Perhaps I should re-post one of my comments on this same blog last Sunday:
======
12:57 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

I find it interesting that John Wilson still runs around throwing out phrases like:
"Jim Senselessbrenner"
“Your nose is growing... boring...”
“You folks are entirely clueless!”
“Is English your FIRST language?”
"Conservative cave dwelling cretins KNOW THINGS…"
“judy kozlowski -Well, I know for a fact ONE of you are... (a fool)”
"your phenomenally intellectually challenged leader, who refers to himself as “the great Boffa.”
"You set the bar so low for Ryan that if he said fire was hot, you would probably build a church around him."
"You folks are entirely clueless!"
"...perhaps it is time to rethink some of your “beliefs” or maybe, just maybe, seek some psychological help."

while claiming to that forcing people to use their real names will cut down on the vitriol and hatred on this blog.
(BTW-that took all of five minutes and I only used the one-liners)
=====

So maybe I'm a little dense John (if that is your real name), but would care to explain how any of those are humorous?

The Anti-Alinsky –

I did just that in my last post to CowDung, today… please avail yourself of the opportunity to review it.

IF you lack an even elementary sense of humor, subtlety or nuance, as I really suspect you may, no amount of explaining is going to elucidate that you simply lack the innate resources, sensitivity and understanding to human written communication in a higher form than you are accustom too, to comprehend.

EXAMPLE:

[1 + 1 = 11]

A person with just a basic sense of humor would look at that and laugh.

A person with little or no sense of humor and no sense of subtlety or nuance would probably be both intellectually startled and emotionally incensed and declare that this person is obviously not only crazy, but devoid of all math skills.

I am sorry, however, I cannot explain the issue with any more clarity that I already have.

May I suggest that YOU may want to do a little introspection, and see if YOU are just “reading in” far too much of YOUR, strict, unyielding ideology, preconceptions, and finding hurtful meanings, where none really do exist… that would be unnecessary defensive behavior.

You really seem to be a man who perceives himself as the proverbial hammer; therefore, it must necessarily follow that everything else in the world simply “must be a nail…”

Conversely, "So maybe I'm a little dense John..." I confess that I might take some issue with the "little" portion of your statement...

6+1=Ate

John Wilson (if that is your real name), I am beginning to see where the problem lies. You are failing to translate that funny voice in your head properly onto paper. That funny voice in your head delivers your one liners with facial expressions, inflection and mannerisms that indicate, even though they are serious words, it is meant to be funny. Unfortunately, when you type that onto a blog, the only thing that comes down are the words. In the early days of the internet this lack of expression led to the emoticon. You know, those little characters that combined show you are expression your words in a humorous way, not as a total jerk :-)

Emoticons have become somewhat passe as many of us have found better ways of using wording that indicates it was meant to be funny. Perhaps you should try finding other ways of expression yourself so you stop coming across as a complete jack-ass ;-)

It's a lot less amusing when you or something dear to you is the butt of the humor. That holds true for both sides.

This may have disappeared into the dustbin of history, but Owen Wister wrote a novel called The Virginian that had a famously oft-quoted line: "When you call me that, smile." Seems that in the old west, you could call another man a SOB as long as it was understood it was friendly joshing, hence the smile. That's why we use emoticons when we're being friendly.

John (if that is your real name), lets take one example.

“You folks are entirely clueless!”

I will even provide you with the context of the comment:
====================
http://muskego.patch.com/articles/paul-ryan-slams-barack-obama-in-first-tv-interview-since-election

John Wilson @ 5:26 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

Chadwick –

Bush’s spending was prolific, extravagate, unnecessary and stupid… and it created the America’s 2nd depression.

President Obama's spending was targeted, necessary, indeed, required and intelligent… to get us out of the Bush’s depression.

ALL economic indicators are up and in the positive direction, ALL; 35 months of consecutive positive employment creation. More jobs have already been created up to this point than in the entire 8-years of the Bush administration.

The WISHFUL THINKING of the GOP is not going to create anything.

Again, Republicans hate government that is why they are so horrible at governance…

You folks are entirely clueless!
====================

In 1500 charcters or less, tell us how that statement is funny!!!

The part about Obama's spending was hilarious.

The Anti-Alinsky –

GWB-(R) thoroughly destroyed the American economy and almost succeeded in collapsing the entire world economy, because, as repeatedly demonstrated, R’s hate government and because of that underlying belief, they lack the capacity to engage in good, effective and efficient governance. [Logically, it is difficult to do something well that you hate.] Up until early September of 2008 GWB was still pronouncing on national TV “The fundamentals and structures of the economy were in good shape.” When, in fact, it was clear to most economists and the citizenry that they were in a massive death-spiral.

Now following these 8-years of ineptitude in governance, they brought out McCain & Palin, with the same ideological beliefs, hatred and paranoia of all government, bolstered by prolific quantities of amphetamines, to run for the presidency and both follow GWB’ s failed policies, moreover, to further expand upon them. [Rome burned while Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus) sat and gleefully watched; let us rebuild Rome and anoint Nero again!] That is humorous beyond belief! You must ignore, of course, the loss of human life and financial costs to see the humor. Hence, my final sentence, ‘You folks are entirely clueless!’

Only one thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideology, dogma and passing the Republican litmus test of orthodoxy and blind allegiance would promote more of the same… Clueless!

John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: "...Only one thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideology, dogma and passing the Republican litmus test of orthodoxy and blind allegiance would promote more of the same… Clueless!"

And you find placing the blame for the economic collapse on Republicans funny? Maybe it isn't translating the little voices in your head that is the problem.

John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: "GWB-(R) thoroughly destroyed the American economy and almost succeeded in collapsing the entire world economy, because, as repeatedly demonstrated, R’s hate government and because of that underlying belief, they lack the capacity to engage in good, effective and efficient governance."
Dude, if you can't say a sentence in one breath it is way too looooooooong. Are you STILL placing the economic collapse on Bush? More and more people are seeing that it was a number of things that Bush and his fellow Republicans were fighting against that led to the collapse. Namely, Democrat. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters led the fight against placing REASONABLE regulations on Freddie mac and Fannie Mae. Then we have the high gas prices which are still stifling economic growth. Remember "Drill baby drill"?

BTW, Conservatives are not against government. That would be the Anarchists. Conservatives believe in small, more effective government.

I know this is off topic, but I had to respond to your rant. All I asked for was an explanation of HOW your comment was funny. And you have still to provide it. From your explanation, you are the one that would dress your Uncle Ben in a pink Tutu for his funeral.

The Anti-Alinsky –

In all human relationships – dialog in posting may be construed as the same, only with significantly less clues, such as body language, facial expressions, intonations, etc. – where issues of appropriate meaning, comprehension and interpretation exist, there are only 3-pertinanent scenarios to consider as realistic and rational causes.

A) Person A is the entire cause of all the misinterpretations
B) Person B is the entire cause of all the misinterpretations
C) Person A & B together are the cause of all the misinterpretations

It should not surprise anyone that the vast preponderance of cases involving misinterpretations resides with “C.”

In Afghanistan years ago I knew one of the villager’s and we were friendly; I noticed that he had no shoes and his feet appeared to be in very bad shape; they were about the same size as mine. We returned to the village several weeks later, and I brought along an old pair for him. I got to where he was sitting and gently bent down and dropped them near his feet. He and several other villagers around him became incensed and much angry talk and chaos ensued. The issue: Arabs, Muslims and most Mid-Eastern people in general believe the feet are extremely dirty, and one of the greatest insults they can do is to throw their shoes at someone. [An Arab news reporter did that infamously to GWB years later in Iraq.] It took a few hours to calm the chaos and a few more visits before he would proudly wear the boots.

The Anti Alinsky –

America has already spoken regarding the proximate cause of the collapse of the economy; your protests carry no weight or credibility.

GWB’s infamous phrase, “Ownership Society”, was to create an “ownership society”, whereby everyone could achieve the “American Dream” of owning his or her own home. The underlying motivation was to drive as much money as he could to Wall Street, the Banks, Fannie/Freddie, AIG. With the help of congress, some regulations and benchmarks were lowered; additionally, on top of that Wall Street, AIG, the banks, investment firms became more creative – seeing as now no real oversight existed – they now further eroded the regulations themselves to engage in worthless derivatives and credit swaps, and profited massively by selling these worthless pieces of paper worldwide, but particularily to the EU, thus creating a worldwide financial economic collapse.

Drill Baby Drill was a rather diabolical scam, as well. While the government gave big oil 20bn a year in subsidies from the American taxpayer, big oil, got more oil, gas and petroleum, however, they didn’t sell that massive increase in product to America; they sold it to China, India and Asia where they could charge more and make more profits, America suffered...

Conservatives hate government, as both government and the regulations that come with it, grossly interfere with their profits, as they now have to buy more members of congress and regulators.

Randy1949 –

“This may have disappeared into the dustbin of history, but Owen Wister wrote a novel called The Virginian that had a famously oft-quoted line: "When you call me that, smile." Seems that in the old west, you could call another man a SOB as long as it was understood it was friendly joshing, hence the smile. That's why we use emoticons when we're being friendly.”

Somehow or other, even then, I suspect IF you had to ask for the “smile” I would think there is a problem there.

I suspect that we have left the “dustbin of history” some time ago; that also would apply to emoticons.

IF people are not fluent enough in writing or reading comprehension in today’s world, perhaps we should send them crayons and a special Patch site where they can draw until their crayons are all used up… perhaps we may limit them to 1-box of crayons per month.

More to the point, you could ask for clarification from the original sender or simply understand that your 8th grade average reading/writing comprehension is just not appropriate for the Patch, and you may want to inquire about some further educational opportunities. There is nothing wrong or shameful about upgrading your various skillsets…

John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: “America has already spoken regarding the proximate cause of the collapse of the economy; your protests carry no weight or credibility.”
No John, America has not spoken. B.O., the Left, and the Media passed judgment in their kangaroo court, but more an more people are beginning to see what lead to the collapse.

John (if that is his real name) also wrote: “…on top of that Wall Street, AIG, the banks, investment firms became more creative – seeing as now no real oversight existed – they now further eroded the regulations themselves to engage in worthless derivatives and credit swaps,…”
Well, about all I can do is post the YouTube link AGAIN and hope that one day you may watch and understand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

As far as gas and oil subsidies, that goes back to the early days of oil exploration, when it was costly to drill for oil with a strong likelihood that it would be a bust. Even today, with modern science and shared data, there is some risk in hitting a dry hole. And much of those subsidies go to smaller companies, like Ewing oil or Barnes oil (yea, I know Dallas fiction, but those are the types of companies that provide much of our oil)

just for an idea of today's "subsides" (actually tax breaks):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

BTW John (if that is your real name), I saw the effect of higher oil prices on our economy. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans gas jumped over $4.00/gallon pretty quickly. After a few months my company had to make a decision to counter the effects of the higher prices. We do alot of driving, and ended up laying off people the make up the difference.

"More to the point, you could ask for clarification from the original sender or simply understand that your 8th grade average reading/writing comprehension is just not appropriate for the Patch, and you may want to inquire about some further educational opportunities. There is nothing wrong or shameful about upgrading your various skillsets…"

Just for purposes of clarification then, did you really mean that post to be as condescending as it sounds?

John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: "...IF people are not fluent enough in writing or reading comprehension in today’s world, perhaps we should send them crayons and a special Patch site where they can draw until their crayons are all used up…"
John (if that is your real name), you pointed out above that communication is a two way street. If your message is not getting across to anyone, perhaps your end is where the problem lies.

Randy1949 -

"More to the point, you could ask for clarification from the original sender or simply understand that your 8th grade average reading/writing comprehension is just not appropriate for the Patch, and you may want to inquire about some further educational opportunities. There is nothing wrong or shameful about upgrading your various skillsets…"

"Just for purposes of clarification then, did you really mean that post to be as condescending as it sounds?"

No!

Although I did not know you had audio posts too...

The Anti-Alinsky –

Because I have an eternal optimistic streak, I do suspect that someday you will face the fact that it is not everyone else's fault that you do not understand, no matter how much that comforts you now...

The oil and gas industry has been the most heavily subsidized energy source over the past 100 years according to “What Would Jefferson Do?” a study by the venture capitalist firm DBL Investors. It determined that the oil industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918-2009. Meanwhile, the renewables industry received $5.5 billion over past 15 years. Taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1zwGj)

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/oil-subsidies-natural-gas-subsidies/#ZBS6ktmEeArrRDmB.99

A-A wrote: "As far as gas and oil subsidies, that goes back to the early days of oil exploration, when it was costly to drill for oil with a strong likelihood that it would be a bust. Even today, with modern science and shared data, there is some risk in hitting a dry hole. And much of those subsidies go to smaller companies, like Ewing oil or Barnes oil (yea, I know Dallas fiction, but those are the types of companies that provide much of our oil)"

How, then, are the gas and oil industries any different from any other sector of the economy? Opening a new restaurant could well prove to be a "dry hole" for some chain or individual entrepreneur. Why, then, rain gold upon the one but not the other?

It seems to me that it is more hypocritical to be a tax dodger and call for higher taxes than to be a tax dodger calling for lower taxes...

Bottom Line –

I cannot and do not speak for Warren Buffet; perhaps your concerns would be more appropriately addressed to him.

President Obama has submitted a budget, as required by law annually, the Republican House ate most of them, what was left was loaded with junk, that once it hit the Senate no one wanted anything to do with… so we have “continuing resolutions.”

The problems America is facing are not due to one party only; nothing is accomplished by playing the “blame game” and nothing is passed into law unless you have enablers on both sides.

Constructive solutions are always welcomed.

I do support using your “real name” on any blog and I certainly do find tax dodgers reprehensible. You disagree and that is fine… it does speak volumes regarding where your philosophy and morals reside.

You cannot or should not speak for others, either. You could, however, have an opinion as to whether or not Warren appears to be a hypocrite .... you haven't a problem suggesting as much for others.

I do not agree with tax evaders, regardless their reason - that hardly makes their action hypocritical ... further, you purport to know that they (who were you accusing?) claim virtuosity. How so?

President Obama was to have submitted a budget by this time, he has not. The Senate can craft their own - they've done nothing.

I'm not happy with Republicans, but I'm exhausted by those that support Democrat's who are hypocrites ... and liars, while calling out Republicans.

Though you are unaware, I call out those in both parties for abusing the public trust. I look forward to finding legislators that have principles ... I won't be holding my breath.

Bottom Line –

The only person I called a hypocrite was the tax dodger.

Refer to the following definition or my dialog with CowDung for context.

“Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.”

I focus a bit more on the portion after the semicolon, although “together” is the intended meaning.

President Obama was to present a new budget to Speaker Boehner and the House, I believe by Feb. 1, 2013. However, because of all the infighting, financial dealings and tax policy fights – which intimately involved the OMB – during November and December, the OMB informed the White House that they could not provide the appropriate numbers, partly upon which the budget was based, for at least 30-days. President Obama inform Speaker Boehner on January 2, 2013, that his budget submittal would be delayed at least 30-days. A few days ago, with much pomp and circumstance – you never miss taking a cheap shot at the president – Speaker Boehner announced on TV, while on the House floor, that President Obama did not and could not produce a budget on a timely basis, and thus he had failed the entire planet by his lack of leadership.

I remain dissatisfied with both parties that is principally why I do not belong to any party. Furthermore, neither party has an exclusive claim to the truth; politics is the fine art of lying, credibly, to the public...

John:

I believe that Bottom Line's point was that Buffet is also a tax dodger. Why are you so quick to label the unnamed tea party guy a hypocrite and avoid the question about Buffett's hypocrite status?

CowDung -

As far as I know, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that Warren Buffet is, in fact, a tax dodger. IF you care to supply me with some credible information to support that claim, I will certainly look at it and evaluate whatever you supply.

Basically, all I know about Warren Buffett is that he is a multi-billionaire, has supported gas exploration, pays less taxes that his secretary and has been quite vocal in his support for taxing the 1-2% of the richest in America more.

The envelope within which Warren Buffett and approximately all of the top 10% of America’s richest function, resides in a tax code, largely written by lobbyists and rich people who subsequently buy congress to write the tax code which gives them huge advantages in write-offs, depreciations, carried interest, investments, etc. I do not think that is particularily fair or good for America, as the last 30-40 years in wage disparity clearly shows. The super-rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, while the middle class continues to erode.

Now, although to me, not fair, it is legal under current tax law.

I do not know if Warren Buffett has broken any tax laws or been convicted of breaking any, and until I see some EVIDENCE that he has – such as a conviction or his name on a delinquent tax list – I will hold my gunpowder…

I didn't even have to look at Fox News to find an article to provide you with EVIDENCE...

"Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002 "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

CowDung -

Warren Buffett is a tax dodger and a hypocrite too!

Thank you for providing some EVIDENCE... that makes ALL the difference in the world!

I asked for EVIDENCE, you provided it. That is all I ask for here on the Patch. I will gladly read your opinion; however, if I find that I do not agree with it or have questions regarding it, I will come at you for documentation. This is the way the Patch was set up to work… Thank you!

I just hope that you do not get involved with because one person does it, it makes it OK for anyone to do it.

Hmmm . . . wasn't the gist of that article that it didn't matter what the name was, it was how the person said it? The article also pointed out the RL consequences of a non-anonymous comment that rocked the boat, so to speak.

Randy1949 –

Not exactly the entire gist, although that is a large part of it, and there are always REAL LIFE consequences, sometimes known, sometimes unknown, for the person who blogs anonymously; the “unrealistic thinking” comes from the belief that you may avoid those consequences by posting anon.

a)“anonymous comments can also make a big difference in how others think and react…”

b)“The tone of the comments, the professors found, significantly altered how readers felt about the technology.”

c)Anonymity, it seems to me, carries with it many “concerns, garbage and extras”.

I suspect that the “Onion” is ultimately far more informative (Pun), creative and incredibly more humorous, than wading through anonymous, pithy, mean-spirited bloviating; I will confess that not ALL anonymous posts are mean-spirited, etc. ; however, I find a disproportionate amount of them are… I am not only referring to the Patch, but other blogs as well.

“We know that anonymity makes a huge difference in how we interact with each other, says University of Wisconsin-Madison communications professor Dietram Scheufele. People say different things when they are wearing a mask, or at least say it in a different way.”

“But anonymous comments can also make a big difference in how others think and react, according to Scheufele and a colleague, Dominique Brossard.”

It was an interesting article, nonetheless.

And yet, there was a colleague who preferred to remain anonymous, for good reason. As do many whistle-blowers who hesitate to risk their jobs even to do the right thing.

How difficult is it to simply ignore the mean-spirited posters, I ask you?

Randy1949 -

"I don't see why any civil person should be deterred from posting. It's simple enough to ignore the racist and the uncivil, or to respond to them in a dignified manner.

There are those who walk among us who, for many reasons, including the history of America and personal sensitivities, simply do not want to subject themselves to this type of personal abuse. YOU may have the patience to read and be subjected to this type of abuse and garbage, however that is YOU...

We are all individuals with our unique qualities, experiences, levels of tolerance for different types of behaviors; that is what makes the shortness of our lives and the experiences that we want to subject ourselves to so germane to our personal growth and happiness. There is enough incivility in all our personal/professional lives, with a multitude of various interactions required daily that we must attempt to deal with in a courteous and civil manner, there is no compelling reason to “actively seek out more.”

Randy1949 -

"...I see that equally with people who use their real names."

That's not nearly close to being accurate... count them up on this article alone...

It all depends on your definition of what takes up useful editorial space. Sheer word count counts as much as the number of posts.

Randy1949 -

NOT to the people who are exposed to that dribble and abuse...

So, how well do you think Anonymous would have worked back in the revolutionary days? You think John Hancock could be as effective if he signed "No Name Anonymous"? No. It takes a real person to be able to comment in their real names. Only crime victims should be privy to being so anonymous. Otherwise, the right to free speech is more of a right to be cowardice.

You think the authors of The Federalist Papers weren't real men? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

How about Joe Klein when he wrote True Colors? Stephen King when he wrote as Richard Bachman? People use pseudonyms for all kinds of reasons. Those who abuse the practice should be censured, but those who don't should be left in peace.

I wonder what would have happened if 'Deep Throat' were forced to reveal his identity before they would listen to what he had to say about Nixon...

Randy, duh, I'm saying the federalists were real people using real names. That's why they were successful in the revolution. They were willing to stand up as a real person, with a real name. Those who have to hide behind a screen using a fake name tossing name calling around can't be taken seriously, and that is abusive.

CowDung -

Deep Throat chose to reveal himself long after "I am not a crook" resigned; there were many people who were involved in the President Nixon "If I do it, it is legal" scenario who were on record and testified.

Please do not conflate a very public disgraceful episode in American history and all the faith and trust that was lost in this great country and its government, with some of the immature folks who barf their insignificant HS snarky comments on the Patch, because they can hide behind anonymous...

Lika, the authors of The Federalist Papers used the shared pseudonym of Publius, as it says in the link.

As long as people are not using the pseudonym to defame someone, break Patch's TOS, or commit a crime, why do you have a problem with it?

Lika -- look who else was a master of 'sockpuppets': http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html

I really like the name Alice Addertongue. I might just use it myself.

Lika Phipps -

The right to free speech principally applies to speaking truth to the government and addressing any perceived overreach, although it also is use by the people in many other situations as well.

I think John Hancock would probably be dragging these anonymous business people, public employees and party operatives out of the weeds by their heads if he were alive today and saw the magnitude to which this right has become abused and misused, particularily since so many Americans fought and died for this precious right.

Finally, one would have to expect, given the current direction of technology, blog liability issues and transparency, that it is just a matter of time before anonymous, another faux freedom, which all too many miscreants, Citizens United folks hide behind, becomes a mere relic lost in the pages of history. The arc of history is clearly against this anonymous frivolity…

Randy1949 -

From what I am hearing Mark Maley has an entire different direction in sight for the anonymous cabal...

Is that a lack of empathy BY the anonymous participant or a lack of empathy FOR the anonymous participant?

@CowDung...By the anonymous participant.

Thanks for clarifying. I questioned it because I thought I once read about studies where people are more apt to cause someone to be in pain if the recipient as anonymous rather than seen as a 'real' person. College psych class was a long time ago, so I could be mistaken.

@John Wilson....I'll do some searching and post it. First one will be a social- psychological study done in the early 1960s.

Again, IF an anonymous poster violates the terms of service or engage in inappropriate behavior, then their comment needs to be deleted.

Make that ANY poster including John Wilson (if that is his real name).

Justwant2comment –

It seems as if about the only thing you are not fearful about is breathing; it has been a long, long time since I have read something comparable to your post that just demonstrates so much downright fear. That is truly sad.

Yes, we do live in a somewhat dangerous world; bad things do happen to good people whether they post or not. Furthermore, it would not be difficult to ascertain your age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., whether you posted on a blog or not; in point of fact, most of the governmental agencies probably have all of that, plus you physician, number of children, medications, education, schools, et al, already.

On the flip side, the administrator, owner and monitors of these blogs really do have their hands full, IF they are going to adequately monitor and administrate a website. I’ve emailed an editor of one article on the Patch that was running for some time, two times, after flagging numerous nasty comments, and after having nothing done, other than a note that it would be looked in to, I received a surprise email from the moderator, which sounded rather angry, but stated, “I am shutting this down!” in less than 2-hours, the blog was down.

Now, we typically only see our side of this scene; this is not all fun and heavenly games from the other side.

IF Rob Winsall was indeed his real name...

Correct, he could be anyone. He was really no less anonymous than me. He easily could have been Rob's ex husband, with a chip on his shoulder. Verification was brought up earlier in this discussion and I have yet to hear how that should be done.

The Anti-Alinsky/Greg -

Mark will happily give you both all that information when you are requested to re-apply using your "real names", along with the state and federal penalties for attempting to falsify your ID for posting purposes.

John,
Tell us more. Are you now representing Patch?

So what is it going to take, John? Picture ID? Must it conform to James Sensenbrenner's Real ID legislation?

John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: "Mark will happily give you both all that information when you are requested to re-apply using your "real names", along with the state and federal penalties for attempting to falsify your ID for posting purposes."

First off John (if that is your real name), how would Mark know if his name really was Rob Winsall? I could go out register on Patch right now with an email address of JohnWilsonSenior@hotmail.com and claim that I am your father (if that is his real name).

Second, I really don't care if Rob Winsall was his real name.

Third, I am disappointed in Rob. He stated his views, and when challenged, failed to offer any meaningful responses. Kinda like you, only not as full of himself :-)

The Anti-Alinsky –

"Mark will happily give you both all that information when you are requested to re-apply using your "real names", along with the state and federal penalties for attempting to falsify your ID for posting purposes."

That post was addressed to YOU & GREG; the information therein was for YOU & GREG, when YOU & GREG are requested to RE-APPLY using your REAL NAMES in order to continue to post on the Patch, along with the state and federal penalties… [Mark will develop the ID verification protocols, and they will be transparent to you or anyone posting.]

I have nothing to do with you, Rob, Greg and any of your one-upmanship silly back and forth posts.

Finally, the sole rationale for not responding to most of your posts are because they are either puerile, convoluted to the point of psychosis or they are trapped in your psychosocial pathological belief that you are “always correct.”

Succinctly, everyone else has an issue with clearly communicating their ideas, hence, you are right, and they are all somehow deficient…

There is absolutely nothing at all monumentally grandiose about that position.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

@John Wilson -- Am I to understand that the Nanny-Contingent has been successful in accomplishing the change to real and verified names in order to post here on Patch in the mistaken belief that this will banish all incivility from these pages?

The last I looked, the 'unscientific' poll still favored anonymity for Patch participants.

I wouldn't worry, Randy. If you think it through logically, the amount of effort either side is going to be willing to put in to attempt to comply with/enforce some sort of policy in that regard simply for the purpose of posting in the Patch comments section makes its implementation highly unlikely.

When you look at it logically, it's feasible to choose a real sounding screen name and post through a proxy site. They exist for the purpose of disguising IP addresses. Who would be most likely to do this? Not the members who already obey the TOS when it comes to personal attacks and hate-speech. Nope, schlubs like me would be likely to obey the new rules and bow out altogether.

True trolls will be trolls.

Again, another reason not to worry about it. I assume they're as aware of that as you are.

I don't think that it's about worry, it's more about curious. John keeps stating that Mark is going to require real names, but then leaves off the details. Mark, as far as I know, is a local Patch editor. Are all Patch sites going to require real names, or is this going to be required only for those sites that Mark is editor? The conversation originated with Rees' blog and was continued with this blog. Other than that, this topic does not seem to extend to other Patch sites.

Consider the source(s).

Randy1949 –

I do not know what the “Nanny-Contingent” is nor am I cognizant of its composition.

Regarding your statement, I guess you may “understand” whatever logically you may ascertain from the ongoing situation. I know that I have stated before that I support “real names” and for you to make the assertion that “real names” is going to “banish all incivility from these pages” is very disingenuous. However, that too has been addressed, by me and by others on this blog, constantly. No, it will not and you surely know that, however, I do suspect it will reduce the level of incivility. As President Obama is fond of saying, “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

Humanity being what it is, we will always have some level of incivility here on the Patch, and that level is largely a product of who is allowed to post, what are the ToS, and how strictly they are enforced.

I do not know how much weight or credibility management is going to give to the “unscientific poll.” I can assure you that the various editors are not elated over having to attempt to control the incivility of posters, especially the same ones, time after time after time.

I have always tried to make my employees jobs as comfortable, easy and productive as I can, while giving them the tools and support they deserve. IF you do not do a minimum of that, they become frustrated, anxious, less productive, and they either finally do a very poor job or simply leave.

I’m wondering why John Wilson (if that is his real name) is quoting himself. Oh wait, I see it was at 1:30 this morning. John (if that is your real name), drinking and blogging do not go together.

I’m not sure what “state and federal penalties” there are for using a pseudonym for a screen name, but I’m sure John (if that is his real name) will fill us in.

Mark, apparently John (if that is his real name) has set the standards for you to follow, are you up to the task?

It is against the law to use a fake I.D., that is why our prisons are chocked full of 20 year old college students. I guess it would be easier to prosecute someone that uses a fake I.D. online, but I would think the offense would require more than posting on a blog to make it worthwhile.

Seriously, would anyone trust Patch with a copy of their legal form of ID just to be able to post in the comments section? Would anyone even bother going through the trouble of getting a copy to them just for that purpose?

Bob McBride -

"Seriously, would anyone trust Patch with a copy of their legal form of ID just to be able to post in the comments section? Would anyone even bother going through the trouble of getting a copy to them just for that purpose?"

Seriously, do you think the Patch or any blog would require you to do anything, even remotely close to that to prove your "real name" identity and link that to an email address provided? [They can verify your "real name" and email address with the information you have already given them... besides, many of the bloggers here know various editors personally.] So, what's the issue again?

You do know that we have computers now, and even your proxy server will not save you... FUN!

John,

No, and yes.

Greg: "It is against the law to use a fake I.D., that is why our prisons are chocked full of 20 year old college students. I guess it would be easier to prosecute someone that uses a fake I.D. online, but I would think the offense would require more than posting on a blog to make it worthwhile."

It is against the law to use a fake ID to attempt to obtain alcohol while underage (§§125.085), or if a license then additionally only in respect to issues that have a direct bearing upon that license i.e. driving privileges (§§343.43).

If the government were to expand this to get involved in prosecuting people using fake ID who were using it to enable their freedom of speech, it would find it hard to show a compelling state interest that over-rode the subsequent inhibition of First Amendment rights (which are possessed by official ID holders and non-official-ID holders alike).

No such law exists (disclaimer: IANAL), and I can't see where such a compelling state interest in regulating online identities might ever come from.

Wisconsin-Fake card/ID penalties:

The penalty for using fake driver licenses or ID cards is a fine of $200 to $600 and/or 6 months in prison for the first offense. For additional offenses, the penalties increase to up to $2,000 and mandatory prison time of up to 6 months.

From the footnotes of https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/343/IV/43 :

"Convictions for presenting a fraudulently altered driver license are restricted to situations having a direct bearing on the license, such as the granting of driving privileges. Changing the date of birth did not affect the owner's driving privileges. State v. Scholwin, 57 Wis. 2d 764, 204 N.W.2d 677 (1973)."

And yet, I'm defending your right to take anonymous pot-shots like that. Go figure.

JMB –

I have posted my personal email address, several times, on this blog; basically, for some people to do a cursory identification that I am in fact, John Wilson. No one has ever contacted me. This is not a dating site so I have not published my address and phone number… my phone number would be of no help to you in any event, as all my phones are set up to receive calls, only from those folks in my CONTACTS list.

In America, the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE, I guess I have to wonder just where you fit. While prudence can be an admirable trait, hiding and constant fear bespeaks more of cowardliness.

It is doubtful, as you state, that you have seen conservatives attacked, “for their views” in Madison and MI. I have been at numerous demonstrations, some extremely chaotic, loud and rowdy, and I have never seen anyone attacked; I have seen people attempt at great length, to provoke a physical confrontation; however, we were there to exercise our constitutional rights, not physical confrontation.

If your alleged claims of an attack on conservatives were accurate, I would really suspect that the conservatives got out of line and did something to provoke it.

Finally, anyone who uses “lol” in a post is probably not someone I would dialog with and enjoy.

Having a little trouble finding that email address John (if that is your real name). How about you provide it again for us to check?

The Anti-Alinsky -

Still waiting for your EVIDENCE "that there is no FORMER Eagle Scout..."

Still waiting...

Still waiting...

Still waiting...

My email address is j_wils@outlook.com

Please answer my question, either on the Patch or at my email...

Jeez John (if that is your real name), lighten up. It's only been 12 hours, and some of us work for a living. Besides, it isn't easy proving something doesn't exist. Prove to me el chupa nibre doesn't exist. But, being up to the challenge, I scoured the entire internet, top to bottom, and can definitely say that there is no such thing as a former Eagle Scout. I even called every member of the executive board plus spoke to everyone on staff at the national office. They all agree, there is no such thing as a former Eagle Scout.

OK, in all seriousness, I spent a little time and found the phrase "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle". Now granted, you can return your Eagle Scout badges and pins and slap the label "former" in front of it. It doesn't mean the Boy Scouts accept the resignation. And I did not find that they do. However, in the spirit of compromise in this debate, I will accept that one can be a former Eagle Scout. Now as to your claim, I am still waiting for proof that you were an Eagle Scout. I will accept proof that you returned your badges. I am also awaiting proof you were in Mensa.

As far as your email address, j_wils@outlook.com, I just went out and got the email address j_wils@live.com, so I guess I am the REAL John Wilson

Plus, you are crossing blogs again.

The Anti-Alinsky –

Obviously, as you will not and cannot support your original post with any proof whatsoever, I must view your verbiage as nothing more than more banal bloviating and puffery.

Moreover, your willingness to “compromise” clearly reveals that you are a RINO, as any authentic TP/GOP member, having taken all the secret vows, archaic handshakes, and passed all the sacred oaths, including, never to “compromise”, simply does not comport with your errant behavior. Todd Akin will be contacting you shortly to ascertain if it is feasible and/or worthwhile to bring you back into the 18th century flock. Should a positive recommendation be forthcoming, you will be provided with an offer of remedial gop-therapy and Neanderthal reprogramming videos forthwith.

I have some colleagues researching the Boy Scout paper archives – computers were not in existence at that time – for the information you requested, MENSA documentation will be forthcoming as well. You will receive it at j_wils@live.com, in the world famous picture of Marilyn Monroe in steganography software. Obviously, you will have to contact me j_wils@outlook.com for the key or alternatively, attempt to use your amazingly sophisticated and powerful 1988 IBM AS/400 to crack the algorithm.

Finally, should you require this personal information in “long form” your patience will be required and you will need to wait a bit longer.

John Wilson (if that is your real name)

The only thing I compromised on was semantics. If an Eagle Scout (a REAL Eagle Scout that is) wanted to slap the label "former" in front of his name, there is nothing to stop him. However, it is appropriate that he actually have been an Eagle Scout to begin with.

Don't get too elaborate on your proof. Just send me a copy of your resignation letter with your Eagle Badge on top of it like all those letters on the link you provided. I just checked j_wils@live.com and it still isn't there. Just don't take too long, I get cranky when I am put on the back burner.

The Anti-Alinsky -

I suspect that Pope Ratzinger, according to your “compromise” can no longer be termed a former member of the Nazi Youth Organization, because he terminated his involvement with this stunningly progressive and enlightened group.

I find your statement, “… some of us work for a living” to be completely inaccurate, offensive, and very disingenuous. My total life experiences with the TP/GOP has revealed, “Work is a four letter word” for you folks, and that, as expected, is only the perception of work that you folks endeavor to perpetuate. Additionally, “Anti” and “NO” simply do not convey any positive stand, thinking or motivating qualities toward a “work ethos”.

Hang on to your TIGHTY WHITIES, as you realize were are tracking paper work from decades past.

John (if that is your real name)-that is the dumbest post yet.

Still waiting for your EVIDENCE that you were ever an Eagle Scout or Mensa

Still waiting...

Still waiting...

Still waiting...