Anonymous said...
I love being anonymous. It's one thing to have the anonymity of a pen-name, but the purer anonymity of no name gives me the good feeling of a snake shedding its skin.
I have a game for you all.
Question 1: Whom do you think is right? Iran or Britain, on whether the British sailors were captured in international or Iranian waters?
Now the fun:
2. How do you think your fellow fraysters and wikifraysters will answer that question? Don't leave anyone good out.
3. Of those of you who read this, some won't answer - what does it say about them? That they don't care? That they are scared? That they think it a (clever or unclever) trap?
Anyway, you really should have a way for we true anonymous persons to top post.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Ask and ye shall receive...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Stupid question.
All lands and waters should be free to all people. All claims to national territory are inherently criminal in nature.
Is that my answer? That's not quite right. I'd say that's catnapping's answer. I'd take a more cynical position.
Note to Gregor: Buddy! Now all you gotta do is put the Gmail address in your profile, and we can send you an invite to the blog.
Big deal....those Iranians assuring the security & integrity of the sovereignty of their territorial waters, when the US & Brits are sponsoring & cooperating with terrorists groups such as MEK, in destabilization operations & attacks upon the Iranian central government inside Iran. I haven't seen yet, any of those 15 Brits being waterboarded or going through the pleasure of "Abu Ghraib" type detention. At least the US is not saying much about this incident, but when you have an official policy of kidnapping foreign nationals around the world, and setting them for torture in Syria, Egypt and related Freedom-Stans...there is nothing much to say.
And... i almost forgot those Iranians diplomats being arrested months ago & held without any charges to this day .
But at least those Brits will have the chance to see the inside of a justice court, & go through a judicial process, something which is not even granted in Guantanamo Bay
I took a chance at being anonymous for once....the above post is mine.
Well, Helio, you can join and you can post. Don't know why you didn't just do that, but to each his own.
I would be inclined not to answer, because I honestly have no idea. I have reasons to distrust both parties.
Should someone give a firm answer, I suspect it would be out of distrust of the other party. Those who distrust the Iranians would say the Brits are right. Those inclined to distrust Blair would say the Iranians are right.
Wise move John, wise move.....
Dawn.
Thanks, but i don't have the vocation & the pretention of my writings being
interesting, is inexistant at best.
Anon isn't catnapping, btw...
But yer right. It's sorta sounds like something I'd say...I think it's immoral to own land. But then I think like an indyun, and we believe that the earth is our mother...and that she's alive...all of her - and that no one thing on her has superiority over another.
can i have an amen!
hallelujah!
"Whom do you think is right? Iran or Britain, on whether the British sailors were captured in international or Iranian waters?"
I think him is right.
Who. Comma.
"Anyway, you really should have a way for we true anonymous persons to top post."
You really should have a way for we to do it. Us.
Dawn, Dawn, Dawn. They're everyday constructions, too. Aren't you embarrassed, if only for WikiFray's sake?
Hello my fellow friend of anonymity.
I don't know much - but I'm something of a gambler. I'm wagering you are wrong on your last grammatical point.
(or rather - there was nothing wrong with what was written, as you are suggesting.)
But what do I know. ("There has to be an auditorium for us opera lovers." - don't sound too good, do it?)
Your 'whom' is bang on.
Gonna stay out of the grammar discussion, and as regards whether the British or Iranians are correct about the location where the capture occurred, I have no fucking idea, as I would not trust either to tell the truth about anything!
mousie! See the comments under switters' post, below. Make special note of the second one. Helio, in this thread, claims authorship. I believe his first language is Japanese. His grammar seems pretty good to me.
If I'm embarrassed, it's vicarious. Squeeeek!
I certainly apologize, seeing that the top post was written by a non-native speaker.
To my fellow Anon:
No, I'm correct about "us," no matter how such constructions sound to you. You could look it up. Thanks for the thumbs-up on my first correction.
Seen on a billboard today -- "Vote X for mayor; he'll treat you fair."
No promises about his grammar...
Something's wrong with my grammar?. i expect anyone to have the courtesy of telling me, i don't have a particular ego problem, and i love that old adage "we learn from mistakes"...(and how am i supposed to look smarter than you people, without the proper use of the English language...Lol).
And i am not the author & responsible for the Top post. but for:
Big deal....those Iranians assuring the security & integrity of the sovereignty of their territorial waters, when the US & Brits are sponsoring & cooperating with terrorists groups such as MEK, in destabilization operations & attacks upon the Iranian central government inside Iran. I haven't seen yet, any of those 15 Brits being waterboarded or going through the pleasure of "Abu Ghraib" type detention. At least the US is not saying much about this incident, but when you have an official policy of kidnapping foreign nationals around the world, and setting them for torture in Syria, Egypt and related Freedom-Stans...there is nothing much to say.
And... i almost forgot those Iranians diplomats being arrested months ago & held without any charges to this day .
But at least those Brits will have the chance to see the inside of a justice court, & go through a judicial process, something which is not even granted in Guantanamo Bay.
Just like i said, my ego prevents me from Top posting.
Catnapping:
Amen!
Catnapping:
Amen!
"Anyway, you really should have a way for we true anonymous persons to top post."
That sentence just survived Word's grammar check......
For those who didn't express an opinion - rather a disappointing show. John McG actually answered. Fritzie predicted they'd be out in a week- I guess that would be now. The rest of you can carry on pontificating in "safe" mode.
"The rest of you can carry on pontificating in "safe" mode".
You probably consider that pretty offensive, Mr shadow man?.
I don't have a particular beef towards "anonymous" type, (safe sex is never too much safe..), but i usually like to know, who's pissing on my shoes.
Nice read though.
I suspect most who didn't answer felt similarly to me.
One thing about blogging -- people are going to write about what they want to write about. Forcing or challenging people to write about something they're not inclined to write about isn't going to have great results. As InstaPundit says, we're not a newspaper, we're about whatever we want to be about.
Most of us don't have terribly well developed opinions about what the British soldiers were doing, and thus were reluctant to engage in "pontificating" about it. I'm not sure this is a bad thing.
John, hat's off to you (and i really mean it). That's a very diplomatic way to express my personal point of view on the subject.
I don't really give a damn about what those British soldiers were doing this side of the world, that's already too far from the banks of the Thames. All these war exercises, That's a game isn't it?, well in this case the Iranians turned out to be better....
"That sentence just survived Word's grammar check......"
Now try a grammar guide, online or offline.
Again, a way for we to do it? No. Except that people will argue over anything, it's hardly a controversial call.
John McG - I think the reason people don't answer isn't because "they don't know" or don't have well developed opinions.
In fact, the point was some of those same people are more than willing to express political opinions when they know even less, but it socially suits them to.
Of course, I can't force anyone to write about anything. But with the bunch of armchair military & political experts around (botf and here) it's interesting that you present a case where they can't use hindsight, and they shut up.
Grammar issues aside, people seem willing to meta-comment ("stupid question"), but not willing to comment, simply because they see it as a potential risk to their reputation (a bad guess will be held against them). (Even a guess of 50/50 could end up being very wrong!)
(Digging deeper, an issue I have with this place (one of many) is the clubbish atmosphere. It's too important to be a member in good standing....)
Heliogobble (sorry): You do understand the concept of anonymity? Labelling me "Anonymous" or giving me some other label doesn't get you any farther - except that it allows you to check my anonymous history. Even if I use a name you still don't know who's pissing in your shoes.
Let's not let history get in the way of discussion. What is said is what is important (if anything is). Anyway, yes I mean to be critical. No, I don't mean to be offensive - instead accurate.
frankly, it seems like a way for both sides to justify warmongering. iran can claim that it is threatened and must be allowed to defend itself against the unprovoked aggression of the west. britain (and by extentension the US) gets to claim there is a real threat from iran. and so on. it's ridiculous and, frankly, dangerous posturing.
Anonymous? Hello? So, let me get this straight - what you're saying is, people tend to be more responsive when they know who they're responding to, and they tend to be more prepared to express an opinion on issues with which they're familliar.
Frankly, I'm shocked.
And I'm still vicariously embarrassed.
(this thread is hereby designated WWTE [weirdest wikifray thread ever])
(apologies to Helio)
Well, I think most people don't expect to come our of multiple choice questions like this intact. The purpose usually isn't to give the answerers an oppotunity to improve their image. So we get defensive and try to preemptively turn the tables. I've done this myself.
You chose to pose your query anonymously. I notice that when the ghost's played similar games, but I think mostly because we were angling for his/her favor. You being anonymous, we aren't as interested in your favor, so we're less likely to submit ourselves to a game like this. Best case scenario is that we'll have passed a test from someone we don't know. Worst case is being called out as a moron in front of everyone. Not much incentive for risk.
I honestly haven't seen many folks claiming military expertise here. There's been some general commentary that we're losing the Iraq war, and skepticism about the surge, but I don't recall much arrogance on the subject, or "clubbiness" to be honest. The grammar corrections came from another anonymous poster who seems to enjoy being a burr in our collective saddle.
2 complaints in this thread i find foolish. the first is grammar nitpicking. i consider this to be informal writing (otherwise i'd use the fucking shift key and avoid swearing); in essence this is a typed conversation. while the proper usage of grammar is always to be encouraged, it is less important than in a formal essay or article. add to this the tendency for people to post from work (and thus be multitasking) and the occurance of at least one typo per post and the conclusion one reaches is that someone who corrects grammar in blog posts is type of person who would correct grammar in an actual conversation. that is, an anal-retentive dork. to dismiss an argument based on grammatical errors is arrogant and foolish.
the second is complaints about "clubbiness". wikifray is a club. sure, there is an open membership policy. but people post here because of the desire to interact with the other regulars. to walk into a club and complain that the members are "clubby" is, frankly, stupid.
i'm sure there are typos, spelling errors (always spelling errors) and other deviations from the queen's english in this comment, so feel free to dismiss it. [grin]
twiff: exactly. In fact, the reason I complied with anony1's request to top post anonymously was to demonstrate the inclusive nature of wikifray. Not good enough for him or her, apparently. One thing about hiding behind the anonymous nic, this poster has probably managed to get more words out of me that he or she would under a name I'd recognize. In fact, this whole exercise feels tediously familliar...
"Stupid question" wasn't exactly accurate. "Stupid formulation" would have been closer to what I intended to say.
Anyway, consider me bored into submission. Ta ta.
club vs. clubbishness
You do know there's a big difference, don't you?
Being "clubbish" (to further butcher the language) is only a criticism in this sense - when it disincentivizes debate or discussion.
botf certainly became more clubbish. This place too is quite clubbish - in this sense.
Let me try it another way - there are clubs where you have to shout, and clubs where you are required to keep your voice in a low whisper (and there's everything in between). So far, this is a whispering kind of place.
Actually the guy I like the best - is the grammar militant.
John - basically I think what you said was basically a spin on my position:
me: you guys treat this (too) clubbishly (at times)
you: by using an anonymous name we are treating you as not part of the club....
Not sure we have any disagreement (except...)
Anon,
Then I don't think your complaint is that we are clubbish per se, but that you (or generic anonymous posters) are not part of the club.
If a stranger on the street walked up to me and posed your question, I would probably blow him off. I don't owe him anything.
If a friend of mine did, I might answer him.
Most people are willing to indulge their friends; they're less likely to indulge strangers. You've stumbled across a basic truth of human nature rather than a damning peculiarity of the WikiFray participants.
anon: i think you're splitting hairs. doesn't really matter. anyway, for what it's worth, my biggest gripe about anonymous posters is that blogger doesn't tag the comments with "anon_a", "anon_b", etc.. makes it hard to sort 'em out on a quick scan. but that's a software issue.
twiffer - its exactly the lack of anon (a,b,c,....) that I like. I don't want to be remembered for my previous posts. I dont want you to see what I write today through yesterday's glasses.
That's the beauty of it.
Perhaps a different way of stating your criticism is that we write for each other rather than a general audience.
I can take that point, but not too far, because I think the group we have here is for the most part a smart group of readers. If I aim for something that will be received well by them, I think it can go pretty far.
Anon.
Brother, this part of the world, we are not wearing shoes.....
And trust me on this one, this clubbishness thing, it's bullshit!.
The fact i am here proves it.
Just to clarify, I posted about the grammar corrections only. I'm not the Anon who posted about "clubbishness."
--the anal-retentive nerd Anon
Clarification: That is, I posted only the initial grammar corrections and responses to comments about them. (And I meant "dork," not "nerd.")
Well, see what the problem is with anonymous posting.....
non-anal anon: i suppose i can see the point of that desire. less chance of predjudice in reacting to your comments, etc.. at least untill your writing style becomes recognizeable.
myself, i don't really think that way, so it takes me a bit to grasp the motivation. nor does it bother me if people do look at my words through the eyes of yesterday. what was written in the past is as much a part of my thinking as what is written now. if it changes, so be it. i'd rather allow others to see how my thoughts, ideas and conclusions change. but, i suppose i also pop by here for different reasons than you.
Post a Comment