the anti-Whitlock

The credibility is in the thought, what the point is, how it is presented, how humorous or moving it is. A name doesn't have a damn thing to do with that, "pallister."

 

Hey, that's over .500. What more do you want?

 

Today, that would be a 3-year, $10 million contract right there. 8)

 

Stop with the quote marks. Every time this subject comes up, I remind people I'm using my real name. I may not run into anyone on her during the course of my career, or I may already have in the last six months. But the point is that using my name keeps me in check. Many of the anonymous people on here are great reading. Some are just complete assholes. I'm not advocating everyone use their real name. I just think if more people did, thre'd be less disingenuousness, asshattery, etc. and more honest and thoughtul responses on the whole. Would it dull the place down a bit. Certainly, but not as much as some might think. Bottom line is I prefer to attach my name to what I say. Carry on, whoever you may be.

 

For the record, dools, I've met him and his name is pallister.

 

I guess this proves how unfamous I really am. Damn.

 

Don't forgot to mention the free beer.

 

How could I forget.

 

And apparently his opinion means more than what Sally Jenkins' would if she posted anonymously here. And pallister (OK, no quote marks) surely has deeper thoughts posted on here than those of "Alma." And if you dislike the anonymity, why mess with us inferior rubes?

 

I never said an anonymous opinion was better or worse. I just said anonymity breeds characteristics in certain people that are less than admirable. That's proven about every 15 minutes on here.

 

I'll grant you BYH; still....

 

I don't have a problem with anonymity per se. The majority don't abuse it. But many do, to the extreme. And that takes away from many of the things that make this place great. Alls I'm saying.