VishMahabir posted:Stormborn posted:VishMahabir posted:Stormborn posted:To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.
I participate in a few more specialized forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave. They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards. Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense.
BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.
This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.
The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....
On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are.
In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.
So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.
Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:
"BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."
Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying...
I am sure everyone here knows almost everyone else, drugb included. Most of the long time posters really dont care. And the nits usually measure their worth in terms of their supposed "mansions" and stock portfolio. If you were paying attention you would see one of those supposedly with wall street credentials talking economic nonsense yesterday by using a phrase in the completely wrong way. I did not care to comment on it. There is no premium to show credentials. If you have any it will come out in your post and that is where it matters.
If the moderator was on the job he would have sanctioned drugb. He is obliged to show TK is a dunce not simply calling him a dunce. I am sure there are areas of study that he will know better than TK but I am quite certain where economics is concerned Drugb is the dunce.