Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00318)

In a message dated 95-12-18 180701 EST you write:

In a message dated 95-12-17 183921 EST you write:

>>On a related matter-- Coherence you're the only anonymous
>>poster on the list. Sort of like a nude beach with one clothed
>>person. You may have good reasons for this but when you make
>>condescending remarks about other people on the list and their
>>ideas it doesn't seem quite fair to do it from a pseudonym.
>>Or rather perhaps the pseudonym strengthens the impression
>>that you are looking down on us/me/some of us/whatever. Could
>>you consider revealing your identity? It might change the
>>energy flow.

>>If you send an e-mail to listserv@vnet.net with the words

>>review theos-l

<<as the body of the text you will find coherence@aol.com listed
>>as Gregory D. Hoskins though Mr. Hoskins is not necessarily by
>>this definition the same person who posts to theos-l.

HORRORS!!! Unmasked!!! NAKED!!! Exposed!!!

Now I ask you several things:

1 Do you think the energy flow will really change?

2 Why was it so important to know a NEW PSEUDONYM as opposed to the old
one?
3 Was this a correct ethical move? i.e. to uncover and announce the
identity of one who chose to remain anonymous not to hide but to keep the
focus on ideas.

4 What if you would have discovered something you would have rather NOT
known?
Beware what you ask for.

I bet you hunted and shook all your Christmas packages when you were small.
Another comment you accuse me of hiding behind a screen name so that I can
make condescending remarks about people and ideas which I don't think I
have. But you do not consider that my screen name has not shielded my
feelings when people have been condescending to me and my ideas. So which
way does the issue cut? You also fail to note that I never use the
participants name in my replies or comments but speak to the idea..

<I do encourage people to use their "real" names. This actually gives their
<comments more validity. People who speak from "behind the curtain" are
easily <ignoredand assumed untrustworthy.

Is this true? I don't think so. The idea will speak to those receptive to
it regardless of the traditional or non-tradional pseudonym. Would you trust
me more or would my comments have more validity if you discovered my real
name was "Flock-of-Birds-by-the-Lake"? William Q. Judge did most of the
writing of his lifetime behind pen names. The Masters did not use their
"real" names. Your comment does not jive with the history of the movement.
Names are meaningless. They identify only which "Coherence" did nicely.

I am Gregory D. Hoskins says boldly beats chest

A Rose by any other name smells as sweet or something to that effect. . . .