On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:44:58 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall,
Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. "
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:35:47 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

I had Agent mark "all read" ten days ago, and since then 2000 off
topic, mostly presidential politics, posts have accumulated. Thats
just the garbage I sidestepped, not including the stuff I read, or at
least opened. There is a NG that bans politics, religion, and
acronyms. Everyone posts under their real name, most have been doing
it for years, some, including myself, for more than a decade. If there
was a downside to posting under your real name, I have seen no
evidence thereof. In ten years. Fake names, handles, are, with rare
exceptions, signs of malice. My initial reaction to a obviously fake
name is, **** you, you have nothing to say.

Casady

It's a shame you feel that way. I've found some insightful, knowledgeable,
and interesting posts from folks using something other than their real
names. On the other hand, I've seen some real trashy, filthy **** from
folks using their real names or a version thereof.

We have one individual here, Harry Krause, who maintains a data base on
individuals. He loves to get real names, and then add addresses, phone
numbers, etc. He then likes to talk about your home, your neighborhood,
etc. Not nice. So, I can certainly understand a reluctance to give out
one's name.

How do you know a real name from a fake? What difference does it make if it
sounds real or doesn't?

Have you noticed that the people here who are pushing for 'real names' are
also the worst name-callers and the most offensive people in the group?

I sure am glad I use my real name. I hope you don't mind if I don't
pick up the soap bar.

See? I tolja.

The real name users are the trashiest talkers around.