Child custody and money. It can have a direct bearing and it can be leverage.

I don't have time right now to review the thread. I will warn people that exposing real names in such a way is a violation of the site's Terms Of Service. Since this is the second such occurrence in a week, I will be making a dedicated post about the topic in a day or so. Upon investigation, if I find that the person who made this comment is the same person who made the last one, he will be permanently banned from the site.

This type of posting is not allowed on the site and will not be tolerated.

Well, I haven't wanted to bring it up, [redacted], as I know it's been painful for you, but, have you stopped beating your wife?

Everyone has a flagship issue, if you don't know by now what Jack Carter's is, you really REALLY haven't been paying attention.

This type of posting is not allowed on the site and will not be tolerated.

While I'm infinitely sympathetic to your point, Jim, and won't repeat what I wrote, I thought it was abundantly clear why I responded the way I did, which was simply in kind to [xxx's] intentionally inflammatory post (which you've left up). Why is one form of innuendo permitted, but the response, in identical form, is redacted? Why is the provocation acceptable, but the response in kind isn't?

...exposing real names

The poster at issue has used his ream name on this site for years, from what I'm told. If that hadn't been the case, I wouldn't have used it.

Everyone has a flagship issue, if you don't know by now what Jack Carter's is, you really REALLY haven't been paying attention.

My impression of you is that you're regularly confused by events, so I'm trying not to imagine where you think this is going.

What can you get out of that?

Kinky make-up sex.

Like, funky eyeliner and green lip gloss?

52:

C'mon. Do you think that a serious accusation? That's a joke that's been around since there have been husband and wives. It's much less worse than Ray accusing people of stealing if they believe in taxes, an accusation he has made seriously repetitively ad infinitum.

EDITED: For proper attribution. I mean, Jim, Kehoskie calls people liars and drunks every time he gets his ass in a crack argumentatively. If you're going to be so literal-minded, posting will become impossible--and dull as hell.

I'm not sure if you are talking to me or Jim, Morty, but if it's the former I'm not talking about the "have you stopped beating your wife" comment. My post is far more general.

[47] What is the benefit of making baseless spousal abuse allegations in a no fault divorce state?

Child custody and money. It can have a direct bearing and it can be leverage.

Yeah, that's what my sister-in-law and her ex were angling for. Not that either wanted any part of the kids really - and the kids were in high school so the feeling was mutual - but they are both highly paid individuals who were looking to break off a chunk of the other's income for them self. With so much BS being put forward with not a lot of evidence behind it, the judge essentially defaulted to the 'Mom gets the kids and some child support' ruling. The whole thing was a big waste of time and money.

As an attorney I know that most of us stay far away from family law and this thread gives you a good idea of why that is so. The "dirty tricks" referred to are, unfortunately, commonplace in divorce actions. As is pointed out, however, there is a BIG difference between allegations made for leverage in a divorce action and felony charges carrying potential major jail time. IIRC Bradley has already been through "anger management" therapy, perhaps more than once. His previous actions have certainly showed him to have a short temper; witness the water bottle business with the home fans at Dodger Stadium. The absence of prior convictions is quite likely the result of his wife dropping the charges. The guy is a handsome, rich, articulate, baseball player who obviously has a good side. Is it any surprise that his wife would want to believe his promises and try to stick it out with him? No more so than Jim Hendry signing him to a long term deal. This is a very sad story and I hope it is untrue or overblown or that at least it goes both ways, but frankly I doubt it, and I expect Bradley will get some jail time to sort things out. He is one mixed up person and it is just very sad.

Well, let's not forget that it can be like the gag about paranoia--just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you. And just because you have anger problems, or are generally dishonest, or habitually cheat on your spouse, doesn't mean that you did any one of those things in any one specific instance. The law is supposed to be about cases in controversy, not about "well, you know how he is" personal generalities.

The law is supposed to be about cases in controversy, not about "well, you know how he is" personal generalities.

True, but patterns of behavior are admissible.

Ah, sex crime cases. Yes, but wherever they are used, they are not supposed to be dispositive. You still have to prove something really happened, not just that X was the sort of person that did that sort of thing.

Ah, sex crime cases. Yes, but wherever they are used, they are not supposed to be dispositive. You still have to prove something really happened, not just that X was the sort of person that did that sort of thing.

IIRC, any case where the accused has been convicted of crimes that fit the pattern of that which he is currently accused of.

e.g. if a guy has been convicted of 3 burglaries where he posed as a Utlity company worker, and he's accused of doing that again, the past convictions are admissible.

C'mon. Do you think that a serious accusation? That's a joke that's been around since there have been husband and wives. It's much less worse than Ray accusing people of stealing if they believe in taxes, an accusation he has made seriously repetitively ad infinitum.

Pretty sure the comment wasn't singled out for being particularly serious, but for using RDP's full real name rather than his handle.

the past convictions are admissible.

Past convictions?

65:

Really? Click on Ray (RDP) above. What do you see in the screenname history? When did Ray stop using that name?

Really?

Yeah, really. I mean, that's what Furtado's [52] is very explicitly about, and he's the guy doing the ToS.

Click on Ray (RDP) above. What do you see in the screenname history? When did Ray stop using that name?

A while back, why? The point is that he stopped using his real/full name, along with a number of other posters. Those changes, and the ToS, are intended to prevent that "dull as hell" atmosphere by providing a protective sheen of privacy and making the issue/policy revolve around that (privacy) rather than some subjective interpretation of whose insult was more vile. It's a lot simpler, and more conducive to discussion, that way.

The whole point is that searching for Ray's real name in Google does not bring up BTF results in the first few pages, which is what he and the others are preferring to avoid. Most people here know his real name and as was pointed out above you can find it out just by clicking on his member profile but the handle prevents him being easily searched for. That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.

The whole point is that searching for Ray's real name in Google does not bring up BTF results in the first few pages, which is what he and the others are preferring to avoid. Most people here know his real name and as was pointed out above you can find it out just by clicking on his member profile but the handle prevents him being easily searched for. That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.

Exactly. For the Smiths and Jones of the world it doesn't matter, but for those of us with relative rare names (e.g. White Pages has 5 people in the US that share my first and last name, and one of them is my dead grandfather), you don't want random S showing up on Google.

I really don't know why everyone doesn't use a handle.

Well, first, how do we know if XXX is someone's real name?

I readily admit I didn't know Ray had changed his name, and I very well could have referred to him by the name he used before (which we don't know is his real name, anyway). A poster, it seems, to me can't change his name, but maintain his identity, as well as every name he's ever used, all set out in his profile, with an expectation that everyone will transmogrify into a state of amnesia suddenly pretend that he's a different person, and erase all associations and appellations. That's an risk he assumed when he decided to post under the other name to start with. But if that's what he expects, that we pretend we don't know him or his name that he made numerous posts for years under, then he needs to at least expunge all those alternate names and alias, and go all out in creating another identity, making sure that we never know who he used to be. And maybe nicely remind us that he doesn't want to be referred to by that name he made 20,000 posts under. Otherwise, it becomes a mug's game.

I not very sympathetic toward people making opinions but not owning them -- whether that is making criminal accusations and expecting their name to be kept off the record or this sort of stuff.

And, yes, I realize I use an alias. I did it because of the spam problem (business type solicitations especially), but it's very easy to find out my name, and I certainly wouldn't jump all over anyone who used my real name. And I haven't been using my real name (supposedly) for five years and thousands of posts. And I wouldn't kick if the rule were you had to use a real name, and I certainly wouldn't have any legal grounds to object.

I don't because I have no real reason to. The job I have currently, like my previous one, is not in a field where anyone is likely to give a damn about what I write on the internet as long as it's not negative about the company or just plain nuts. Since I never say anything majorly controversial in the first place and never say anything negative about my job or company online I don't have anything to worry about on that end. I actually do share some of Joe K's sentiments on preferring that people not be so anonymous online and for some of the same reasons but that certainly doesn't extend to being the slightest bit willing to compromise the anonymity of anyone who is seeking it. Also, while a big reason that I dislike the easy anonymity of the internet is that it really does cause people to act in a way they never would in public or with their real name attached, that's not something I feel is a significant issue at BTF. Things are civilized here and people tend to act pretty decently most of the time.

I suppose to forestall the likely objections by Joe K: Yes, I fully support your right to request Jim's intervention if you feel like someone is getting out of line with their comments towards you. If it's a problem, report it. Jim is pretty hands-off about these things unless they get seriously out of hand (which I like) so it's generally up to us to request his attention if we're feeling that someone's comment towards us is out of line.

A poster, it seems, to me can't change his name, but maintain his identity, as well as every name he's ever used, all set out in his profile, with an expectation that everyone will transmogrify into a state of amnesia suddenly pretend that he's a different person, and erase all associations and appellations.

He's still Ray, just don't use his last name.

This issue hadn't really occurred to me either until it came up this week, but it seems reasonable to me.

I readily admit I didn't know Ray had changed his name, and I very well could have referred to him by the name he used before (which we don't know is his real name, anyway). A poster, it seems, to me can't change his name, but maintain his identity, as well as every name he's ever used, all set out in his profile, with an expectation that everyone will transmogrify into a state of amnesia suddenly pretend that he's a different person, and erase all associations and appellations. That's an risk he assumed when he decided to post under the other name to start with. But if that's what he expects, that we pretend we don't know him or his name that he made numerous posts for years under, then he needs to at least expunge all those alternate names and alias, and go all out in creating another identity, making sure that we never know who he used to be. And maybe nicely remind us that he doesn't want to be referred to by that name he made 20,000 posts under. Otherwise, it becomes a mug's game.

That's not what Ray, Sam, and the others are asking though. They don't have any problem with us knowing their real names, they just don't want someone from their professional or personal lives being able to Google them and easily come across all the stuff here. That's why what Joe, Good Face, and Jack Carter did is so wrong, they're not only ignoring the reasonable and easily satisfied wishes of those people but they're deliberately inserting negative statements to go along with the full names so that someone Googling that person may not only find BTF and all their activity on it but might also see someone accusing that person of being an anti-semite, wife beater, or one of the nastiest people on the internet.

You know, you could resolve all this by simply having all posts appear under the simple rubric of "Anonymous". No other names at all. If fact, I'd be for that--then you wouldn't have any of these "well, he has a history". You just deal with the merits of what is written in a specific instance and no more. As it is, it's like so many posters here never heard of critical thinking. I don't think the owner of this site likes all these off-topic discussion, particularly those of the political stripe, and many others whole-heartedly and vehemently agree with him. This would discourage a lot of frustrated wannabe columnists. It would clear the floor of amateurs seeking a spotlight in order to glitter with the glory of the hummingbird.

MB is facing up to thirteen years in prison.

76. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4345763)
You know, you could resolve all this by simply having all posts appear under the simple rubric of "Anonymous". No other names at all. If fact, I'd be for that--then you wouldn't have any of these "well, he has a history". You just deal with the merits of what is written in a specific instance and no more. As it is, it's like so many posters here never heard of critical thinking. I don't think the owner of this site likes all these off-topic discussion, particularly those of the political stripe, and many others whole-heartedly and vehemently agree with him. This would discourage a lot of frustrated wannabe columnists. It would clear the floor of amateurs seeking a spotlight in order to glitter with the glory of the hummingbird.

This isn't 4chan.

What's 4chan?

Never mind, I looked it up.

That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.

Just for the record, the above is utterly false, at least as it pertains to me. I used Sam's name a few days ago — in a non-slanderous comment — because it's Sam's name. The sudden rash of complaints over the past few days about (alleged) attempts to "Google-bomb" people's names is beyond strange. Did some of you people not know about Google before this week?

I suppose to forestall the likely objections by Joe K: Yes, I fully support your right to request Jim's intervention if you feel like someone is getting out of line with their comments towards you. If it's a problem, report it. Jim is pretty hands-off about these things unless they get seriously out of hand (which I like) so it's generally up to us to request his attention if we're feeling that someone's comment towards us is out of line.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not sure where it's coming from. I've never complained to Jim about anything or otherwise complained about his stewardship of the site. I had a little fun mocking Sam for running to Jim a few days ago, which was rather shameless given Sam's history on this site, but I'm mostly a "sticks and stones ..." guy. (Hell, Morty's #57 is nonsense, but I know that's just Morty being Morty, and nothing to get excited about. In typical Morty fashion, he went from spouting nonsense in #57 to being the voice of reason in #71.)

That's why what Joe, Good Face, and Jack Carter did is so wrong, they're not only ignoring the reasonable and easily satisfied wishes of those people but they're deliberately inserting negative statements to go along with the full names so that someone Googling that person may not only find BTF and all their activity on it but might also see someone accusing that person of being an anti-semite, wife beater, or one of the nastiest people on the internet.

First of all, if you're going to list three names along with three actions, the standard practice is to list them in the same order so as not to give an erroneous impression of who did what. (I didn't accuse anyone of anti-semitism or wife-beating.)

Second, I've never mentioned anyone's name here with Google in mind, but if anyone feared Google so much, they shouldn't have used their real name for thousands of comments in the first place.

Third, I've never been under the impression that using a person's name was verboten here. Jim's rule about not slandering people makes good sense, but I'm unaware of any blanket bans on using people's names. There's a big difference between outing someone and using someone's name after they've used it themselves here (in some cases, for thousands of comments over many years). And if using names is some sort of violation, I'm quite sure Sam has used Ray's and Dan's full names since they started using a screen name, so Sam would be an odd choice of poster boy for BBTF victimhood.

75:

Yeah, I understand that; what I don't understand or approve of is why that should obligate me. If X doesn't want that to happen, then he needs to not have used his real name. Seems like for libertarians to all of sudden get on the bandwagon of suppression of freedom is highly ironic.

It seems to me that's an assumption of risk that comes with posting in a public medium, and I don’t think it can be shifted, or should be shifted, to other posters.

You cannot expect that people will not use your name, whatever it is, assuming we even know that what you are on record as your real is your real name. If that is such a taboo, then make each person’s “real name” irreproducible in the text—is that so hard to program?

Placing obligations, or suddenly switching the onus of obligation, on people not to use it at all, no matter what they say was said by that name, when you yourself did at one time, when everyone has become habituated to using that name, is renouncing responsibility and holding someone to assume that responsibility all out of whack—against natural inclinations. In "real" life I am not under an obligation not to use your real or bogus name or even not to report what you said. I am only responsible for actionable statements concerning what I actually say about you (and that's whether I got your name right or not)--but that's it. It gets too complicated otherwise, too hard to expect something more. The problem isn't he use of the name. The problem is calling that person an anti-Semite, a child abuser, or a drunk.

See, this sort of drama is why I'd never post under my real name, Well, that and the fact that my real name is Dee Snuts.

I use my real name on my e-mail accounts and quite a few forums, and since there's someone else with the same name who writes books and give seminars on some kind of new-age mysticism crap that is all over the net. Search for me and you'll have to wade through 20 pages of his stuff. I occasionally get e-mails with questions meant for him, and the temptation to answer with something really crass will someday get the best of me.

I occasionally get e-mails with questions meant for him, and the temptation to answer with something really crass will someday get the best of me.

Just give them a jack keefe post as the response.

The whole point is that searching for Ray's real name in Google does not bring up BTF results in the first few pages, which is what he and the others are preferring to avoid. Most people here know his real name and as was pointed out above you can find it out just by clicking on his member profile but the handle prevents him being easily searched for. That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.

Sure--you take something desperately out of context, as you've just done, and you can make it sound like anything you want. Ray had just made a point of using my full name along with a slimy innuendo. I responded with the most obvious counter possible, to throw his stupidity and offensiveness in his face. He used my full name; I therefore used his.

Could "have you stopped beating your wife?" been any more obvious?

I'm glad I clicked on this thread; it's raised my consciousness. Since registration, I have been using – not my own real name, which I could care less about anyone learning, and which is pretty transparent if you click on my handle – but at least the real name of a journeyman major-leaguer, punned-upon in homage to my friend GGC and his handle. You can Google that journeyman's name and not run across any references to BBTF till eight pages in, and then they're pretty anodyne. But it's probably not the most scrupulous thing in the world to be doing. Henceforth I'm going the initial route, with apologies. I mean, not that I've said anything too outré under my old screen name. I may have said that I didn't like Alex Rodriguez. But who does.