[at-l] Anonymous

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 12:44 PM 10/9/2005 -0400, Richard C Evans wrote:
>Funny, true story about anonymous names and posts to this list:
>
>Once I got in a bit of hot water with the brightest light herabouts
>when I happened to mention that the initials on the Mellencamp passes
>he so graciously arranged happened to be something other than FM.
>Having been castigated for outing his real initials, I immediately
>entered into a lifetime vow never to make that mistake again -- that
>if one of my trail buddies wished to be known only by his or her trail
>name, I would assiduously honor said desire.
>
>A few years back when exercising my fatefully impared judgment in
>choosing companionship of the feminine persuasion, milady had taken to
>participation on this list out of curiosity and who knows what other
>nefarious purposes which lurk in the dark recesses of the heart of the
>gentler sex.  Not long into her research and explorations, and after
>agreeing with me that Felix's posts are most entertaining, she asked,
>"What's his real name?"  Mindful of my vow, I said he just wants to be
>known as Felix and I'm not at liberty to share his real name.  Of
>course, that really went over well in the relationship -- as a matter
>of fact, the mere matter of my breathing may have been the root
>problem -- but let's get back to the story, shall we?  :-)
>
>About 3 days after the exercise of my solemn vow, she told me she
>found out his name -- and then correctly told it to me to confirm it
>wasn't just a ploy to get me to spill my guts  (though they could use
>a good spilling from the looks of them.)  So, I'm not sure what all
>this anonymity is good for, but the fact that it allows for a good
>story and gives Felix and RnR something to have in common is good
>enough for me.
>
>Don't worry, guys.  My lips are sealed.  Your sacred secret identitles
>are safe with me.  I do have a hunch though that there may be a bit of
>sex discrimination being practiced on one of these cases of anonymity.
>  Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>
>I'll add you to the list, Fred, I mean George, I mean Tin Man . . . uh oh!
>
>Happy trails,
>
>Solar Bear

I'm not sure what all the anonymity is about either but as I see it, it is 
harmless. OTOH it is not uncommon when one is being lectured on how they 
should think about this or that and castigated for the lapses the lecturer 
perceives in one's attitude (whether or not those perceptions are accurate) 
it is not uncommon for those being lectured to wonder 'who is this and what 
makes him/her an expert?'. In other words why should I listen to him/her?

As it happens I spent last evening stuffing seemingly endless piles of 
pages of material for a tenure file into plastic page protectors. My wife 
works at a University where she provides support for 3 departments and 2 of 
the professors are in the process of 'proving' they deserve tenure by 
submitting voluminous files of their publications and letters of support. 
Even the letters of support are supported by bios of the writers to show 
that they are qualified to pass judgement on the candidate's 
qualifications. It is a phenomenon that goes back millennia, just just in 
academia but in many realms of life. Great religious traditions all strive 
to show that their version of the TRUTH is correct by tracing their 
teachings back to the founder and we all want to know that the surgeon has 
proven to others that he is qualified before we agree to allow him/her 
around us with a knife.

The comparison between Felix and RnR is an inappropriate one because the 
first makes no pretense of telling us how we should view the AT or the 
philosophy of MacKaye but the second claims, totally without support for 
the claim, to have deep insight into MacKaye and a transcendent 
understanding of the AT. While Felix may "mess with our minds" through his 
stories, he makes no demand that we accept his ideas. He simply presents 
them for consideration. Like RnR he is wounded when his efforts are 
unfairly attacked but unlike RnR he does not claim to possess THE TRUTH, he 
is simply trying to please.

RnR presents himself as one with deep understanding of MacKaye and his 
philosophy. He extends that to a 'deeper' meaning of the AT. When one makes 
such claims it is a part of human nature to wonder about the basis of the 
claimed authority. RnR has told us that he learned this sitting on 
Wingfoot's front porch listening to WF read from a book of MacKaye's 
collected letters. He has not (could not?) named the book or its 
editor/author. As an avid reader of all things AT I have run searches 
through several avenues to find the book, but find no record of any such 
collection having been published. Judging by RnR's failure to ever quote a 
single line from any MacKaye text in response to other posters questions, 
that appears to be the sum total of his exposure to MacKaye. Someone else 
reading selected portions aloud from a book he cannot name.

The "heat" generated by his posts however did not arise from his view of 
MacKaye's 'original intent' however (interesting parallel with current 
debates over appointing Supreme Court Justices). The "heat" was the result 
of his habit of claiming the only correct view of the trail and 
(mis)interpreting even the smallest deviation from that as putting those 
who questioned his view on the opposite side. Deep on the opposite side. 
Enemies of the trail! While his approach parallels the tone of contemporary 
politics it is quite inaccurate. I (and others) have several times been 
attacked as an enemy by RnR after posting a response that was in 90% 
agreement with something he said. Why he chooses such a response, rather 
than one designed to elicit further agreement is as much a mystery to me as 
his need to be anonymous.

In a nutshell: If you want to entertain me, you only have to do it 
(write/act/sing/etc.) well, but if you are demanding that I accept your 
version of something as *true*, you'd better be prepared to convince me and 
part of convincing me is to demonstrate that you know what you are talking 
about. I'd settle for what I asked for in the last of these discussions, 
back it up with a quote, one I and others can find and read in context for 
ourselves. If you can back up what you say with more than just opinion, I 
don't care what name you use. If you don't/can't and are hiding behind a 
curtain like the Wizard of Oz... you shouldn't be surprised when I dismiss 
you as a pretender.