• I am proud of who I am no matter what. Roy is right.
    The only reason my screen name here is what it is is because I'm a Jimi Hendrix fan and the word 'existing' was used by that entertainer so poetically on "I Don't Live Today".
    Therefore; "Joseexist", is "Jose' Diaz". Commenters should be identified.
    Anonymity is the first step towards danger on the net. I've made many friends aropund the globe and most have identified themselves. Those who have not usually didn't hang around too long or it became apparent that all they were was a front for something that was not Kosher.
    It's your name, not a password.
    ~~~Jose' Diaz~~~

    March 24, 2010 at 7:21 a.m.

  • Waywardwind.

    You do not have a clue what that means. There are posters who wanted Mrs. Clark a teacher fired for her letter to editor over the topic of the President’s speech being banned in schools.

    Let me repeat this question “who wants to be "Dixie Chicked" ? Here is my name Justin.

    Chris Cobler.

    Since we are on topic what happen to my blog about the Morrison Commission and Education Reform? Why was that removed?

    March 23, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.

  • I have been involved with computers since 1995. I have only had 2 email addresses in that time, both gave my name in full. I believe that to have an opinion and post it publicly then you should be willing to use your real name. If you need an alias such as Billy the Kid, or Joe 6pack then you must have something to hide or you are some type of hater that need to hide behind the veil of anonymousness that protects them from the general public’s ire. I feel l if you say it, post it, or record it you own it and you should be willing to state and defend your opinion live and in person if called to do so.
    I WOULD.
    So yes people should be required to use their own name or not be allowed to post or write the Advocate..

    March 23, 2010 at 8:43 a.m.

  • I beleive that all commenters should be required to identify themselves.
    Maybe someone should write software that will allow users to filter comments so they can choose to read what they want to. (such as; 1. comments from identified sources, 2. comments from anonymous sources, or 3. all comments)

    March 23, 2010 at 7:36 a.m.

  • The VicAd does have a tough job. While it varies on who is working as the moderator, I find it a fine line to walk. When does "moderating" become suppressing freedom of speech. What one thinks is offensive, racist or mean is simply someone Else's opinion. (Who some agree with and others cry how mean they are.) The Houston Chronicle does not require your name and they do not monitor the comments. If your feelings are hurt here, try that paper on for size.

    March 22, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.

  • Anyone has a problem with what I(John Lara), write? I challenge them to a duel; since I’m defending my honor, I choose the weapons, beer!

    The last one conscious, wins.

    Needless to say I’m a proficient dueler in this regard, be warn…oh by the way, loser pays, lol!

    March 22, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.

  • Lincoln also wrote anonymously, got caught and was challenged to a duel. He chose broad swords in a pit twelve feet deep - you got to admire the man.

    March 22, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.

  • Jefferson was famous for writing political letters anonymously. Madison, Hamilton and in fact many others did it. Is it just a coincidence that this is becoming a concern at the same time the government is trying to get more control of the internet?

    March 22, 2010 at 8:20 a.m.

  • "Who wants to be "Dixie Chicked" out of a loan, a home, etc? I am in the minority in many ways. I will defend himself strongly and harshly, if need be.That's why I keep my name to myself."

    I don't have a clue what the question means. Then I read: "I will defend himself strongly......" That left me even more in the dark.

    March 22, 2010 at 8:01 a.m.

  • I would suggest to the powers that be at the Advocate that you take a long look at the comments that show up on-line following stories in the Houston Chronicle. Evidently, the Chronicle believes their readers are either more able to read comments that are sometimes harsh without being offended or the Chronicle staff is able to not be offended by comments. I don't ever remember that paper censoring comments by people posting their views on a story. The vast majority there are from people using screen names.

    I would also point you to Delphi forums, where virtually all of the members use screen names and the discussiions are spirited. Nobody gets deleted there.

    That being said, I understand the site here belongs to the Advocate and you can do with it what you wish. I wish you'd lighten up somewhat.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:57 a.m.

  • Unless the policy has changed,if you write a LTTE the staff at VicAd verifies the authenticity of the letter AND the author before it is published in the print version. That's why there are a lot less of those than the things that appear here. Should be some sort of way to do the same elecronically.
    Patrick Barnes

    March 22, 2010 at 7:37 a.m.

  • It may be true that half of those polled said they would not participate, however, many of the people that blog on here anonymously are the ones who constantly leave mean hateful comments, and also get their comments erased. So the quality of the blogs would probably increase. It would also save time for the Advocate staff because they would not have to constantly delete the racist or radical comments that hurt others.

    March 22, 2010 at 4:23 a.m.

  • Who wants to be "Dixie Chicked" out of a loan, a home, etc? I am in the minority in many ways. I will defend himself strongly and harshly, if need be.That's why I keep my name to myself.

    March 22, 2010 at 2:46 a.m.

  • I was raised to have the courage and conviction to stand by my own words and to treat others the way I'd want to be treated.

    I use my own name -- always have and always will.

    Those who hide behind screen name anonymity are often the first to throw stones and resort to behavior that I'd consider appropriate.

    I do realize some may fear that that their opinions or commentary may result in some sort of retribution, and in certain instances, I can understand how on-screen anonymity may be in order.

    And while verifying an actual ID may sound good in theory, in reality -- thanks to technology many consider progress -- it would be virtually impossible and serve no true purpose.

    You can also boot and ban users, but in less than 2 minutes, they can be signed up via another ISP address and a different screen name.

    March 21, 2010 at 8:14 p.m.

  • Assuredly it would be a lengthy, labor intensive task (if even realistic to perform)to verify name. What prevents anyone from signing some name other than their own? I personally don't have any reason for not using real name, only reason I have not is it appeared that screen names were the accepted norm.
    Email or some other acceptable method of communicating with author of comment seems to be valid.

    March 21, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.