Note to Bill on Anonymous Posts

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>There have been way too many anonymous posts lately. I'm hoping that Bill gives due notice or starts automatically deleting them all.<br /><br />Personally, it wouldn't kill me if people were required to be signed in. The plus is everyone could have a pretty avitar like mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>It's very easy to create a Net 54 login.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff De</b><p>Pardon me Hankron, What is an avitar? <br /> AVITAR is a cozy hotel situated in a quiet centre of Riga?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Count me in favor of logging in. I think it will eleminate some unnecessary hassles that have risen and will continue to come up.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam J. Baxter</b><p>I don't think it's a crime if people forget to log in now and then, I certainly forget a lot. What I find annoying is the gutless posters who post anonymously just so they can take jabs at other posters. A Log-in requirement would be fine by me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>You should HAVE to log in.<br /><br />I forget to do so myself at times... but if I could NOT post without logging in ...<br /><br />then it would SOLVE my forgetfulness problem!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I hope Im not the gutless poster that started this thread. I forgot to logon in response to the Bonds post. I made a joke about prewar vintage referring to the first Iraq war - before I could correct the post, the entire thread was gone. <br /><br />Anyway, I certainly did not intend to hide behind an anonymous post.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Hankron:<br /><br />Verushka may be <b>an</b> avatar (that pic is of her, right), but I'm not sure she's <b><u>yours!</u></b> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Besides, I think my indicia is pretty, too.<br /><br />Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>My impression is that most people do log in now before posting. It certainly makes it easier for others to recognize you and get in touch, if needed, although I realize that people occasionally forget (or can't be bothered).<br /><br />I personally don't think it needs to change, but there is an option that would allow only people who had logged in to post and give everyone else read-only rights. Would that scare off would-be posters? I don't know... <br /><br />The Bonds Rookie (yawn) thread got yanked for being impudently non-vintage.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Bill, the only would be posters that logging in would scre away are the people that don't have the guts to ID themselves in the first place. There are tons of people that only lurk and this would not impact them.<br /><br />the other option, if you don't want to require logging in, would be for you to promptly delete anon posts. And don't think you want that much work to do. There has already been one case were several poeple having the same name have been mistaken as be someone else and has lead to problems. Requring people will help end the problems with all the Bills, Pete's, Chris', etc that are on the board.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>Count me as a vote for logging in. It takes 7 seconds to do and at least makes cowards who want to post anonymously have to go through the trouble of setting up a fake account just to post. <br /><br />The whole time they are typing in fake info for their fake account, they get to think about what a coward they are. <br /><br />-Ryan<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gary B.</b><p>"there is an option that would allow only people who had logged in to post and give everyone else read-only rights. Would that scare off would-be posters? I don't know..."<br /><br />I think this would be great. If a person got scared off, then they must not really wanted to have to post, because logging in is simple, and usually I don't even have to log in because I stay logged in from the previous visit to the board. I say go for it...<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I will go with the flow and since my buddies think it best to log in I will vote that way too. For some reason it seems like the system won't let me post without doing it...so no sweat here. Lurkers can still lurk too.....later

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John/z28jd</b><p>I also wouldnt mind having to log in to post,altho i admit i usually bypass it if im not already logged in from being in the chat.It would save Bill some time in editing my posts too for me

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>I can go either way, simply I think because no anonymous poster has ticked me off yet, when that happens then I will lean towards the login side. Either way happy to login before posting. The choice is yours Bill, for you have accepted the burden of leadership. With great power comes great responsibility…....oh and the ability to delete posts too. So you got that going for ya which must be nice.<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/143.gif"><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>martindl</b><p>I've had a few anonymous posts lately but thats more to do with me being an idiot newbie than anything else. I log in and start typing witout filling my name in.<br /><br />I think logging in to post should be the rule.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>I am definately in favor of having to log in. After my situation with Lee last week, and me being a horses you know what, I was trying to apologize for mistakes I made, only to have my last ditch effort get shot down, not to mention the tongue lashing Aaron gave me for a post by another Chris that was misunderstood as me making snide comments about Lee. It left me in a situation where I was not only having to defend or apologize for the mistakes I made, but also defend myself for the harmless post of someone else who just happens to share my first name.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Dittos

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>I don't even know sez I was born before the war of 1812, I'd like to be able to answer--IT. But that means taking up thread space, since we don't have to include our e-mail addresses to post, huh?<br /><br />Also, it's a drag seeing a mistake you made, factual, spelling, typographical, etc. and not being able to correct it because you didn't sign in!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe P.</b><p>That wasn't you I saw with Molly Pitcher?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Kevin, it's debatable whether people take my photo advice to heart, but, if due to my posts, someone remembers the name of the unearthly 1960s Prussian fashion model (Veruschka), I'm satisfied.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>Julie - Molly was long before our time - Valley Forge - Veruschka I remember well - not before my time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe P.</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=MOLLY+PITCHER&btnG=Google+Search" target=_new>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=MOLLY+PITCHER&btnG=Google+Search</a>