As suggested by the anonymous “Swimmer” in another thread “the names people use on the site are completely irrelevant.” I must respectfully disagree.
I personally give more credence to post made by people who are willing to tell us who they are, especially those who are active participants on a forum. And while there is no way to guarantee that I am who I say I am, none the less I respect the integrity of our posters enough to believe that they are who they purport to be.
What if Martin Luther had tacked his 95 Theses on his church anonymously? Would we now have legions of Anonymousans instead of Lutherans? And what of a Declaration of Independence submitted anonymously because our founding fathers did not want their dissenting opinions traced back to them? OK, maybe a little over the top.
I also like to know who I’m conversing with, so when chance brings us together, say in a stairwell at Indy, I can introduce myself and have an opportunity to really talk with anothers from our family of swimmers/posters.
With all this said, I also respect an individual’s choice of anonymity. The rules of the Forum allow this and I would hate to see folks not get involved, because they fear letting others know their true identity. So for those posting behind pseudonyms, please continue to do so. Just understand that to some of use the use of our names is relevant.
Originally posted by "swimmer":
All swimmers are not good people. . .
I think you meant (my interpretation at least) is
"Not all swimmers are good people" - at least I hope that is what you were attempting to convey.
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni (whom I know personally btw):
so how would you phrase the following sentence:?
"A woman without her man is nothing."
Phil,
Try it this way:
"A woman without; her man is nothing."
:cool:
Jim
Originally posted by jim clemmons
Originally posted by "swimmer":
I think you meant (my interpretation at least) is
"Not all swimmers are good people" - at least I hope that is what you were attempting to convey.
That works.
Originally posted by gull80
I think he left out a comma. It should read: "All swimmers are not good, people."
Good swimmers or good people? Are bad people better swimmers than good people or ae good people better swimmers than bad people. And what about those in the middle, who aren't really good or really bad? Don't we need another category for that before someone feels left out?
What's the water temperature today anyway - Warm or Cold?
1. Post a controversy.
2. Hide your identity.
3. Wonder why it raised an eyebrow.
Does this really need a detailed explanation?
Also, it's not the matter whether someone is allowed to do certain things. The thing is, certain actions are most likely to provoke reactions (consequences).
Being allowed to do something does not mean there are no reactions of consequences. Just means there are no drastic or official penalties.
Also, if one is sensitive to the opinions of others, then it is safer for them to keep distance from controversy.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Originally posted by Conniekat8
1. Post a controversy.
2. Hide your identity.
3. Wonder why it raised an eyebrow.
Does this really need a detailed explanation?
Also, it's not the matter whether someone is allowed to do certain things. The thing is, certain actions are most likely to provoke reactions (consequences).
Being allowed to do something does not mean there are no reactions of consequences. Just means there are no drastic or official penalties.
Also, if one is sensitive to the opinions of others, then it is safer for them to keep distance from controversy.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
I'm not sure which subject you're commenting on but there are some things in here I agree with.
I agree with you about reactions. Getting up on a soap box almost always will invoke reactions. Seems to me we are both prone to that.
As for the #1-3. I need a further explanation.
