Good evening

I have been reading with interest with thread started by buggyite “More sniping in the history section (bits and bobs thread)” where the subject of forum anonymity has been discussed. I tried to post a reply but was unable to do so because the thread has been locked!

The topic of whether members should be forced to reveal their true identity is an interesting one which merits debate.

Prospective councillor NevClarke initially suggested it maybe time to open up the debate again but didn't think he was the right person to start it. One hour forty five minutes later, prospective councillor BarryRudd picked up the baton and stated “Anonymity must end on this forum.”

The response before the thread was locked:

Two members are strongly opposed to anonymity.

One member appears to be confused and changes his view with the wind. Firstly he's for anonymity, then he's against it and now he's for it. Some may say this is typical of a politician.

The majority of posters on this subject are against members revealing their true identities.

As many forum members have stated there is a very real danger in revealing your true identity on an open public discussion forum I decided to undertake some research work.

From a quick scan of recent Topic Starters it would appear there are only four forum members whose identity ( first name and surname) is revealed from their user name.

Of these four members one has indicated he would not be happy if his personal address was revealed, another member has made a recent post but has not specifically commented on this subject and another member has not posted recently.

The only forum member who appears to be very comfortable with being open about his identity is BarryRudd so I decided to do a quick internet search on him to see what information could be obtained and what dangers, if any, the information could pose.

The results of the search are as follows:

He doesn't live in Whaley Bridge.

His address is 8 *o**y **a* **y*n** c***h*** ***2 **A.

Middle name is **l***m

Date of Birth is 2*/*u**/1*5*

Telephone No.s 0***6 *5***3 and 0***5 8**9*8

email address **r**@**b*l**.co.uk

His car electronics business is *o***e*

He is an ex-professional soldier

He likes live music, the Purple Pakora, good beer and when drinking in Whaley can often be found in the Goyt Inn.

He originates from *r***o** Southeast London.

He is Chairman of Whaley Water Weekend

His dental records were compiled at 2 **e*n Dental Surgery, 2 **e* *a*k, *r***o**, *A* 4**.

There are numerous photo's. Here's just one example:

http://www.whaleybridge.com/2012/02/water-weekend-2012-fri-8-sat-9-sun-10-june/

It was my original intention to publish my findings in full but after listing the details I feel uncomfortable with showing them so I have concealed the exact details. Having said that, if anyone wanted the information they could find it very easily by searching themselves.

I assume Barry is comfortable with all this personal information being available on the internet but I must admit I was amazed at how much detail could be obtained within ten minutes. I don't know how accurate the information is but it's out there on the World Wide Web for all to see.

Barry is probably the only person who knows how accurate the results of the search are but this exercise has certainly reinforced my view that it is very foolhardy to reveal your identity on the internet and this is something I would recommend members don't do on this, or any other public forum.

Again, just to clarify.  I have no problem with anyone googling me (you'll find plenty going back a few years)  and my telephone number is on quarterly leaflets through most Whaley doors.  Nothing to hide and nothing to fear from identity theft from what's out there.

I do object on a point of principal, next time it could be someone else, when my address is just posted on a thread randomly as it was by Benga yesterday (since moderated by one of the moderators). 

I'm, not going back into the anonymity argument.  My view has never wavered, I just respect the right of others.to remain anonymous while the rules allow it.

Edited by user 30 January 2013 22:32:57(UTC)  | Reason: Last few words missing

Good afternoon prospective councillor BarryRudd, Well Known Norm and Chairman Jon.

Barry, I can confirm I did read your post #2 but as I initially found it very strange and didn't understand the content I chose to ignore it. However, after the posts from Well Known Norm and Chairman Jon The Whaley One I have read your comments again.

Firstly, I would like to thank you for stating you have absolutely no problem with the content of my original post even though some of the information I was able to obtain is out of date. I would also like to echo Snoopy's comments and thank you for admitting you extensively edited your original late night posting. Making a post and subsequently changing it at a later date is a practice that is not encouraged on this forum as it has caused many problems in the past.

I was not viewing the forum between the hours of 10.02 PM on Wednesday 30 January and 7.39 AM on Thursday 31 January so I am unable to comment on the content of your original post.

Barry, I must admit I still don't understand your post and perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the following questions to enable me and other forum members to understand what you are trying to say:

Are you suggesting I am party to some cosy arrangement with the forum moderators whereby they allow and encourage me to post under multiple ID's?

Who did you consult with between 10.02 PM on Wednesday and 7.39 AM on Thursday ?

Who are the people that matter and have witnessed the original text?

What do you mean when you say “you will deal with this matter in another way”?

You are, of course, under no obligation to answer these questions but by doing so I think you will help clarify your position.

Good morning Well Known Norm.

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

I will leave it in the hands of Chairman Jon The Whaley One to decide whether your contribution merits a prize.

It would not be appropriate for me to make further comment until Barry has had time to answer the questions and I will wait until he has responded before saying any more.

Yes Jon, I did not really expect Barry to put names on the site and I hope he contacts you. In fact he should contact you. The only slight problem with that is we may never know if his statement is true. I must admit I have never really noticed duplicates, except "he that can't be named" and Barry, but I don't look too hard.

Still no answer. I think the statements made by BR on this thread should either be proven or retracted with an apology. I am still at a loss to know who HE really is and after extensive research (2 mins in Google) I cannot find anything called fingerprinting on forums. Posts like the second one on this thread are certainly created by trolls.  

There has always been a reluctance of WB Town Councillors to use the WB forum. There has never been more than 2 regular contributors from that body of fine upstanding citizens who are there to represent us. The late Jake Walsh was a wonderful contributor and an extremely funny writer. Personally I really do miss the bloke. Then JonG took up the baton and has been equally as good a contributor as Jake was; he even turned out to be a poet of some note.

But I find it almost impossible to believe that such a wonderful forum is ignored by the rest of these people. It simply beggars belief.

Sources say that most Councillors hate it. Possibly they do. Why?

Are they totally uninterested in local issues raised on the forum? Do they not wish to know about the history of this lovely village? There have been things brought to light on here that nobody knew about. People have spent many hours searching out information on the different topics; I could tell you of things that I have heard of in the past but have no evidence to back these stories up but others have found out the information and put it on the WB forum.

I have no idea how much time and effort they put in to do that but they certainly did it.

So the Town Councillors became widely known as the Whaley Eleven; a quite proper and fitting description in my opinion.

But because these shadowy figures will take no part it has been left to others to fight their corner (although they were never in a corner at any time).

So enter and take a bow Prospective Councillors Barry Rudd and Neville Clarke both jumping in at any opportunity to defend these people.

Prospective Councillor Barry Rudd gets in such a state that he has identified Horwich Ender as a multiple name user on the forum; he has identified him via a fingerprinting method that he seems to have invented. I don’t know why but I think Prospective Councillor Rudd may have ‘fingerprinted’ Horwich Ender and put two and two together and come up with the answer R. S-S.

If that is what he thinks he is completely wrong. I have no idea who Horwich Ender is but I think he is just about the best contributor to this forum.

When asked just what he is insinuating Prospective Councillor Barry disappears like a magician’s stooge.

Prospective Councillor Neville Clarke gets in such a muddle when the anonymity subject is raised.

In one thread alone he is for it then he’s against it and shortly after he is for it again. And yet he says his opinion on anonymity has never changed.

An individual has not only been tolerated by these people despite him being banned more than 20 times but he is actively encouraged by them. They must know, if they have any sense at all that this person has been out to destroy the forum and yet he has been manna from heaven for them

So I think there has been a concerted effort by these and a couple of others to close the forum down. I think they are very close to achieving their goal. So very well done to them. I would imagine that they are very proud of themselves and it could be just the first step on to the Council ladder and a great addition to their CV’s.

So let us stand and raise a glass and certainly a round of applause is called for.

I suppose they would call it democracy. I would call it something else.

R. S-S

Edited by moderator 10 February 2013 22:31:03(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified