By John Hubbuch
How lame is someone who won't identify himself in an internet posting to a local newspaper? To be sure there is ample precedent for secrecy. Lewis Carroll was really Charles Dodgson. The great George Orwell was really Eric Blair. George Eliot and George Sand were women. Thomas Payne signed "Common Sense" as "written by an Englishman" lest he be executed as a traitor. Salman Rushdie probably shouldn't have identified himself.
But the people who don't identify themselves in an internet posting are much closer to those who write on the walls of bathrooms ,or whisper the lie that Mary had sex with Johnny. I speculate as to why a poster wouldn't identify himself. The most likely is that the author knows the post is so wrong or over the top that he or she is embarrassed to identify themselves. Or they are afraid that the offended party will punch them out. Oh, if only the duel had not be banned! Or the author can put out completely bogus facts, and no one can really call them out because they are just a virtual person---not flesh and blood, but a bunch of irresponsible, unaccountable electrons.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it just seems like the right thing to take resposibility for your thoughts, beliefs and opinions when you share them with your community.
On a related point, what does "Facebook Verified" mean? Is that like absolute truth? Is it painful? Does it cost money? Sign me "Oak Park Luddite"