r idea or to simply show the silliness of an argument in the sound and fury of life from the peanut gallery perception. Kind of like the dialogues of Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci.

This way if some one wants to criticize an idea, the originator of the original thought, has already beaten them to it with a fictitious or created person. Obviously the historic philosophers knew this and used this technique to their advantage and we sure see a lot of this scenario on Internet Forums in the present period. I know it sounds crazy, but it also helps the creator of the new innovation or concept with ability to think from outside the cave looking in at the projector and the viewers of the flickering light.

One can only imagine the string puller of the created fictitious debaters, as they can probably almost hear the critics in the background attacking themselves and each other. Now then bac

Have you ever participated in online communications and noticed that everyone is using made up pen names? Have you noticed that more and more people who email are concealing their names with fancy or meaningless email addresses? Well, meaningless to anyone else but the calling party that is. Have you noticed your attorney uses a rather sneaky type format of their real names? Is the whole world trying to conceal their identities? How can anyone know if any of it is real or not?

The Spammers of course use bogus names to try to entrap you into reading their wasteful ads, phishing scams or tempt you to their websites? Why is everyone afraid to just be them selves? Some say it is because nasty and vindictive people will use this knowledge against them if they show their true identity and they are afraid of personal or financial harm from a crazy computer user out there or some one stealing their identity?

Others have said that anonymity promotes more honesty into what someone is thinking and thus allows us all to say what we really mean without fear of retribution. Many very intelligent people use fake names, alias identities or “CB Handle” type digital names in online forums and instant messaging. If you look at the trend you will see that since the kids and teens all have portable communication devices of all types, that in the future it will be more the norm than someone using their true identity.

In online forums you never know who you are speaking with, it could be a PhD Professor, an entrepreneur or some street gang kid who now has access to a computer and a keyboard all of which have opinions about everything and will fight for their opinions online to prove a point. But why do they work so hard to argue a point for “Cruel Girl 87” or “Sonora Sunset 2001” after all no one really knows who in the hell that is?

It is intriguing this new trend in human communication and interesting that no one has studied the psychology behind it in regards to the future of civilization, society and individualism in the next 2-3 decades. In forums sometimes people will share a name and a pass work, other times folks will use multiple names. Regarding using two people with one name that is funny, as it keeps everyone guessing and indeed makes keeping a conversation or debate going somewhat interesting, as if arguing with a true schizophrenic. And as you read online forum debate threads from where they start and end up, it is fascinating the team building, personal attacks, compliments and peaking order that ensues? Are we not totally sure that the anonymity of all this is merely showing the innate human characteristics of mankind? That the primate politics of our socialization process has not really evolved all the much further even though we live in advanced civilizations instead of mud huts, Teepees, igloos and caves?

Well whatever the case anonymity on the Internet does propel thought and often allows for the ditching of political correctness, which could be said to be more honest even if it makes the most enemies, hurts the most feelings and challenges our belief systems. I myself can remember using two or three names before to discuss a concept or to pitch the other viewpoint without looking silly as if I was contradicting myself, which I often end up doing too in order to allow the reader to see all the different angles of a situation and relative truths of perception surrounding and argument? In this case one can come up with a totally new point of view or innovation and simply debate them selves in a forum to show the Devil's Advocate of a concept or idea or to simply show the silliness of an argument in the sound and fury of life from the peanut gallery perception. Kind of like the dialogues of Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci.

This way if some one wants to criticize an idea, the originator of the original thought, has already beaten them to it with a fictitious or created person. Obviously the historic philosophers knew this and used this technique to their advantage and we sure see a lot of this scenario on Internet Forums in the present period. I know it sounds crazy, but it also helps the creator of the new innovation or concept with ability to think from outside the cave looking in at the projector and the viewers of the flickering light.

One can only imagine the string puller of the created fictitious debaters, as they can probably almost hear the critics in the background attacking themselves and each other. Now then back

r identity?

Others have said that anonymity promotes more honesty into what someone is thinking and thus allows us all to say what we really mean without fear of retribution. Many very intelligent people use fake names, alias identities or “CB Handle” type digital names in online forums and instant messaging. If you look at the trend you will see that since the kids and teens all have portable communication devices of all types, that in the future it will be more the norm than someone using their true identity.

In online forums you never know who you are speaking with, it could be a PhD Professor, an entrepreneur or some street gang kid who now has access to a computer and a keyboard all of which have opinions about everything and will fight for their opinions online to prove a point. But why do they work so hard to argue a point for “Cruel Girl 87” or “Sonora Sunset 2001” after all no one really knows who in the hell that is?

It is intriguing this new trend in human communication and interesting that no one has studied the psychology behind it in regards to the future of civilization, society and individualism in the next 2-3 decades. In forums sometimes people will share a name and a pass work, other times folks will use multiple names. Regarding using two people with one name that is funny, as it keeps everyone guessing and indeed makes keeping a conversation or debate going somewhat interesting, as if arguing with a true schizophrenic. And as you read online forum debate threads from where they start and end up, it is fascinating the team building, personal attacks, compliments and peaking order that ensues? Are we not totally sure that the anonymity of all this is merely showing the innate human characteristics of mankind? That the primate politics of our socialization process has not really evolved all the much further even though we live in advanced civilizations instead of mud huts, Teepees, igloos and caves?

Well whatever the case anonymity on the Internet does propel thought and often allows for the ditching of political correctness, which could be said to be more honest even if it makes the most enemies, hurts the most feelings and challenges our belief systems. I myself can remember using two or three names before to discuss a concept or to pitch the other viewpoint without looking silly as if I was contradicting myself, which I often end up doing too in order to allow the reader to see all the different angles of a situation and relative truths of perception surrounding and argument? In this case one can come up with a totally new point of view or innovation and simply debate them selves in a forum to show the Devil's Advocate of a concept or idea or to simply show the silliness of an argument in the sound and fury of life from the peanut gallery perception. Kind of like the dialogues of Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci.

This way if some one wants to criticize an idea, the originator of the original thought, has already beaten them to it with a fictitious or created person. Obviously the historic philosophers knew this and used this technique to their advantage and we sure see a lot of this scenario on Internet Forums in the present period. I know it sounds crazy, but it also helps the creator of the new innovation or concept with ability to think from outside the cave looking in at the projector and the viewers of the flickering light.

One can only imagine the string puller of the created fictitious debaters, as they can probably almost hear the critics in the background attacking themselves and each other. Now then bac

o one really knows who in the hell that is?

It is intriguing this new trend in human communication and interesting that no one has studied the psychology behind it in regards to the future of civilization, society and individualism in the next 2-3 decades. In forums sometimes people will share a name and a pass work, other times folks will use multiple names. Regarding using two people with one name that is funny, as it keeps everyone guessing and indeed makes keeping a conversation or debate going somewhat interesting, as if arguing with a true schizophrenic. And as you read online forum debate threads from where they start and end up, it is fascinating the team building, personal attacks, compliments and peaking order that ensues? Are we not totally sure that the anonymity of all this is merely showing the innate human characteristics of mankind? That the primate politics of our socialization process has not really evolved all the much further even though we live in advanced civilizations instead of mud huts, Teepees, igloos and caves?

Well whatever the case anonymity on the Internet does propel thought and often allows for the ditching of political correctness, which could be said to be more honest even if it makes the most enemies, hurts the most feelings and challenges our belief systems. I myself can remember using two or three names before to discuss a concept or to pitch the other viewpoint without looking silly as if I was contradicting myself, which I often end up doing too in order to allow the reader to see all the different angles of a situation and relative truths of perception surrounding and argument? In this case one can come up with a totally new point of view or innovation and simply debate them selves in a forum to show the Devil's Advocate of a concept or idea or to simply show the silliness of an argument in the sound and fury of life from the peanut gallery perception. Kind of like the dialogues of Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci.

This way if some one wants to criticize an idea, the originator of the original thought, has already beaten them to it with a fictitious or created person. Obviously the historic philosophers knew this and used this technique to their advantage and we sure see a lot of this scenario on Internet Forums in the present period. I know it sounds crazy, but it also helps the creator of the new innovation or concept with ability to think from outside the cave looking in at the projector and the viewers of the flickering light.

One can only imagine the string puller of the created fictitious debaters, as they can probably almost hear the critics in the background attacking themselves and each other. Now then bac

ation process has not really evolved all the much further even though we live in advanced civilizations instead of mud huts, Teepees, igloos and caves?

Well whatever the case anonymity on the Internet does propel thought and often allows for the ditching of political correctness, which could be said to be more honest even if it makes the most enemies, hurts the most feelings and challenges our belief systems. I myself can remember using two or three names before to discuss a concept or to pitch the other viewpoint without looking silly as if I was contradicting myself, which I often end up doing too in order to allow the reader to see all the different angles of a situation and relative truths of perception surrounding and argument? In this case one can come up with a totally new point of view or innovation and simply debate them selves in a forum to show the Devil's Advocate of a concept or idea or to simply show the silliness of an argument in the sound and fury of life from the peanut gallery perception. Kind of like the dialogues of Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci.

This way if some one wants to criticize an idea, the originator of the original thought, has already beaten them to it with a fictitious or created person. Obviously the historic philosophers knew this and used this technique to their advantage and we sure see a lot of this scenario on Internet Forums in the present period. I know it sounds crazy, but it also helps the creator of the new innovation or concept with ability to think from outside the cave looking in at the projector and the viewers of the flickering light.

One can only imagine the string puller of the created fictitious debaters, as they can probably almost hear the critics in the background attacking themselves and each other. Now then bac

r idea or to simply show the silliness of an argument in the sound and fury of life from the peanut gallery perception. Kind of like the dialogues of Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci.

This way if some one wants to criticize an idea, the originator of the original thought, has already beaten them to it with a fictitious or created person. Obviously the historic philosophers knew this and used this technique to their advantage and we sure see a lot of this scenario on Internet Forums in the present period. I know it sounds crazy, but it also helps the creator of the new innovation or concept with ability to think from outside the cave looking in at the projector and the viewers of the flickering light.

One can only imagine the string puller of the created fictitious debaters, as they can probably almost hear the critics in the background attacking themselves and each other. Now then back to the pressing argument; is the anonymity of the Internet a positive thing for propelling thought and communication between diverse groups and independent minds? Does it show the true psychological nature of humans? Does it help us in being honest with ourselves? Or as some would say, is it tearing down the fiber and strength of society rather than strengthening our civilization. You decide, think on it.