On posting etiquette and anonymity - Split from Why are Physics Speculations ....

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Speculations is also a forum where people come with the desire to be the next Great Inventor or the next Great Scientist, solving all the problems of the world with one brilliant idea.

 

We aren't beating the living daylights out of the people. But we do have a simple set of rules that say that you must use the Scientific Method.

 

yes.

 

Why can no admin administer the rules publicly as the police is doing this? They are afraid, but of what?

Since the begin of civilizations “rules” are misused by people above us to suppress everybody who is different.

One of the first physicist, Giordano Bruno, was burned alive, because he violated the rule “we are the middle of everything…”

Galileo was forced to deny his findings.

A unknown number of scientists is murdered, put in jails, in madhouses and their voices are silent.

If not that much (mostly by wars) people with knowledge had been silenced we would today certainly at least 1000 years further. (The millions of casualties of the great plague in the middle age in Europe could be avoided etc)

Communists killed systematically scientists, suppressed their ideas (except the military ones).

Did you know that the SSD in East-Germany was – and is still today out there to silent scientists? I was jailed after I showed an invention in TV! My college was put in a madhouse after he wrote a unique work about magnetic fields on the sun, what is not understood. Others had gotten a Nobel price. He was “treated” in a madhouse until he forgot everything and lost his mind.

And look around how much knowledge is today destroyed – even in the internet by people above us - Admins.

I have not to look far. I could easily write in English, if the only useable translation program “witchpen”, created by a physicist in Switzerland, would not had disappeared again.

(My old one works with windows 3.5 only).

There is not a single institution against the loss of knowledge on earth!

(Hopefully Google will do it. We have today such great storage that everybody on earth could write something what could be saved for 1000 years. )

 

 

 

......

 

 

Pers.....

Being aware that such individuals have carried their 'baby' for some time , I would have thought a bit of common decency , respect , and courtesy would win the day rather than " beat the living daylights out of each other" or the baby for that matter.

I can appreciate the need to thoroughly analyse the idea , critically examine, etc etc but not by

. " beating the living daylights out of each other "

 

The only hope for all suppressed scientist ( at least 100 000) is today a science forum to save their work for future generations. But what happens their? You can observe it live in every forum.

First Admins beat the living daylight out of them and ban them on the end.

The solution would be very simple. I work since 50 years in this way.

It has the structure of a pyramid.

One topic: every idea – no exceptions – is put in the lowest level of the pyramid.

The ones which get no response stay there.

Others move up.

All users let the best ones one level higher und so forth.

On top is mostly only one idea, which I then patented.

There are no names like speculations, trash etc and no trouble.

The entire community – not single Admins – moves something up or down.

Everybody starts – for instance – in the second level.

Then it will not happen that 2 rats talking to each other over the Atlantic is found under “science”

On the admin with the pistol:

Yes - Science is not democracy, but a forum society (how people treat each other) could be – should be.

How – I spoke

 

I hang out with scientists all day at work. Nobody gets upset when you shoot down an idea. Why? Because if you can shoot is down, IT'S WRONG. And pursuing ideas that are demonstrably wrong is a waste of time. They won't work. It doesn't matter that it seems to work in one or two examples that you thought of, because happy coincidences do happen. The trick is that when you're wrong, you want to be verifiably wrong, so you don't go a long way down some path that ultimately fails. You'd rather find that out early on.

 

Now,... the happy coincidence, and that's the opposite of how science works.

Oh God

I have never seen such pessimistic man. Now I understand why he can live only with a pistol in his hand. He has absolutely no idea how discoveries are done. He has no knowledge how many discoveries and invention came from “happy coincidences”.

We had not even insulin if there had been not a happy coincidence etc etc

 

He should read. But if he don’t and hate physicists like Einstein he is a hopeless case.

What is “demonstrably wrong” – obviously if he said so.

What time will be wasted – his?

 

But this man with the pistol is not alone. At the institute for experimental nuclear physics 1966 we had counters that heavy I could not lift one alone, but we could also set it as a clock – counting seconds.

I was always seeing in the future (the transistor was coming) and said: we could build digital clocks for everybody. I was immediately ridiculed, because “scientists like the man with the pistol” proved me immediately wrong and hit me like a lightning – beat the living daylight out of me. Nobody spoke with me anymore and had to leave the institute. Today – of course – know everybody that it has been only “a waste of time” to try manufacture digital clocks – as the man with the pistol and his colleges always stated.

 

In this forum the man with the pistol acts like a policeman shooting down any new idea he sees.

On the end he kills not only ideas - he kills your future!

Edited April 16, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Ringer]

This discussion reminds me of something a professor once said to me. "If you want to do science don't expect a pat on the back every time you do something right. In fact, just don't expect to do things right. Assume everything you're doing is wrong. You will be surprised at how often you're correct."

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

This discussion reminds me of something a professor once said to me. "If you want to do science don't expect a pat on the back every time you do something right. In fact, just don't expect to do things right. Assume everything you're doing is wrong. You will be surprised at how often you're correct."

Younger people should listen to the wisdom of decent older ones. The world will be a better place.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[swansont]

yes.

 

Why can no admin administer the rules publicly as the police is doing this? They are afraid, but of what?

Since the begin of civilizations “rules” are misused by people above us to suppress everybody who is different.

One of the first physicist, Giordano Bruno, was burned alive, because he violated the rule “we are the middle of everything…”

Galileo was forced to deny his findings.

A unknown number of scientists is murdered, put in jails, in madhouses and their voices are silent.

 

And what does this have to do with this site? Nobody here is jailed, burned alive or forced to recant under threat of death or even house arrest. All we ask is that you discuss using the protocols of science, and follow some rules to facilitate discussion.

 

 

 

The only hope for all suppressed scientist ( at least 100 000) is today a science forum to save their work for future generations. But what happens their? You can observe it live in every forum.

First Admins beat the living daylight out of them and ban them on the end.

 

We log our bans publicly, and give an accounting of the rules violations that lead to them. Most people who are banned are suspended first. They have amply opportunity to comply with the rules — very few offenses lead to immediate bans. It's posters who can't refrain from personal attacks, hijacking other people's discussions etc. that get banned.

 

On the admin with the pistol:

Yes - Science is not democracy, but a forum society (how people treat each other) could be – should be.

 

If that's what you desire, you are free to go set up your own forum.

 

 

 

How – I spoke

 

Oh God

I have never seen such pessimistic man. Now I understand why he can live only with a pistol in his hand. He has absolutely no idea how discoveries are done. He has no knowledge how many discoveries and invention came from “happy coincidences”.

We had not even insulin if there had been not a happy coincidence etc etc

 

I'm not talking of accidental, lucky discoveries. I'm talking about incorrect models that get a few answers right by accident. Phlogiston, for an historical example. The Bohr model, for another. You can't defend either one as being correct, even though phlogiston is consistent with some results and the Bohr model gets the energy values right.

 

 

He should read. But if he don’t and hate physicists like Einstein he is a hopeless case.

 

I don't know how you got the impression that I don't read or that I hate Einstein.

 

What is “demonstrably wrong” – obviously if he said so.

 

Demonstrably wrong: an experimental result that disagrees with the predictions of a model.

 

What time will be wasted – his?

 

If it's my idea, yes.

 

 

But this man with the pistol is not alone. At the institute for experimental nuclear physics 1966 we had counters that heavy I could not lift one alone, but we could also set it as a clock – counting seconds.

I was always seeing in the future (the transistor was coming) and said: we could build digital clocks for everybody. I was immediately ridiculed, because “scientists like the man with the pistol” proved me immediately wrong and hit me like a lightning – beat the living daylight out of me. Nobody spoke with me anymore and had to leave the institute. Today – of course – know everybody that it has been only “a waste of time” to try manufacture digital clocks – as the man with the pistol and his colleges always stated.

 

In this forum the man with the pistol acts like a policeman shooting down any new idea he sees.

On the end he kills not only ideas - he kills your future!

 

You can only kill an idea if you can demonstrate it's wrong.

[Ringer]

Younger people should listen to the wisdom of the older ones. The world will be better.

So you are saying I should follow the advice that is almost the same thing you argued against with swansont?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

So you are saying I should follow the advice that is almost the same thing you argued against with swansont?

I have never seen any wisdom from the man with the pistol - only beating.

He has no respect for other human beings, what would notice every kid.

Every kid learns whether somebody wants help like this professor, who had shown his face, or whether somebody shoots with a pistol at you from the dark - without never showing his face.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Ringer]

I have never seen any wisdom from the man with the pistol - only beating.

He has no respect for other human beings, what would notice every kid.

Every kid learns whether somebody wants help like this professor, who had shown his face, or whether somebody shoots with a pistol at you from the dark - without never showing his face.

Was that an answer?

 

Swansont is one of the most active and informative members on this forum, that you haven't seen wisdom from him indicates you haven't been looking. Also, personal insults don't really add anything but pettiness to the discussion.

[Phi for All]

I have never seen any wisdom from the man with the pistol - only beating.

He has no respect for other human beings, what would notice every kid.

 

I find it ironic that you talk of respect for other human beings, but can't be bothered to use swansont's username, and instead fixate on his Sean Connery avatar instead. You can't refute his logic, so you keep uselessly pointing out that James Bond has a gun.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

I find it ironic that you talk of respect for other human beings, but can't be bothered to use swansont's username, and instead fixate on his Sean Connery avatar instead. You can't refute his logic, so you keep uselessly pointing out that James Bond has a gun.

Since when is this Sean Connery? I see only a man with a pistol. Why will somebody put a false picture up? And why is not everybody using this right name? Then all the problems would be gone in an instant. He will never dare to do what he is doing right now. He show his face and I show respect. Tell me please, if this is his real name I will use it, otherwise it make no sence.

With his inappropriate objections and non-understanding he can’t earn any respect from me.

Otherwise this could be a wild computer I am talking to. This is the same as showing respect to a hat on a stick as it has happened in Switzerland (Kessler).

On the other hand, if it is really Sean Connery – respect!

What is going on there? You let me talk to a computer and everybody is laughing? Then I understand at least why he is repeating always the same wrong things without any change.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Ringer]

Do you believe that I am a naked GI Joe coming out of a pink cake?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Do you believe that I am a naked GI Joe coming out of a pink cake?

 

No, but you hide under the table - and of what are you afraid of?

Do you believe that from tomorrow on everybody is showing this real face and name like me and the few cordially decent people there?

[Ringer]

No, but you hide under the table - and of what are you afraid of?

I am mainly afraid of the undersides of tables, which goes against your whole proposition.

Do you believe that from tomorrow on everybody is showing this real face and name like me and the few cordially decent people there?

Is it necessary to attach my face to words for those words to have meaning? No, otherwise books and journals would be meaningless. Who cares what I, or you or anyone here, looks like. The anonymity allows constructive debate without perceptual biases coming into play. To assume people aren't cordially decent because they would rather have their avatar be 007, 18th birthday cake, etc. than a picture of themselves is not only idiotic, but flies in the face of most of this forum. You have been insulting, to say the least, in almost every thread you've been in, and there is, I assume, your picture. If showing your face and a$$ is cordially decent I would rather have my naked GI Joe.

 

If you want face to face interaction go to a conference.

 

[edit] I realize that English is not your native tongue, so in case you're not familiar with the saying 'showing your a$$' it means to look foolish.[/edit]

Edited April 17, 2013 by Ringer

[Bignose]

Why will somebody put a false picture up? And why is not everybody using this right name? Then all the problems would be gone in an instant.

Some of us feel protecting our identities is more important than providing public information that can be easily used against us -- identity theft is very real concern these days.

 

Besides, most of us, despite the pseudonyms and joke pictures can still be plenty civil.

 

And, I'm sorry, using your real name does not guarantee civility. We knew Osama Bin Laden's real name... THAT didn't work out too well.

[Ringer]

This can't work, because "only the anonymity allows constructive debate without perceptual biases coming into play"

That's not really an argument, at least I can't tell the point you're trying to make.

Forget the pic, but the right name was for centuries mandatory by any contact between humans. (Only the talking rats over the Atlantic use no names.) Anonymity like only people who like throwing stones on the one who shows his name and face. I have prove of it.

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences//retrieve/pii/S1364661313000661?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364661313000661?showall=true

 

I'll just leave this here.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Some of us feel protecting our identities is more important than providing public information that can be easily used against us -- identity theft is very real concern these days.

 

Besides, most of us, despite the pseudonyms and joke pictures can still be plenty civil.

 

And, I'm sorry, using your real name does not guarantee civility. We knew Osama Bin Laden's real name... THAT didn't work out too well.

identity theft because you post with your real name? Never heart of this. This may happen if you answer a false E-mail with your bank account etc.

I want only what I give by myself - a real name. Pictures are not necessary, but don't put a picture of another person up.

What would Sean Connery say to this? The man who hides behind him must have ask him. Otherwise it can’t be allowable. At least it shows a certain bad taste by this user. He wants intimitate his victims.

This are all excuses for something else, what nobody wants reveal.

 

That's not really an argument, at least I can't tell the point you're trying to make.http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences//retrieve/pii/S1364661313000661?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364661313000661?showall=true

 

I'll just leave this here.

i show you that your own words show no consistancy.

That’s all nothing compared what the SSD & KGB can do with you via anonymous Zersetzung (there is not even an English word for it. It is the most modern torture with scientific methods, special developed for the internet from the communists). And this is the naked, ugly reality.

[Phi for All]

With his inappropriate objections and non-understanding he can’t earn any respect from me.

 

I think you've made it clear that contempt is what you're interested in earning. swansont earned his respect thousands of posts and many years ago, and he continues to show every day that it isn't misplaced.

 

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and continue to show it every day you're here.

[Ringer]

I want only what I give by myself - a real name. Pictures are not necessary, but don't put a picture of another person up.

What would Sean Connery say to this? The man who hides behind him must have ask him. Otherwise it can’t be allowable. At least it shows a certain bad taste by this user. He wants intimitate his victims.

This are all excuses for something else, what nobody wants reveal.

So then why are you using an old picture? Are you hiding behind the old you? How do we even know that is really you?

i show you that your own words show no consistancy.

That’s all nothing compared what the SSD & KGB can do with you via anonymous Zersetzung (there is not even an English word for it. It is the most modern torture with scientific methods, special developed for the internet from the communists). And this is the naked, ugly reality.

You will show me this by replying nonsensically and creating a false equivalence. I have been showed. . .

 

I think you've made it clear that contempt is what you're interested in earning. swansont earned his respect thousands of posts and many years ago, and he continues to show every day that it isn't misplaced.

 

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and continue to show it every day you're here.

I find the funniest thing is that he said the pictures don't matter, if only real names were used. Apparently he doesn't realize how easily he could find Swansont's name. His entire argument against Swansont is baseless on the outset.

 

 

[edit]

Also, should this discussion maybe be moved to a new thread on anonymity? The current discussion has virtually nothing to do with the OP [/edit]

Edited April 17, 2013 by Ringer

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

I think you've made it clear that contempt is what you're interested in earning. swansont earned his respect thousands of posts and many years ago, and he continues to show every day that it isn't misplaced.

Ergo I was right with my prediction of rule No 1 he is always right.

How many posts must a user do that he is always right? 1000, 2000 or what number?

How many posts must a user do to get the title "Platzhirsch"

 

And what does this have to do with this site? Nobody here is jailed, burned alive or forced to recant under threat of death or even house arrest. All we ask is that you discuss using the protocols of science, and follow some rules to facilitate discussion.

 

 

 

 

We log our bans publicly, and give an accounting of the rules violations that lead to them. Most people who are banned are suspended first. They have amply opportunity to comply with the rules — very few offenses lead to immediate bans. It's posters who can't refrain from personal attacks, hijacking other people's discussions etc. that get banned.

 

 

If that's what you desire, you are free to go set up your own forum.

 

 

 

I'm not talking of accidental, lucky discoveries. I'm talking about incorrect models that get a few answers right by accident. Phlogiston, for an historical example. The Bohr model, for another. You can't defend either one as being correct, even though phlogiston is consistent with some results and the Bohr model gets the energy values right.

 

 

 

I don't know how you got the impression that I don't read or that I hate Einstein.

 

 

Demonstrably wrong: an experimental result that disagrees with the predictions of a model.

 

 

If it's my idea, yes.

 

 

 

You can only kill an idea if you can demonstrate it's wrong.

Wolfhart Willimczik said

 

Why can no admin administer the rules publicly as the police is doing this? They are afraid, but of what?

Since the begin of civilizations “rules” are misused by people above us to suppress everybody who is different.

One of the first physicist, Giordano Bruno, was burned alive, because he violated the rule “we are the middle of everything…”

Galileo was forced to deny his findings.

A unknown number of scientists is murdered, put in jails, in madhouses and their voices are silent.

The man who hides behind Sean Connery with the pistol said:

“Nobody here is jailed, burned alive or forced to recant under threat of death or even house arrest.”

The man with the pistol will only fire at him with senseless objections until he turns away in horror.

Then he will jail his entire work- or what?

 

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

The only hope for all suppressed scientist ( at least 100 000) is today a science forum to save their work for future generations. But what happens their? You can observe it live in every forum.

First Admins beat the living daylight out of them and ban them on the end.

 

We log our bans publicly, and give an accounting of the rules violations that lead to them

..and the rule No 1 is: the man with the pistol is always right…

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

On the admin with the pistol:

Yes - Science is not democracy, but a forum society (how people treat each other) could be – should be.

 

If that's what you desire, you are free to go set up your own forum.

A wink with the pistol to go?

 

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

Oh God

I have never seen such pessimistic man. Now I understand why he can live only with a pistol in his hand. He has absolutely no idea how discoveries are done. He has no knowledge how many discoveries and invention came from “happy coincidences”.

We had not even insulin if there had been not a happy coincidence etc etc

 

I'm not talking of accidental, lucky discoveries. I'm talking about incorrect models that get a few answers right.

 

This is a typical contradiction in terms you are working with as I already noticed.

A physicist know every model, every law has boundaries. If a model gets “a few answers right” than lets them do it. Only the boundaries must be set.

This would be an appropriate approach not what you are doing!

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

He should read. But if he don’t and hate physicists like Einstein he is a hopeless case.

 

I don't know how you got the impression that I don't read or that I hate Einstein.

By your statement regarding Einstein. You made numerous objections against me and it turned out you have not even read my article - nor understood anything.

Now you say you wont never understand a new idea – only attack it. One strange fellow above even liked it. You should go together.

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

What is “demonstrably wrong” – obviously if he said so.

 

Demonstrably wrong: an experimental result that disagrees with the predictions of a model.

And in your view - what is wrong, the model or the experiment?

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

What time will be wasted – his?

 

If it's my idea, yes.

I would like see your idea if you had ever one.

I have already 99 objections loaded…I

 

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 19:00, said:

But this man with the pistol is not alone. At the institute for experimental nuclear physics 1966 we had counters that heavy I could not lift one alone, but we could also set it as a clock – counting seconds.

I was always seeing in the future (the transistor was coming) and said: we could build digital clocks for everybody. I was immediately ridiculed, because “scientists like the man with the pistol” proved me immediately wrong and hit me like a lightning – beat the living daylight out of me. Nobody spoke with me anymore and had to leave the institute. Today – of course – know everybody that it has been only “a waste of time” to try manufacture digital clocks – as the man with the pistol and his colleges always stated.

 

In this forum the man with the pistol acts like a policeman shooting down any new idea he sees.

On the end he kills not only ideas - he kills your future!

 

You can only kill an idea if you can demonstrate it's wrong.

“Demonstrate” – not proven? You demonstrate a pistol – is this it?

Hier wendet sich der Gast mit Grausen

This turns the guest with horror

 

 

Do you see the disadvantage a have? I am in the bright light and show my face – you on the other hand are in the dark and you have a pistol in your hand or you use even another person to intimidate your victims…

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Wolfhart Willimczik

 

You have been warned before and you will not be warned again - you must stop attacking other members. Propose and support your theory as much as you desire, criticise and refute others' ideas to you heart's content, but do not, repeat, do not continue to insult, negatively characterize, or attack other members. This is not up for debate; this is rule 1a of our forum and continued breaches will lead to consequences. I have reported your posts in this thread and others for a staff discussion regarding their contents and possible further action.

 

[pwagen]

Took me about a minute to find a real life picture of what swansont looks like. Scary thing is, he was smiling!

 

No gun in that picture though.

[swansont]

I am reminded of a line from Star Trek:TNG, by Data. "Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing." I am fascinated by this fixation on things peripheral to the subject matter.

 

On the subject of anonymity of pseudonymity — I have no problem with it. My user name is my last name and first initial, so that's hardly anonymous and it's barely a pseudonym. People use my first name in many posts, and my work affiliation has been mentioned multiple times, and then there's also the connection to my blog and then to twitter. Anyone who considers my identity hidden is just being lazy or disingenuous. As far as the avatar goes, really? There are f@&$s to be given about that*?

 

People don't post here anonymously, they post pseudonymously. You may not know their name, but they consistently post under the same account so if you pay attention over time you will know their area(s) of expertise and the flavor of their opinions, if they share them. So what does it matter if they are called Bob Smith, or Gandalf472? (and carry an oh-so menacing staff in their avatar)

 

And just because I'm comfortable with not having a clever (or not clever) pseudonym, it's not up to me to tell someone else what their comfort level should be. People have legitimate reasons for hiding their IRL identity, and they don't need to justify any of them to anyone else, because it's nobody's business but their own.

 

*since my avatar is of an actor in a movie, it is almost certainly a prop gun. Anyone fixating on this is getting worked up over a toy.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Took me about a minute to find a real life picture of what swansont looks like. Scary thing is, he was smiling!

 

No gun in that picture though.

Took me about a minute to find a real life picture of what the victim looks like after

" beating the living daylights out of each other "

 

So then why are you using an old picture? Are you hiding behind the old you? How do we even know that is really you?You will show me this

 

 

I fulfill your demand. Here it is my live picture..

Now happy?

[michel123456]

Well Wolfhart, you look better on your avatar.

 

The discussion reminds me an old thread*. In the old Forum presentation in was possible for each member to have a picture profile different from the avatar, I don't know why it is not possible now. Also each member could have a album. I miss that.

 

* this thread.

[Phi for All]

Ergo I was right with my prediction of rule No 1 he is always right.

How many posts must a user do that he is always right? 1000, 2000 or what number?

 

Your methodology is obviously flawed. swansont feels you might be a valuable contributor to the site once you decide to stop feeling offended at every turn. I don't think he's right about THAT so your prediction fails.

 

How many posts must a user do to get the title "Platzhirsch"

 

Probably just one, if it's a really, really good post. We're more of a meritocracy here, as opposed to an obstreperous pack of wolves.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

I am reminded of a line from Star Trek:TNG, by Data. "Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing." I am fascinated by this fixation on things peripheral to the subject matter.

 

On the subject of anonymity of pseudonymity — I have no problem with it. My user name is my last name and first initial, so that's hardly anonymous and it's barely a pseudonym. People use my first name in many posts, and my work affiliation has been mentioned multiple times, and then there's also the connection to my blog and then to twitter. Anyone who considers my identity hidden is just being lazy or disingenuous. As far as the avatar goes, really? There are f@&$s to be given about that*?

 

People don't post here anonymously, they post pseudonymously. You may not know their name, but they consistently post under the same account so if you pay attention over time you will know their area(s) of expertise and the flavor of their opinions, if they share them. So what does it matter if they are called Bob Smith, or Gandalf472? (and carry an oh-so menacing staff in their avatar)

 

And just because I'm comfortable with not having a clever (or not clever) pseudonym, it's not up to me to tell someone else what their comfort level should be. People have legitimate reasons for hiding their IRL identity, and they don't need to justify any of them to anyone else, because it's nobody's business but their own.

 

*since my avatar is of an actor in a movie, it is almost certainly a prop gun. Anyone fixating on this is getting worked up over a toy.

It is not recognizable that this is your real name if others use some nonsense as names Mister and I go not play hide and seek to search for your real name.

It is not recognizable that the picture is not from yourself. It is too small to recognize anybody else, even if he is well known. You mislead any newcomer in this forum.

Contradictory to your behavior you demand that I make everything crystal clear to you

Why are you doing this? What is the purpose of this?

Are we here in Kindergarten?

Did you ever ask the person in your picture for permission to use it – better to misuse it?

And about anonymity are most the communists happy, because the former jailer etc can easily “treat” (say zersetzen) further their former victims, otherwise the victim would recognize him and report him to the police or FBI. Do you know that Wikipedia is full of former Stasi officers given all today a new directive? Nobody notices this.

 

what is "pseudonymously"?

By the way: every police man would shoot you with your toy gun, because it is not recognizable as one.

One make no jokes about it.

 

Your methodology is obviously flawed...

because I took your logic and made a extrapolation.

(and now I have to go to my physician again)