I don't give out my last name, being the owner of a large trad Catholic forum.

Trad Catholics can be dangerous. I've had one try to LITERALLY ruin me completely. He wanted to see me and my family out on the street with absolutely nothing. Fortunately it wasn't within his power. He called my place of work, the chamber of commerce in the nearest town, etc. He tried to destroy me seven ways from Sunday.

I don't care who calls me a coward or less-than-a-man; I have to take precautions for my family's safety. Being the mod of one of the largest Trad Catholic fora is going to make you a certain number of enemies. I can't afford to give out enough info that my family can be affected or damaged on the whim of some enraged user that I had to ban.

My fellow parishioners seemed to figure out easily enough that Matthew at their chapel was Matthew on CathInfo -- 8 of them wrote to Fr. Rostand and had me and my wife fired from our volunteer positions. So I wasn't too anonymous, was I.

I guess what I'm asking is,

Is "Matthew of San Antonio" a sufficient identifier to remove anonymity?

It's not unmanly.

There are good reasons to keep one's identity secret.

Positions generally don't depend on the man, they depend on the truth.

So why should people interested in freely discussing a topic open themselves up to retaliation?  

I recall Bishop Williamson before mentioned that Passchendaele was stupid.

Well, giving up internet anonymity because someone thinks it's "unmanly" is stupid.

Quote from: Telesphorus

I recall Bishop Williamson before mentioned that Passchendaele was stupid.

Please elaborate. I'm not familiar with that big long P word.

In a conference he was making a point about the futility of going up against impossible odds. That the British were slaughtered at Passchendaele.

We don't all need to be "going over the top."  For the people who have to face potential consequences, it's not a good, and it accomplishes nothing other than to put a target on them.

It's pretty clear internet anonymity serves a very useful purpose for all people on the political right, as political correctness (including the SSPX version) will continue to intensify.  

The early Christians used symbols and signs to recognize each other.

Giving up internet anonymity is really about allowing people to strike back at critics.  

"Man up" and give out your identity is not the sort of practical advice that is needed.

If someone wants to do it, fine, but it's not something we need to be demanding of people.

I disagree with the premise that internet anonymity is unmanly for several reasons:


1. The comparison of exposing one's personal details on the internet with the early Christians is defective. The early Christians did make certain precautions, otherwise organised government would have been impossible. It should also be mentioned that the arians accused St. Athanasius of cowardice because he fled from their persecutions. He, however, defended his actions from Holy Writ and proved to them the distinction to be made between prudence and cowardice. Recall that there is mention, in Chapter 7 of the Gospel of St. John, of Christ making sure that He was not noticed when going to Jerusalem for a religious feast, because the time of His Crucifixion was not yet come.

I do admit that the line between prudence and cowardice is often blurred (false prudence), but that does not change the fact that a real distinction exists.

2. To make use of anonymity on the internet does not necessarily mean that one hides his doctrine in his daily life. A person may use an anonymous title on the internet, while boldly proclaiming the doctrine of Christ at his job before the infidels.

3. While it is true that anonymity might make some people more loose in writing things that they should not write, it is also true that many people should not be writing in public at all. Also, a real start to help people take account of what they write would be to provide them with the means to perpetually edit their posts, so that they can actually repair to a significant degree the damage that they have caused. In days less dark than these, authors of censured writings were compelled to remove them from distribution insofar that it was possible. Such salutary attempts to repair damage wrought are more often obstructed than succeeded in on the internet.

Simon Sheppard sits in jail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheppard_(activist)

I do not agree with all of his views, of course, but as the "gαy tide" rises, posting onymously (correct spelling) on the Internet may have its consequences here soon.  This is why I recommend using Tor:

https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

As an addendum to what I wrote earlier, making anonymous comments on the internet, for example, on the comments section of news stories, blogs, etc., as well as in the "Unregistered Guests" forum, is an entirely different kettle of fish--especially if you make comments that you would not be willing to make in front of your own mother.

In fact, this is always been my standard.  I do not write anything on the internet that I wouldn't personally tell my mother.  

A good standard.

This is certainly a grey area. I suppose using an anonymous name is a sort of freedom which can certainly be abused. If the spirit in which it is used is noble, for example, in the way TKGS uses his name and takes his remarks seriously, then it is a good thing. But like all freedoms, people can, and do, abuse them.