What would you do if CathInfo.com started requiring your true Christian and Surname (first and last name) as a new condition for continued membership on the forum?

For purposes of this poll, let's assume that the first and last name you give would be displayed publicly next to each of your posts as an image (not text) so Google couldn't read it. It would be right below your username on each of your posts.

Furthermore, please assume that the HYPOTHETICAL new terms of service would require that you claim that the name you give is your true first and last name. You wouldn't be required to swear an oath, but you would be required to FORMALLY STATE that such is your true first and last name.


Free free to discuss as well. But please don't forget to vote in the poll! 

I would be fine with it. 

There is currently nothing stopping anyone from signing up with first and last name, if they so choose.  The way I see it, requiring such would discourage participation and would push most topics to the anonymous forum.

For purposes of this poll, let's assume that the first and last name you give would be displayed publicly next to each of your posts as an image (not text) so Google couldn't read it. It would be right below your username on each of your posts.

Furthermore, please assume that the HYPOTHETICAL new terms of service would require that you claim that the name you give is your true first and last name. You wouldn't be required to swear an oath, but you would be required to FORMALLY STATE that such is your true first and last name.

P.S. Great discussion so far, but PLEASE don't forget to vote in the actual poll as well! It's very important.

Option 3: Comply by providing an alias.

Personally, I design my polls very carefully. 

In this case, I gave exactly 2 poll responses for very good reason: If such a change were made, those would be your only choices: comply and allow your "claimed" first and last name to be public next to each of your posts, or be forced to leave CathInfo.

There would be no "third" option. Doing nothing would eventually (in X days or weeks) result in your account being locked. So you'd effectively be choosing the 2nd option.

So please vote in the poll, as it is written.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but that isn't to be confused with academic or a waste of time. I created this poll for a reason.

No I wouldn't.

People like Steve Sailer, VoxClamantis and former member Ggreg would flourish on the forum and those with views that could get them fired or put their lives in danger would avoid joining. People only say un-PC things in public if they're false opposition and pro-Jєωιѕн (alt-right, suscipedomine and fisheaters types), nutters who have psychological disorders, or seasoned people of rare learning and education (Faurisson, Bishop Richard Williamson) who have deep-pocketed support networks. A huge reason for why the internet is so incredibly useful as an information exchange is anonymity (or near anonymity).

If people with un-PC views joined then you'd just have a bunch of fake names and maybe 1 or 2 genuine people with un-PC views (probably nutters) would use their real names. So I don't see how it would be worth it.

I'm simply too elusive to be giving my surname over CathInfo or any public forum.

Seeing as it is Sunday...

Here are the reasons Bishop Williamson gives for posting in your own name (or not posting at all), beginning at 16:35



Until this time, I posted as "Seraphim."

The next day, I asked Matthew to attach my real name to all my posts.

As regards some of the reasons given for remaining anonymous (e.g., exposing yourself to harassment; etc), it is admittedly true.

But if you really believe what you are posting is the truth, then it seems to me that that is worth absorbing a bit of artillery for, and the willingness to do so would then be pleasing to God (the only thing that really matters).

There is a price to pay for being a public truth-teller (lost friendships, social alienation, seeing your name dragged through the mud by some of your opponents; etc.), but I should think myself very low if I were to compromise my integrity and not tell the truth for fear of those repercussions (or for fear of those repercussions, fail to attach my name to my own opinions).

Believe it or not, a District official once told me that he respected me for posting in my own name (while objecting to nearly everything I say).

No doubt, he found it convenient for tracking purposes.

But at the same time, all these years later, I have still not been banned from my SSPX chapel (i.e., to be respected by your adversary counts for something), for which I am grateful.

In any case, if Mossad hit squads were going to take me and Matthew out, they sure are taking their time.

Bishop Williamson nailed it: Either put your name to what you say, or don't say it at all.

Our Lord needs men willing to stand up against the rise of the tide.

Without that, not much is possible: God hates a coward.

As an afterthought, it occurs to me that all the writers I most respect attach their names to what they write.