Knock It Off with the Posting Under Your Own Name Stuff

Just a quick thought as I have encountered this several times and saw it again tonight as I was reviewing some comments on the site. Some people have to let go of this personal attack about not posting under your real name. It is a childish way to attack someone when you know darn well that posting under one’s own name carries inherent risk. Allow me to share a quick story with all of you that solidified my position and reinforced that I made the right decision to do so myself…

A good friend of mine writes a political blog. He is a staunch Libertarian and he regularly writes articles that rip apart the positions of both the Republicans and the Democrats. He writes under his real name.

Last year he was out of a job after his company downsized. He hit the market to find another. He applied for a job with a mid-size company (roughly 5k employees) and was granted the interview. He interviewed and everything went great. They loved him. They called the next day to offer him the position and a good salary.

Two days later they called him and rescinded the offer. The recruiter informed him that they had done a google search on his name, found his blog, read it, and disliked what he had to say about “their” party (which happened to be the GOP in this instance).

So what fool, in today’s tough job market, would voluntarily write on such a controversial and emotional topic such as politics and use their own name. In today’s world, the google search during the job process has become standard practice. I do it when I hire people. So you would have to be a complete idiot to limit your own opportunities by putting your thoughts out there for potential employers to find.

Let me tell you, the people where I work don’t even know I write anything political or what my blog is. I don’t think they would have a problem with it, but I cannot be positive. I can’t risk my livelihood in order to satisfy some ridiculous standard that I must write under my real name or be labeled a hypocrite or a coward.

It isn’t cowardice. It is smart decision making in the new labor environment that we are forced to operate in. I would think that those who despise corporations so much and label them constantly as willing to screw the working man, would have some semblance of understanding this risk and thus understanding why so many of us make the choice we do to post under something other than our real names.

So knock it off. This has been explained many times here at SUFA. Continuing to expect that it will be explained each time you choose to level this baseless claim is counter-productive. If you think someone is a moron, that is one thing. But in this case, the reasons for protecting one’s privacy are self evident in a country where privacy is a shrinking commodity.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I agree.

  2. Yep. I probably made a mistake when I started writing under my own name. On the other hand, due to the requirements for getting an official job these days, I’m not sure I could submit low enough to get hired in any case.

    Maybe someday all my writing and rabble-rousing will pay off and make me rich… or not so abjectly broke, anyway. LOL.

    If you can keep your anonymity, do it. Regardless of what anyone thinks.

  3. Being both obnoxious and disliked by many I have chosen to come out publicly.Of course, I am retired but one never knows when that call may come in from the White House to take over some important post.

    • If it was only White House positions I was worried about, I wouldn’t worry about concealing my identity. I don’t want to work for the asshats from either side of the political aisle anyway 🙂

  4. So what fool, in today’s tough job market, would voluntarily write on such a controversial and emotional topic such as politics and use their own name. In today’s world, the google search during the job process has become standard practice. I do it when I hire people. So you would have to be a complete idiot to limit your own opportunities by putting your thoughts out there for potential employers to find.

    Complete idiot or someone who stands by their principals? That latter consider the former hypocrites, actually … especially when they “claim” to love liberty so much and so often. For the record, I continue to work two jobs and haven’t had an issue being a Plutonian once yet on any job I’ve left. Is it just the wingnuts who have to fear the “new labor environment that we are forced to operate in” … there goes that paranoia again.

    It isn’t cowardice. It is smart decision making in the new labor environment that we are forced to operate in.

    “We are forced” … sounds like a slave to labor to me. Thanks for clearing that up once and for all.

    So knock it off. This has been explained many times here at SUFA. Continuing to expect that it will be explained each time you choose to level this baseless claim is counter-productive. If you think someone is a moron, that is one thing. But in this case, the reasons for protecting one’s privacy are self evident in a country where privacy is a shrinking commodity.

    No need to address the entire (17 or so ) people who comment here, USW. I’m the one who points to the hypocrisy of pseudonyms on a site touting liberty and freedom. While I agree posting can be used against one in many ways, jobs included, it is kind of silly and hypocritical that it’s done so on a site where the champion cause is freedom and liberty. Look up above at your own statements (“we are forced” etc.). Used in context with unemployment, i think you make my (and Marx’s) point regarding slaves of labor.

    At least feel free to address the comments to the one who makes them (moi). Seriously, I take no offense and fear no retributions. And I don’t expect explanations … or this never-ending excuse for anonymity … nor will I stop making what I consider a very valid claim (I don’t consider it baseless at all; seems pretty accurate to me) …

    • Charlie,

      Do you enjoy being obnoxious or can you just not help yourself? Just because you don’t agree with USW’s reasoning for staying anonymous does not mean that his reason is not valid. It doesn’t mean that liberty and freedom really don’t mean anything to him. You should apply your reasoning to his actions, they are HIS actions not yours. You do waht you need to do in order to function in your world and he does what he needs to in order to function in his. Who are you to judge?

      • Oh, this page .. okay, let’s see … Kristian … the guy called me an idiot. Is that obnoxious? If you don’t think so, than you’re an idiot (and I feel sorry for you).

        “Only an idiot would ….”

        Well, let’s see … my politics are public … does that make me an idiot if “only an idiot …”?

        The fact he does it in such a vague way is kind of cowardly as well, but I’m okay with that (maybe he has another reason for addressing me without doing so directly). He might be trying to be polite. I don’t mind it either way, single me out using my name or keep it vague. I’m fine, no problem.

        I’ve said it a million times, pal … I counterpunch. While i have total respect for everyone on this site, I won’t be buldozed by anybody here … especially those using fugazy names. If you can’t handle that, tough shit, buddy.

        As for USW, I happened to actually have met him. Nice guy … we don’t agree politically … so it goes. I know who he is and would never use his name publicly.

        So, bada-boom, bada-bing, my friend. Bada-boom, bada-bing.

        Time to grow up.

        • @Charlie…

          My “only an idiot…” statement was not calling you an idiot. It was meant to be a general statement. And I understand that you only see you making that comment here. But there are actually quite a few that read here and never say a word. The reason I wrote what I did actually wasn’t really in response to you, it just so happened that you made that statement to JAC and earlier in the day I had heard it directed at me. It was in response to someone on Facebook making the claim directly to me (despite the fact that on Facebook I was actually talking to them using my real name).

          So if you believe I was being vague out of cowardice, that is OK. But I think we have learned in the past that if I have something to say that I believe should be directed at you, I don’t have an issue writing a whole article mentioning you by name 🙂 So when I don’t mention you by name, it isn’t cowardice, it is because I am not directing it only to you. I appreciate that you gave me some benefit of the doubt in this particular part of your statement.

          I know you don’t generally take things personally, so I am not overly concerned that I have offended you in some way. I just wanted to explain so that you understood why I wrote the piece the way I did and so that you know when I made the idiot statement I meant it generally and wasn’t attempting to back-handedly call you one. For the record, if I think you are being an idiot, I will just say Charlie you are being an idiot 🙂

          Also for the record, I don’t think it is hypocritical at all. I think it is actually pretty reasonable to talk about the fact that we need more liberty and freedom in this country while at the same acting in a manner to protect myself from that fact that we DON’T currently have the freedom and liberty to even write politically without potential backlash. What I do believe is that attacking the messenger isn’t a valid way to combat the validity of the message. If you disagree with me, which you often do, that’s cool and we can discuss the validity of what I say. But going off and calling me a hypocrite simply because I take measures to protect myself won’t win any debate points 😉

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie,

      The founding fathers of this nation distributed pamphlets on liberty and freedom under pseudonyms to avoid persecution and prosecution by the British Colonial Authorities. So, as such, we here at SUFA are merely following in the traditions of the founders of this country.

      Get over it, and get over yourself.

  5. Sorry, go ahead of myself, you should NOT apply your reasoning to to his actions because they are his actions and not yours.

  6. I’ve become one of the more infrequent posters here – thought I’d add just a little on this topic. I do somewhat agree with Charlie on this one – it just seems incredibly strange to me that for all the years of discussion and debate about freedom and liberty – the core of those beliefs is not powerful enough to not hide behind a pseudonym. I just don’t understand it. To me – there exists a space where you can openly and freely express yourself without fear of reprisal from a current or potential future employer. A line must be toed from time to time such that you don’t knowingly violate company policy yet you can still opine sourced from your collective life experiences. I get it that employers can search on you and find interesting things – for the record – there is at least one public web site that lists the name of the author of SUFA, with his pseudonym and the name of this blog. It was at all difficult to find. Tools like Maltego can take that even further. I’m just not so sure there are that many people being denied jobs or being punished for their online lives.

    So there ya go – I’ll no longer harangue folks for using pseudonyms – and have not in a long time. It just doesn’t add for me.

    Cheers!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Ray

      Here is what I see as the flaws in the argument you make.

      First is the difference between holding a principle and being rational about the situation one finds them self. We live in an age where people retaliate against others if they view their political affiliations or positions at variance with their own. There is also the issue of information sharing and how that can be viewed by Govt and its enablers as a “danger to the state”. This is the reality.

      So if someone wants to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty but stands a good chance of being silenced or harmed if they use their name, then REASON and LOGIC would dictate they should use a false name. How does that harm or belittle the principle of freedom and liberty? If anything it should bring it into clearer focus. We should be concerned that people who stand for these principles feel “threatened” in anyway for speaking out in their favor. I realize that the fear may be over blown for many, but it is certainly real for some. So why risk it if your name is meaningless to the debate?

      How do you apply your criteria to the likes of WikiLeaks or Anonymous, or some of the other whistle blower web sites? Is there really a difference between them and any individual who feels they could be threatened for sharing their ideas publicly?

      I’ll add one more sub-part to this. Many of those who use their names openly on political type blogs WANT to be noticed personally. I am speaking here of those who have grabbed the “talking head” microphone and those who wish they could.

      Second is the notion that a person is “hiding” behind a false name with respect to any discussion. The “hiding” comes from the forum of the “internet” itself, not the use of a name. Any person can be as obnoxious as they want on the internet because it eliminates the face to face reaction and social constructs we have for civility. So how is using a false name hiding anything? All it can hide is the person’s actual identity. The person is already hidden by the internet itself.

      Which gets us back to number 1.

      I would like to remind you, and others reading, that I have shared my personal reasons for using a false identity. They are a little more complicated than some who use this tactic. But part of that reason is in fact my concern for retaliation. Not necessarily against me, but those whom I care about. I see that threat as REAL in this political age where it seems the goal is to “destroy” the person who could pose a threat to your ideology rather than debate them on their merits.

      Do I not have a responsibility to protect others who could be harmed when they have not given me permission to drag them into the fight? Just because they don’t have the gumption to expose themselves is not reason for me to expose them. It seems I have an obligation to honor their desire to remain nameless.

      • I have suffered personally due to someone finding my writings online. It caused a financial loss that I couldn’t afford and almost cost me more than just money. If I had continued being anonymous it wouldn’t have happened. For those who say it doesn’t happen, I say: just wait.

        • @Kent – I believe it does happen – but the commonality of it as I interpret USW and JAC presenting it I disagree with.

          I enjoy what you write and read your stuff on a regular basis. Assuming the content you are referring to incident-wise was similar – it’d disappoint me greatly that someone would see fit to punish you in any way for it.

          • @Ray – It wasn’t any one particular thing I wrote- it was someone who discovered my website and/or blog and backed out of an agreement we had already made- and that I had already committed myself to, financially and otherwise. And he proudly considered himself an American Patriot for doing so.

            I have had some amusing threats since then, but I’m just such a nice person when you meet me in the flesh that nothing has ever come of it. Or maybe it’s because I look scary. Or a little of both… Not sure.

        • Kent: I’ve said it a million times (maybe 20 or so … 10?) … I agree, there can be and are backlashes to using one’s name … but that doesn’t change the fact a site dedicated to freedom is inherently hypocritical when it’s core members (or commenting) comes from fugazy names. Do I think everyone who does it is a coward? No. Do I think some are. You bet your ass I do. Do I still think it’s hypocritical in all cases. Absolutely. Doesn’t make you a bad person to do so … just a fugazy (or, I think the name on the Internet is troll or some such thing). So it goes.

  7. @ JAC – greetings – thought I felt a stick poking me…..

    “Here is what I see as the flaws in the argument you make.

    First is the difference between holding a principle and being rational about the situation one finds them self. We live in an age where people retaliate against others if they view their political affiliations or positions at variance with their own. There is also the issue of information sharing and how that can be viewed by Govt and its enablers as a “danger to the state”. This is the reality.”

    Good point. Put another way – one could hold a principle and then be irrational about the situation one finds them self relative to the holding of and actualization of that principle. Do we live in an age where people retaliate against others if they view their political affiliations or positions at variance with their own? I don’t know. That is a squishy question to ask or position to hold. I suppose it happens. But is that retaliation more in the form of online communication (e.g. hateful mean-spirited blog posts) versus something more direct, tangible? I’d probably feel more at risk if I wore a Philadelphia Eagles jersey to a Eagles-Giants game at the Meadowlands. As for information sharing and the Government and its enablers…….well, hold on here. Do I believe my blog postings can be cross referenced against multiple other databases and a profile drawn up of me? Sure. I know the Secret Service has SCIFs and they put customized black boxes on the wire through providers like Comcast and Verizon. I chose personally not to fear the sum of that relative to who I am online – but that is just me – I have no logical reason to expect something negative to happen to me because I have done nothing wrong.

    “So if someone wants to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty but stands a good chance of being silenced or harmed if they use their name, then REASON and LOGIC would dictate they should use a false name.”

    How are you calculating “a good chance”? Its seems to be without reason and without logic to not apply facts or history (inclusive of probability and likelihood) when making that calculation.

    “How does that harm or belittle the principle of freedom and liberty? If anything it should bring it into clearer focus.”

    I don’t think it harms or belittles. Some people that fight for those things stand in front of the rest, those who do not aren’t belittling it. I just question if they are all doing it for the right reasons.

    “We should be concerned that people who stand for these principles feel “threatened” in anyway for speaking out in their favor.”

    I am concerned – I just try to understand all the reasons why. As I have done that it just seems they may feel unnecessarily threatened.

    “I realize that the fear may be over blown for many, but it is certainly real for some. So why risk it if your name is meaningless to the debate?”

    Weigh the likelihood – that’s all I am asking.

    “How do you apply your criteria to the likes of WikiLeaks or Anonymous, or some of the other whistle blower web sites? Is there really a difference between them and any individual who feels they could be threatened for sharing their ideas publicly?”

    I’m not sure what you are asking here – I don’t support maintaining anonymity of criminal behavior.

    “I’ll add one more sub-part to this. Many of those who use their names openly on political type blogs WANT to be noticed personally.”

    Really? Maybe. Maybe not.

    “I am speaking here of those who have grabbed the “talking head” microphone and those who wish they could.”

    I don’t know what you mean.

    “Second is the notion that a person is “hiding” behind a false name with respect to any discussion. The “hiding” comes from the forum of the “internet” itself, not the use of a name. Any person can be as obnoxious as they want on the internet because it eliminates the face to face reaction and social constructs we have for civility. So how is using a false name hiding anything? All it can hide is the person’s actual identity. The person is already hidden by the internet itself.”

    Unless you’re using Tor (and even that is questionable imho) most are NOT hidden.

    “Which gets us back to number 1.

    I would like to remind you, and others reading, that I have shared my personal reasons for using a false identity. They are a little more complicated than some who use this tactic. But part of that reason is in fact my concern for retaliation. Not necessarily against me, but those whom I care about. I see that threat as REAL in this political age where it seems the goal is to “destroy” the person who could pose a threat to your ideology rather than debate them on their merits.”

    JAC – I don’t really recall the specifics as to why you chose a false identity. I think highly of you that’d you consider the **potential** impact to others from your online behavior. Its not that I do not consider that with respect to my own family, I just don’t consider an event at all likely based on my assessment of the risk.

    “Do I not have a responsibility to protect others who could be harmed when they have not given me permission to drag them into the fight? Just because they don’t have the gumption to expose themselves is not reason for me to expose them. It seems I have an obligation to honor their desire to remain nameless.”

    I understand what you’re saying, just not sure that threat assessment is rooted in rational or logical thinking. Then again, I believe you choose more volatile forums to engage a higher frequency of unbalanced people. To that I’d question your sanity – but hey – to each his own.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Ray

      I agree with you in that most people who are concerned about retaliation really have nothing to fear.

      The probability obviously differs for each person depending on their circumstances and what they are discussing.

      My comment about some wanting to be recognized was aimed at folks like Malkin, Taibi and others who were essentially unknown until they got going in the blogosphere. Hell, even Huffington herself was pretty much irrelevant until HPost got going. I run into people who I think would like to reach those same heights. Eric Erickson would be one from the “right wing” who came to fame via his commentary on the internet. I was careful to not use the word “most” but “many”. I have no idea how many, but I certainly see some that appear to fit this description.

      One of those is ME. But I do not want to be famous. I want the IDEAS to be famous, or infamous depending on your viewpoint. That was another reason for my anonymous signature.

      In my case I did weigh the probability of retaliations and I took it very serious. The reason is that I get inside information from people in Federal and State Govt who sit pretty high up. Not as high as some others here know, but high enough that they could be hurt if they were connected to my using that information. The reason is that MY name is known in certain circles and it is easily associated with these people.

      So if I used some of this information in a reckless manner and the wrong person saw it, they could connect ME to the potential sources quite easily. Now here is the kicker. At least one of the “wrong persons” has visited SUFA in the past. I made a direct comment to them in a way that let them know I knew them personally but without letting them know who I was. They did not comment again here, but I have no way of knowing if they monitored the site after that.

      Just wanted you to know I am not being arbitrary and don’t suffer from undo paranoia. If SUFA lasts I expect I will reveal my real name in a year or so, as most of the people I know in Govt are near retirement. This will eliminate the danger to them but it will dry up my sources of current “gossip”. But that is a price that is perhaps worth paying at this stage in life.

      On the other hand, you are not alone in questioning my sanity. At times I myself question my hanging out with the “wild things”. But it is good exercise and I do find some rational people once in awhile. Some have come here to visit but so far have not participated. I will keep trying.

      Live free my friend.

    • Ray,

      Do you believe that I, with my radical philosophy of non-violence, freedom and anti-state ….would not subject me to intense, real life violence at my home?

      How many times have I been threatened on forums for my non-violent ideas!

      It is real – it is a threat, and my family doesn’t deserve it.

  8. Romney agrees, Obama won … horses and bayonets … loved it.

  9. My two cents. I have always used my real name where possible. Only when I worked for the City of NY would I use an Alias especially is I were writing a letter to the editor in opposition to Company policy.

    On the tenth anniversary of the end of he Vietnam war, 1985, the entire first page of the opinion section of “the Bergen Record” was given over to a staff writer on a Sunday close to Memorial Day. The article was the equivalent of spitting in the face of everyone who served in Vietnam. Essentially he was comparing the actions of ALL US troops to the SS. I’m not kidding. Here is a guy, roughly my age who was not in the military, quite probably an anti war activist and he writes this piece about mindless, robotic US stormtroopers.

    I stewed over that piece for days and then wrote my letter to the editor. I must say, it was probably the finest thing I have ever written. While I would never excuse a Lt. Calley, under any circumstances and was outraged by both his sentence and presidential pardon, the vast majority of those i knew who served in Vietnam served with honor. A few I knew were wounded because they did not fire when they should have. In any event, the paper printed almost everything I wrote except one paragraph. They called me for verification and wanted to know if I wanted to use anonymous. If my brothers could risk their lives in Vietnam, the least I could do, 10 years later, is use my own name.

    After the letter was published ,since Trynosky is not a terribly common name in NJ and I am in the phone book, I received three calls. Two were from Vietnam vets, both were crying.They too were outraged at the article but felt I had put what they felt in better words than they ever could. The third, mistakenly believing me to have been in Vietnam rather than just in the Army at the time, actually called me a baby killer, hoped that I never had a peaceful nights’ sleep and wished that I die a long painful death. I was lucky to engage him in conversation for a few minutes. No, of course he had never served in that unjust and immoral war. The 55,000 who died all got what they deserved. I then asked him who he was and where he lived. He, I thought, almost told me. I was that reasonable though seething on the inside. Finally he asked why. I said, simple I want to come visit you, I want you and I to go out in the street and I would try with all my effort to make you eat your words. I think I finally said, “put up or shut up” before he hung up.

    When I told my wife what I had done, she almost killed me. I had four kids the youngest not yet two and what if this guy decided to visit us with a firebomb? Got to admit she had a point, psychos are psychos. So, I think there is a very real risk. One of the reasons I use Sr. on most postings is not to be confused with the just as verbose Jr. He is a Major in the Reserves and a Federal employee. We have been mistaken for each other in the past. In this day of Google searches, punch us up and I can be confused with the lawyer from U Buffalo who worked for Homeland Security for a while. Him, poor kid, can be confused with his rather insane father. Probably why his new son is not SKT III. So, I think that if you really fear retribution and you are not some 65 year old crank, I will give you a pass, SO LONG AS WHAT YOU SAY IS REASONABLE. Wish me dead, call me a baby killer and you are nothing but a yellow, sniveling, pants wetting two bit coward whose ass I would dearly love to kick.

    Now, back to the “Bergen Record”. I wrote a long letter and I gave chapter and verse . All was printed except the last paragraph. What was in there that they could not quite fit? Well, in ’85, Ted Koppel and “Nightline” spent a full week on Vietnam actually in Southeast Asia. On the final night two interesting things happened that will stay with me until the dirt drops in the grave over me. First, the prime minister of Malaysia spoke to Koppel. He thanked the American people for sending their sons to hold the line and give his country (which already had a Communist insurgency in the ’50’s) time along with other countries in the region to prepare themselves to resist insurgency and outside aggression. (The domino theory, you think?). Then, Le Duc Tho, party leader and one of the big three in No. Vietnam besides Ho and Giap spoke to Koppel. Though he can speak English well, he spoke in French. The translation, which made my jaw drop, involved his thanking all those in the US who had protested the war and made the North Vietnamese victory possible. That folks is what he actually said. I swear it and you probably could get a transcript. The last line I wrote in my letter to the paper and the author of the offensive article after quoting exactly what I just gave you was, “Mr X, consider yourself thanked”. Still feel that way today.

    • Stephen: I might be missing something here. Standing up for liberty and freedom (the assumed purpose of this site in my opinion) requires (again in my opinion) people to stand up for themselves first.

      No disrespect intended, so please don’t take it the wrong way, but I’m not sure I understand you last comments (when your jaw dropped). Were you happy Le Duc said or upset?

      Monday morning QBing isn’t fair, but I have no choice but to do so at this point. The war was pretty pointless … and these last two wars of ours are seeming more and more as pointless every day. It’s why I absolutely favor a draft, so more thought goes into these absurd decisions … speaking of which, I wonder how you feel about Mr. Romney and his 5 wonderfully patriotic offspring and all they’ve done in defense of their country … we know dad chose the beaches of France to wait out the war he protested in favor of … none of his five boys have served … maybe they had good reason (like they were against them), but it doesn’t seem that way. They seem very anxious for others to fight those wars for them. Where do you stand on that? Does Mr. Romney get a pass because he’s not Obama or is there some other reason?

      • You are too young. There were two “myths” perpetrated by the US left during the war. One was that there was no NVA (North Vietnamese Army) in the South, it was all the indigenous VC. The second was that the anti-war activists in the US, were not pro North Vietnam. One of my sons once had an argument with me because of what his professor in college told him. I explained that during the protests in DC the North Vietnamese flag was carried as it was in demonstrations I had seen. I had to actually show him pictures. So, when Le Duc Tho finally said what he did, the truth was out. That rumor that there was coordination between our left and North Vietnam was now a bit more than a rumor, not that anyone cared anymore.

        Of course I am not happy with Romney’s sons. I have three, three served. I have eight uncles, plus my Dad who served. I served myself. Romney gets a pass because Clinton got one. The Mormon missionary thing is quite real and allows a temporary exemption. I served with Mormons also who came in two years after because of the exemption they received. Married guys initially got exemptions and then later in the war, this was revoked and you had to have a kid.Graduate studies got exemptions for several years but two friends of mine were drafted in their final year of grad school. Knew one guy whose rich dad bought a small defense plant, appointed his son CEO who then got an exemption as an “essential” war worker. know other guys who would find a sympathetic anti-war doctor who found something wrong with them. Know guys who went to the physical stoned to get exempt, claimed psychological illnesses to get exempt, became cops, firemen and teachers to get exempt (and then left the professions when the war ended). When Joe Naimith was exempted for his very real knee injuries, it infuriated my dad. A real sympathetic, easy going guy, he had finally had enough and when he threw the paper down in disgust said, “Can’t they at least find a typewriter for these guys?” If you have a draft, there should be NO exemptions. You always need guys to count blankets and peel potatoes.

        Again my point is if you stand up publicly you are taking a risk depending on who and what you are. Re-read my post. Had my wife said what she said before I sent off my long ago letter to the editor, I might have just signed “Veteran” which, of course, would have diminished its impact a bit.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Charlie,

        ALWAYS, standing up for yourself means PROTECTING YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY. If that means posting to a blog under a pseudonym, then so be it.

        I find it hilarious that you don’t understand that.

%d bloggers like this: