Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38
PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a
group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of
"Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life
identity were required,
I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead
of real IDs still create a significant sense of
community.
I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw man
set up only to be shot down.
What I said was "some sort of 'Display
Name' that would have no connection to the real life
identity." You even quoted what I said above... and then
seem to have completely ignored it in your response. So how about you
give another look at what I said and then tell me how it differs from the
"handle" you just mentioned.
Second, you may not want a
"sense of community" in some situations. For example, I
originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't
want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with
each other via email. (For the record, there were some
"seconds" to the idea of that
application.)
"Some sort of 'Display Name' that would
have no connection to the real life identity" used to
help create a sense of community would not allow group members to know
each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. And
nothing else I said/suggested would make it possible to be able to
communicate with each other via direct email. In fact I suggested that
Groups.io post messages to an anonymous group with the "From:"
address replaced by the group address and with all potentially
identifying headers stripped from the message. that would kill all
possibility of direct email contact. Did you perhaps hit reply and fire
off your response before reading that far?
