At the last CWG roundtable the patterns of certain anonymous commenters was brought up. We noticed that the anons fell into certain catagorys. I have therefore decided to "name" each anon so that when replying to their comment, published or not, that some, at least, will know WHICH anon I am replying to.
The names applied to the anons will define who they are. They are as follows:
THE EXPERT: This anon always seems to be the most expert on whatever subject being commented on, how convenient. One prime example is the person who touts an impressive resume when discussing with me the reason for needing the entire pc rather than just the hard drive or information stored on a portable storage device. One CWG expert found the anon's contention that having the pc would serve no more useful purpose than having just the hard drive, somewhat astonishing.
THE RANTER: This person 's post is little more than a rant. The post is much the same as a child throwing a temper tantrum because a sibling has a better toy. The posts by this individual is little more than name calling and contains no substance.
THE EXPLITIVE RANTER: The posts are the same as THE RANTER , just full of explatives for added measure. This poster cannot seem to get the message across without adding a rich supply of f-bombs and other explitives.
THE DENIER: This piece of work denies everything. We think of this poster as a "flat earther" since even with obvious evidence to the contrary, this person denies the facts that are presented.
THE "I WAS THERE": This Forest Gump of posters seems to always be at the right place at the right time and witness things that simply did not happen.
THE "MY (FILL IN THE BLANK) IS A (FILL IN THE BLANK)" This person seems to either be a (whatever) or know someone who is a (whatever) when trying to disqualify a point I am trying to make or question how I am able to do something. Since this poster never offers anything more than clams that cannot be proven, they are highly questionable.
THE "I AM NOT ONE OF THEM" : I get this one a lot. It seems that this poster does not want ot be associated with a certain blog or group and makes this point right off the bat in the comment. The problem here is that a lot of times the comment made can only come from information derived from the source the poster is disavoing to be part of.
THE IMPERSONMATOR/IMPOSTER: Even though a username is provided, this poster is considered an anon since he/she (more commonly the latter) is not who they claim to be. The poster is simply using the name of a known Member of my chat to apparently attempt to trick me into beliving that one of my members has turned on me. The poster apparently does not realize that we chose to put the blog on this service because we are able to determine the real from the fake when it comes to claims of being a certain username.
THE WINDBAG. This poster seems to be hell bent on setting the Guiness Book of World Records for the longest comment on a blog. Most of the time this poster's comments average 300 words or MORE. The shortest post by this individual was around 270 words. The examiners hate these posts because, for the most part, they are boring and tend to make them sleepy.
THE JERK: The nature of the posts by this person is to be a jerk, pure and simple.
THE "I AM(WHATEVER) This person usually claims to be a reporter, car dealer or whatever occupation I am discussing. This is different than the "My -----------------is a" since THIS person claims to be the (whatever) rather than knowing someone who is. While this poster is rare, I have had one or two with this claim.
All of the defined anons are of the negative nature. Most of the posts that are by anons that are reasoned dissent do not fall into any of these catagories. These anons who disagree with me provide. at least, their points in a respectful manner. It is unfortunate that these others do not and have made it so that I rarely post comments by anyone as a result.
Stay Tuned
MURT
