[Q]TMX]As you can see, I am more than happy to stick my name to any words, thoughts or deeds that are my own and accept any subsequent consequences but, amazingly to some, I sure don't wish to carry the can for acting as mouthpiece for Mr Anonymous.[Q]

Yes a nick name under the avitar is fine, but shouldn't all profiles have the members correct name, hid behind it's easy to slag whatever or who ever.

I agree with JD, if you don't like somthing it's not against the law to say so, or even what you think, but if people knew who was saying it, then it may be said a little better, or not at all.

Ithink JD was refering to the recent MX debates that has been on going in the letters page,and as far as TMX is concerned they are happy for you to write in and be annonymous in print (as long as you put your name in the letter to them) and I know of a few who have done this. I think alot of people are afraid of upsetting the organisers/perhaps ACU etc/sponsors by complaining or critisisng and this is why they do it.

People are what they are and whilst it may be your choice to stand on a named soap box and shout it this is not everyones choice, and here in England the close trials community as far sponsors and organisers are concearned can be easily upset, just look at the mild comments that Bradford got re: observing at the recent WTC.

There are some who don't like what I write (or say) at times, but they know where to find me. I have a poll going on this very subject on my political blogsite. Please vote.

http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com/2005/08/...heart-poll.html

Craig Gernhardt

and here in England the close trials community as far sponsors and organisers are concearned can be easily upset, just look at the mild comments that Bradford got re: observing at the recent WTC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is just the point I'm trying to make Nigel, people would be less likely to post nasty remarks if their name was visible along with it, or at least would be more tactful on how they said it.

Nothing wrong with posting a letter on what a person dislikes about something, be it a bike, event, service, whatever, but when you just see a statement by an unknown saying the trial sucks, the organizers have no clue what they are doing, or the bike is useless it falls to bits, my mate had one and it blew up.

What carries more credibility, a signed note or an anonymous one ?

I know what you're saying but some people are not as brave as you, but that doesn't mean that what they have got to say has no value importance or credence, unless signed.

I must admit, I agree with Ishy on this one. Its not about being brave. We supposedly live in a democracy - we have a right to our opinions, and we have a right for those opinions to be heard. How can you attach any credence to anonymity?

If people need to hide behind an alter ego in order to make a statement, then they are obviously aware that the points they raise are either controversial, offensive or unfounded. By removing that cover, then people will have to think more carefully about what, how and why they say things.

Nothing was ever resolved or improved by imaginery people!!

Cheers

Chris Mo.