Quote:
Perhaps true, but do you really want heresay? You know the old game of "telephone" where somebody hears something and tells somebody else that information and passes it along and by the time it reaches the 3rd or 4th person, all of the information is wrong. That is what will happen if people start reporting on "conversations" they heard. Would you not like to hear information/news from somebody closely involved in the project or perhaps one of the principals? Maybe certain people can't reveal themselves because of legal reasons (Indian 109 anyone?), or because they have signed NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements - i.e. all of Paul Allen's restorations), or perhaps because they could get in trouble by their boss because the information is not releaseable yet? Whatever the case, sometimes anonymity is a good thing for reasons not so nefarious as you seem to think.
If the post is anonomous I'm afraid I have little confidence it really is one of the principals or someone close to the project in anycase, and have no way is knowing if it isnt just "heresay"?
Its nice to read, but I dont place much reliance on it until alternative sources confirm the information, or pics start showing up.
There have been plenty of "walter mitty" announcements of sunken spitfires with floats, or Libyan Spitfires being discovered that turned out to be "hot air", not "hot scoops".
Real projects will eventually filter out through the cracks in the hangar door into these forums, magazines etc even if the principals do try to lock down or gag the staff.
If someone close to the project have signed NDA's or risk getting into trouble from their boss for releasing the information wont the "boss" be suspicious of the likely source in anycase, once posts on WIX start popping up?
I recently confided with someone over a planned recovery that was then posted unintentionally, and prematurely on the net.
I knew its source due to the very limited number of people in the know, and requested it be urgently deleted, if secrecy is required its usually fairly easy to identify the leak, even better , if secrecy is required limit the number of people in the know in the first place.
As I said if someone close to a project feels a need to compromise the confidentiality they have been asked to keep, and therefore release the details without identifying themselves as the source, they can simply pass the information onto someone else to post openly without disclosing the source.
In fact the anonomous sources could simply open an anonomous hotmail account and email the details to Scott or the Mods and have a hot scoop post or whole section full of the latest confidential details. "Heard at the Hangar Door"
There are very few of those with anonomous nicks here that are delivering "inside" or "confidential" hot scoops as a reason to maintain the arrangement when other processes can allow the information to be openly delivered?
In regards to policing the real names, I dont propose that birth certificates need to be produced to join, but if someone is going to post here, why not require them to place their real name at the bottom of their posts, nicknames like JDK were supported by Jame's real name at the bottom of each post.
Yes it might all be too hard but thats no reason not to try?
My simple point echo's the advice any lawyer will give you - "dont sign your name to anything you have'nt read through fully twice"
We shouldnt post anything here until we have read it through fully twice, and are happy to place our "real name" underneath it and own the consequences.
If someone is going to go out of their way to register intentionally under a false "real" name, its probably indicative of their future motives and intentions in any case, and their actions will probably be exposed relatively quickly, and I understand some forum managers check IP addresses on some suspicious new registrations to ensure banned members dont re-register?
In the end its Scotts call, I am happy to abide by Scotts rules what ever they are, he pays the bills, but your proposal of a credit card paid subscription is something I would support, allow free browsing of the forums by visitors, but require a paid membership and real name to post, it would soon weed out phantom identities etc and ensure Scott is compenstated for his efforts.
Perhaps if we paid for the right to post here, we would value that "right", and realise it is in fact a "priviledge".
In relation to hard ass Mods, I felt JDK was achieving that, and look at the crap he copped for his efforts, and the belated support we all gave him when it was too late!
(Tulio - I was simply using you as an example of a person in that post not fully identifying yourself by your full name, but not suggesting you do so for false reasons, many of the nicknames used here do have some link to the persons realname or are clearly associated with themselves in some way. On the otherhand "flyingheritage" was a nick used by a banned member who had been repremanded under at least 3 other nicks that I was aware of)
Its clear that there are differing views to all this, and theres little point in continuing the volley of debate, lets simply "agree to disagree" and let Scott and the Mods manage the place (as Scott chooses) with all of our strong support, and encourage everyone (including ourselves) to improve their behaviour, and not accept crap behaviour by others.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
