Anonymity

[AndreasWinsnes]

I have seen that some people who posts messages here are anonymous. I can understand that writing your own name instead of just using a nick can lead to harrasment or worse, but I still think that anonymity should not be allowed if a person writes that he or she has personally witnessed that others are frauds or involved in unethical actions. I do not support anonymous witnesses in courts, and I think people who are making accusation on the Internet should be held responsible for their statements, because it is too easy to present unjustifiable slander on the net. Fear of publishing one's real identity may cause people not to raise their voice, but that is a drawback we have to live with in my opinion. But I might have missed some good arguments in favour of anonymity, so I would like to hear your views. ?  ?  

      

[Chutwood]

You ask a good question about being why someone would hide their personal identity when either accusing or questioning fraudulent behavior.  I can answer this only for myself...safety.  

For a variety of reasons, I am one who has chosen never to hide my identity, either in the 'real' world or over the Internet in the fights related to human rights, justice and equality.  I have done that knowing full well that are and would be consequences for such openness.  

The consequences have included in the 1970's having my house shot into by men with shotguns while I was inside holding my year-old son during (what we refer to) as the 'fishing wars' of the Pacific Northwest.  And from the 1980's to the present, the consequences have included being beaten, a broken leg, windows smashed out of my car, going to jail, being cited, a collection of horrible, nasty, threatening letters and emails and an amazing variety of obnoxious phone messages.

Most of the most violent or frightening experiences came from the hands of those with a 'cause' who felt threatened.  Violence and intimidation are the primary tactics.  Call it stubbornness or call it a lack of just good sense, I have never backed down from those kind of tactic.

However, I have been wrong more than one time in my life.  And I have lost more battles than I've won.  So, going public also means being willing to have your weaknesses and failures on public display even more than your triumphs.

I do not and would never advocate to ANYONE that they not hide their identity.  I would never encourage anyone to take the route that I have or deal with the consequences that I have.  It is a purely personal decision, and must be weighed against the individual's circumstances.  I have no regrets for putting myself at risk, but I have terrible regrets for putting my child at risk.  I have no regrets for having my known name for the work I've done, but I have great regrets for being known for nothing else.  

And then there's the issue of being humble.  If one is doing things for the right reason, then they don't need to be acknowledged for doing what's right.  Most of the good, hard-working, caring people I know, don't seek the limelight or shout out 'look at me, look at me'.  And most important, it's not important WHO does something, only that something is done.

I've tried to avoid the use of the word anonymous because I don't think I can spell it right  , but I support those who wish to remain anonymous because sometimes it takes greater strength to not seek the limelight than it does to rush forward into it.

Storm

[snorks]

I think if people cite the websites and other things that everyone can check on that being anon is fine.  We are dealing with what I think are mentally unstable people or at least people who become outraged very easily.  Anyway, in the fraud section, a lot of the 'frauds' seem to immediately want to go to extreme measures to stop any discussion of them.

I noticed that when a person who is running a con (game) is uncovered, they become very hostile.  The people who have invested their time and money with the 'fraud' also become hostile.  They have an emotional investment to believe that everything is beautiful.

It is a difficult area to go public in.  I admire the brave people who do.  

[Barnaby_McEwan]

I appreciate your concerns, Andreas, but it would be a giant headache for us to try verifying the identity of every member of the forum when they register. Also, employers, cops and others do just what we do: use the internet to profile people they're interested in. Requiring people to use their real name requires them to potentially give up a lot of privacy, and why should anyone trust us with the details of their identity?

We don't know everyone's situation: I think this should be a safe place to post anonymously for those who've been abused by frauds. Or suppose a person employed by, or maybe related to, a fraud has useful information? They should be able to pass that on anonymously.

Then there's the question of physical safety, which Storm's touched on. Most of them prefer to play the victim when challenged, which is merely annoying, but some frauds are potentially dangerous; the obvious example being Harley Reagan. He trains his cult members to shoot and encourages them to prepare for a race war. If his followers in the UK had easy access to guns, I'd have thought more carefully about whether to use my real name here.

[AndreasWinsnes]

I support your work. But I don't trust anyone who makes an accusation anonymously. Critics will probably argue that NAFPS is not trustworthy since you don't have the time to check the sources which an accusation is based upon. But a forum like this can be useful, because it can at least give others an indication that something is wrong. It can be used for further investigation. And the accused often reveal their fraudulent behaviour when they responds to accusations made here. So keep up the good work.

But principally, if you don't have the courage to give your identity when you accuse someone, then don't accuse. Courage has never been easy, and it will have consequences. It can ruin your life and the life of your family. That's life, it sucks.

It is better that 10 guilty persons be aquitted than 1 innocent person judged and sentenced. This forum is not about putting someone to jail, I know, but it can hurt a person's reputation badly.

On the other hand, humans are only humans, we are weak creatures, so I will not protest too much if someone posts accusations without saying who they are. But I will take it with a big grain of salt, and others should do the same.

And let me also say that I don't support people who have made a living out of selling spirituality, so I will not loose my sleep at night if they are wrongly accused. ?

[Chutwood]

I
On the other hand, humans are only humans, we are weak creatures, so I will not protest too much if someone posts accusations without saying who they are. But I will take it with a big grain of salt, and others should do the same.

I think we will agree to disagree on this.  While I admire your principaled standards of who is worthy of listening to, I'll continue muddling along listening to the experiences of those who choose to be nameless.  And being that I don't engage in witch hunts, I'm fairly confident that fact will outweigh fiction.

As an aside, did you have permission to forward to the author you contacted the names and words of those on this list from those same persons?  

Storm

[PLH]

Andreas? I don't understand your concern about anonymity. What difference does it make when the truth is discovered in who made the discovery? What I have repeatedly seen with NAFPS members is that they do have the ability to back up what is posted here.  I have no need to meet anyone face to face to verify what they are advertising (in print) is not accurate. You don't support people making a living out of selling spirituality? Of course you do, which books did you buy in the process of re-examining your own spirituality? Young man, this is not the place to give anyone lessons on courage.
Sorry, but life experiences do not come with footnotes or bibliographies. :-/

[AndreasWinsnes]

As an aside, did you have permission to forward to the author you contacted the names and words of those on this list from those same persons?

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but it is nothing wrong quoting people's statements on a public forum as far as I know.

I have no need to meet anyone face to face to verify what they are advertising (in print) is not accurate.

Neither do I. I am talking about people who say that they have personally witnessed and experienced fraudulent behaviour with nothing to back it beside their own words and a nick name. ?

You don't support people making a living out of selling spirituality? Of course you do, which books did you buy in the process of re-examining your own spirituality?

I have given away all my books a long time ago. I use the library.

Young man, this is not the place to give anyone lessons on courage.

I am just stating something, that in my opinion at least, is obvious. This certainly is a place for giving people a lesson, what do you think Al Carroll is doing?

Of course, one could say that this is not about courage, it is about not taking unnecessary risks because it is not worth it. That might be true. But it is still not very trustworthy, and maybe one should ask oneself: would I have had the courage if it really was necessary? Statements like "it is not worth it" should not be used as an excuse for not taking responsibility.

Sorry, but life experiences do not come with footnotes or bibliographies.

If you are hinting about my life, you don't know anything about it.

[Freija]

But I will take it with a big grain of salt, and others should do the same.

Andreas, although I generally agree with you that it would be best if people could come forward with their names, there are cases when I think this can not be expected. Barnaby and Storm mentioned the threats and the violance. Personally I think your comment above is a slap in the face of all the women who have been abused, beaten, raped and molested. And so is this comment: "if you don´t have the courage to give your identity if you accuse someone, then don´t accuse."

Clearly you haven´t got a clue what it is like to be one of these women who have been abused !! ? But it goes without saying - an accusation is the start for doing further investigations.

I would, however, like to hear your suggestion for changing this. Just like Barnaby said, how will you make sure that each and every poster is who he says he is? Like yourself, how do we know that you are Andreas Winsnes? Clearly, it would be impossible, everyone can just choose any name to post under. So, is your suggestion that NAFPS should close down?

[AndreasWinsnes]

Clearly you haven´t got a clue what it is like to be one of these women who have been abused !! ?

Why do you make a statement like that? I am not discussing my personal experiences on the Internet, so I will not respond to this. Please attack my arguments instead of me.

Personally I think your comment above is a slap in the face of all the women who have been abused, beaten, raped and molested. And so is this comment: "if you don´t have the courage to give your identity if you accuse someone, then don´t accuse."

Most women actually give their identity to the police if they accuse someone of rape. If they don't, they certainly should.

Like yourself, how do we know that you are Andreas Winsnes?

In my first e-mail to you, I gave you ? the number to my supervisor at the university of Tromso, Norway. If I remember correct, Al got it too. If not, you can give it to him.

Clearly, it would be impossible, everyone can just choose any name to post under. So, is your suggestion that NAFPS should close down?

It is not impossible if you have a person that can check that people really are who they claim to be. It is not that hard. In my case, for instance, just call my supervisor. But I understand that you don't have time and resources to do this. But the consequence is that anonumous posts about personal experiences should not be taken as evidence. They should always be followed up by further investigation. That also goes for non-anonymous posts, like the one I published regarding John Tindall, but it is easier to check accusations when you know who made them.

In my first post, I wrote that "anonymity should not be allowed". In principal, I still believe this. But after some reflection, I can understand that it can be time consuming to check everyones' identity, and therefore I will modify my view and just point out that it is highly problematic to have a fraud forum where anonnymous accusations are tolerated. This does not mean that NAFPS should close down. A compromise could be to put all anonymous accusations in the section "Research needed" unntil enough evidence is gathered to move them to "Frauds".

I know that you already do a lot of research, and most of it is probably accurate, but one false accusation, is in principal, one too many. But what the heck, I don't sympathize with spiritual money makers. They probably deserve it, it's their Karma right? ?  

I appreciate the work Al, Annika and the others are doing. My arguments are only meant to be constructive. ?  

[Moma_porcupine]

Very few posts here have made any anonymous accusations based only on personal experince . The few I see , that are based in personal experince , are not being made anonymously .

What posts exactly , are you feeling are unfair anonymous accusations ?

The large majority of the discussions posted here begin with someone pointing out an on line link to some self promotional advertising . People who willingly put information , into the public domain , that is not true , fairly deserve some public scrutiny .

While what you read here is mostly people commenting on the nonsense people post about themselves on line , please keep in mind that for all that is said about these exploiters , there is MUCH that is left unsaid about peoples ? personal , bad experinces with these folks , or people like them . Obviously peoples real life experinces are often a lot worse than what is advertised on line , but telling what really happens cannot be done without the perpetrator
being able to identify and retaliate against their victim . So instead , people usually just try to point out how what is being advertised , is inconsistant with reality . In hopes this will be enough to warn people . If you sense a hostility , which sometimes seems to be a bit excessive , I would suggest that there is usually some bad personal experince behind this , which is NOT being disclosed .

I am wondering if you are misunderstanding this hostility you are sensing , and THAT is what you feeling is a bit unfair ?

You idea that we should all have to say who we are , sounds extremely naive of the real life damage done by these fakes , and the repercussions for some people of having their identities known . Do you really think people who knowingly falsely advertise themselves , are "nice" people ? Some are just delusional , but others are hardened con artists . ?

Maybe you need to do some research on psychopathic personality disorder , because in many cases that is what these people who falsely advertise themselves are suffering from . And no , it is not " courageous" to get on the wrong side of a psychopath , and give them your home address . ? It is just dumb .

The bottom line is , if what is said here is true , and it is in response to something someone has willingly placed in the public domain , it is fair comment . ? If you are unsure of some anonymous posters knowledge of traditional culture being enough for them to be qualified to give a fair comment , then , I would encourage you to check out the long list of articles at the link below , which were written by people who are well known Native leaders ? . ? What is said anonymously in this forum , for the most part is solidly backed up , by information found these articles .

 http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/articles/index.htm

[AndreasWinsnes]

Very few posts here have made any anonymous accusations based only on personal experince . The few I see , that are based in personal experince , are not being made anonymously .  

That's good to hear.

What posts exactly , are you feeling are unfair anonymous accusations ?

I am not sure if they are anonymous.

The large majority of the discussions posted here begin with someone pointing out an on line link to some self promotional advertising . People who willingly put information , into the public domain , that is not true , fairly deserve some public scrutiny .

I agree

I am wondering if you are misunderstanding this hostility you are sensing , and THAT is what you feeling is a bit unfair ?

The hostility may be fair, but I am not certain if a post is anonymous. I can undestand very well that Native Americans are hostile against occupants of their land that try to imitate their religious practices. The situation is absurd, like Nazies trying to be Jews. They should at least have left their country before playing Indian, but now it is a total lack of respect.

it is not " courageous" to get on the wrong side of a psychopath

Many criminals, dictators and torturists are psychopaths. It takes courage to face them.

[educatedindian]

Andreas, I'm a member of two other anti cult forums, Freedom of Mind and one other I won't name. On both of these, the admins *require* anonymity be maintained for anyone who wants it, which iinclides almost everyone on those forums. That means the admins delete information that could reveal members' location or profession and even ban people who reveal others ID on purpose.

Most of their members are current or former cult members, or family and friends of cult members. They routinely publish accusations or detailed descriptions of crimes, all without revealing names. Almost the only ones to openly say who they are, are from academia. And we have have resources and protection that most others don't.

So if anything, most of the members here are a great deal more open about who they are. I choose to be because otherwise a lot of rumors start. But I know of a former member who was once in the rainbow Tribe. They harassed and abused her online terribly for talking to us, spreading the worst kinds of rumors you can imagine. One ex member also received death threats from the Waldorf people. Another had a private detective tailing him, likely sent by the Sweet Lodge "sisters."

I also think that as males we need to realize we may sympathize, but can never really understand, just what women feel about this issue.

I do want to remind you about what you were supposed to have read when you joined, listed all over the site under "Everybody Read". Everyone here is responsible for the content of their own posts. We also will delete anyone posing as someone they are not. And under "Who We Are" we will apologize and correct it if we post false information, or if it damages someone innocent.

As far as we know, we never have. People who remain anonymous are kind of rare on this forum. Several people over the years have written to me with accusations that turned out to be false, and that I investigated and I never published and never will.

[AndreasWinsnes]

On both of these, the admins *require* anonymity be maintained for anyone who wants it, which iinclides almost everyone on those forums. That means the admins delete information that could reveal members' location or profession and even ban people who reveal others ID on purpose.

I can easily see the reasons for this, but an anonomous post still don't count as evidence. Most people here probably already know that, but a debate about it can be clarifying, and it shows critics that the users of the forum are aware of the possibility of false accusations, and that the admins take this seriously. ?

I also think that as males we need to realize we may sympathize, but can never really understand, just what women feel about this issue.

You are right. But as you already know, men can also be hunted down, beaten, shot and killed. All livings beings are vulernable. Many non-violent acitivists around the world risk their lifes daily. We need people who have courage. But to expect it from a lonely teenager, for instance, ? is probably not fair, I agree on that

And under "Who We Are" we will apologize and correct it if we post false information, or if it damages someone innocent. ?
 
As far as we know, we never have.

Very good.

In my last post I made a comparison to Nazies trying to be Jews. To be a bit more nuanced, I will correct it to "occupying descendants of Nazies trying to be Jews". Does that sound better?

[Barnaby_McEwan]

It is not impossible if you have a person that can check that people really are who they claim to be. It is not that hard. In my case, for instance, just call my supervisor.

It's not that simple. We'd have no reason to trust that that person really is who you say they are: they could be an accomplice in a deception. Before we could verify your identity by calling your supervisor, we'd have to verify your supervisor's identity, and so on, and so on...