ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 11:23:27 AM

Title: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 11:23:27 AM
Rather than kvetch about a thread being hijacked to discuss pseudonyms, I thought it better to simply start a new thread on the subject, and hope people will use it instead of dragging the other thread off-topic.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Coach-Rev on January 31, 2013, 11:25:11 AM
Do I need to guess who's making  a stink on it this time?
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
Do I need to guess who's making  a stink on it this time?


No one is, yet. I thought it better to not make a stink, but to simply start a new thread. I'm usually the one who observes that if someone kvetches about a thread going off-topic, they shouldn't kvetch, they should either post something to bring the thread back on topic, or start a new thread. So, in this case I'm following my own advice. Instead of whining and kvetching, I started a new thread.

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 11:49:56 AM
Should I start another thread about starting threads when threads get dragged off-topic?  ::)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 11:53:58 AM
The history of pseudonyms is pretty much well engrained in our society. Nicodemus was not rebuked by our Lord (John 3:2) when he came at night to see him, so that he would not be seen by others. The famous French infidel, Francois Marie Arouet had a pen-known as Voltaire. A more contemporary example is that of the late Carl Sagan. He used the pseudonym “Mr X” to argue in favor of marijuana being legalized. In my case (Johannes Andreas Quenstedt), I like to use the name of a dead orthodox Lutheran theologian with close to an impeccable record in conservative LCMS circles. I just sounds so cool!

In an important 1995 case, the United States Supreme Court upheld anonymous and pseudonymous writing as nothing less than a fundamental right of expression:

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.’  Talley v. California (1960).  Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names.  Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity.  The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.  Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.  Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court went on to state:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.  It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society.  The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct.  But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: John, an Unlikely Pastor on January 31, 2013, 11:56:13 AM
For what it's worth
I do use a partial pseudonym.  But my real name is John Heille, I am a pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in Fairmont, Minnesota if you must know.
Peace to all, John
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 31, 2013, 12:08:54 PM
Anonymity is, of course, a "right," (sometimes) but whether it is ethical and brotherly to do so at all times is up for questioning.
This is an inter-Lutheran forum, where discussion ranges wide and sometimes critical. Personally, I do not know why people do not want their names known. But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.
   When I was covering town council meetings or school board meetings, I would occasionally be asked not to quote someone by name. I simply told them that this was a public on-the-record meeting and if they did not want to be quoted, they should not speak. That's how it works.
    In other private interviews, as I have explained many times, I have - on very very rare occasions - used an "anonymous" source. But at least two of my editors knew who that person was and we all had to agree that there was a very compelling reason to allow that person to remain anonymous.
     Sometimes, government officials will give reporters information "not for attribution," but that is a different matter.
    Here on ALPB forum, the only reason for anonymity that I sort of (only sort of) understand is the desire to avoid being hassled by certain factions of certain church bodies.
   It is one of those "sad-but-true" situations.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 12:14:02 PM
Quote
But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.

Bingo!

Take for example, the issue of WO. The big reason why it is not talked about in LCMS circles is the fear of persecution. I know of several (Scriptural inerrancy believing) LCMS clergy that have no objections to WO, but would rather keep their opinions to themselves - so as to not the rock the boat.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: John_Hannah on January 31, 2013, 12:31:22 PM
Quote
But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.

Bingo!

Take for example, the issue of WO. The big reason why it is not talked about in LCMS circles is the fear of persecution. I know of several (Scriptural inerrancy believing) LCMS clergy that have no objections to WO, but would rather keep their opinions to themselves - so as to not the rock the boat.

Johannes,

Indeed. A good example. It is a perfectly acceptable practice for a church body to do. Yet in some LCMS circles, the mere mention arouses great ire, suspicion, and accusations.

Peace, JOHN
(from Johannes   :))
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 12:34:28 PM
I'm all in favor of some voluntary guidelines. For example, if one uses a pseudonym, one might consider making it easier on others to refer to you by your pseudonym. Even if one uses a semi-pseudonym as a handle, with your real name in your footnote, that footnote isn't visible when in the "reply" screen. But, that should be a voluntary thing to consider or not, as you see fit.

It strikes me as a little pompous to assume the name of some obscure theologian as a pseudonym. That's strictly a personal reaction. I'm sure others don't mind the practice.

I think it might be beneficial for all of us to remember we cannot remember each detail that we might post about ourselves that is pertinent to what we post. Since some of us are lay people, and most others not, I think it helpful to include that fact in a footnote or tagline instead of mentioning it once in the body of a post and expecting everyone else to remember it. Some folks probably object to my use of "I'm not a pastor, but I played one on TV", but I thought that a whimsical way to note that I am a layman.

I think we should respect the position of those who post anonymously, but I think those who do should bear the burden of not hiding behind a pseudonym for the purpose of posting aggressive personal attacks one wouldn't post under one's own name.



Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: swbohler on January 31, 2013, 12:52:03 PM
For what it's worth
I do use a partial pseudonym.  But my real name is John Heille, I am a pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in Fairmont, Minnesota if you must know.
Peace to all, John

Hey, John! My wife's family lives near Ceylon; some of the nieces and nephews attend church in Fairmont (LCMS).  Nice area.  We'll be there the first weekend in June for a niece's wedding; I forget which church it will be at in Fairmont.  A classmate of mine, Russell Reimers, is pastor at my in-laws' church in Ceylon.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: swbohler on January 31, 2013, 12:55:18 PM
Quote
But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.

Bingo!

Take for example, the issue of WO. The big reason why it is not talked about in LCMS circles is the fear of persecution. I know of several (Scriptural inerrancy believing) LCMS clergy that have no objections to WO, but would rather keep their opinions to themselves - so as to not the rock the boat.

Johannes,

Indeed. A good example. It is a perfectly acceptable practice for a church body to do. Yet in some LCMS circles, the mere mention arouses great ire, suspicion, and accusations.

Peace, JOHN
(from Johannes   :))

As both you gentlemen know, the LCMS has stated that it is NOT perfectly acceptable practice.  For Biblical reasons.  And we believe/teach/confess this is true not just for our church body, but that these Biblical reasons apply to ALL churches.  That is why it arouses great ire, suspicion, and accusation when men who are sworn to teach and practice accordingly fail to do so.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: DCharlton on January 31, 2013, 12:57:59 PM
As far as pseudonyms go, we should remember ones like Johannes de Silentio and Victor Eremita .

Now if I were to adopt a pseudonym on ALPB Forum, it would be to prevent cyber stalking by other members of the forum.  I will not name who those stalkers might be.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 01:06:54 PM
Yes, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was also known to have used a pseudonym. But, you have got to admit that his love life was a bit strained. Of course too much posting on ALPB, late at night, has also been known to put a strain on marriages. 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Dave Benke on January 31, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
The passive/aggressive nature of
a) clergy
b) people who post in general
c) people who are fearful in general
d) people who want to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves in their actual personality and therefore start a new one, while never really shedding the old one

make for pseudonymous authorship.

For the serious student of the literature of the ancient near east, however, we have an entire bundle of books locked together from the intertestamental period called "The Pseudepigrapha."  Meaning ALL the books were written pseudonymously.  Which is cool, knowing that these birds were pretending to be Enoch, or some other bogus person, and yet people were reading and heeding what they wrote.

This is the dream of the pseudonymous author, no?
"They like me!   They really, really like me!"

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Steverem on January 31, 2013, 01:24:40 PM
Don't really have a need for a pen name here (see blog address below if curious), but if we're passing out fake names, I want dibs on "Max Power."
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 01:25:30 PM
For the serious student of the literature of the ancient near east, however, we have an entire bundle of books locked together from the intertestamental period called "The Pseudepigrapha."  Meaning ALL the books were written pseudonymously.  Which is cool, knowing that these birds were pretending to be Enoch, or some other bogus person, and yet people were reading and heeding what they wrote.

This is the dream of the pseudonymous author, no?
"They like me!   They really, really like me!"

Dave Benke


I think perhaps we should differentiate between publishing a book or other work that is a completed work in and of itself and engaging in conversation with others. There is a certain appeal to having one's work evaluated strictly on its own merits, with no baggage associated with one's identity. That's why certain well-known writers have published books using a pseudonym to see if the books will be accepted on their own merits instead of simply being purchased by people who are Stephen King fans.


It bothers me to see opinions that are sound and logical rejected because of who posted them. It also bothers me to see people "borrow" the authority of someone else and simply post links because they're too lazy to add their own commentary. As I recall, others in here have said the same thing.


And, in the interest of honesty, I must confess that on some political discussion forums in the early 2000's, I used a pseudonym consisting of my father's and grandfather's middle names. It looked like a "real" name, but it wasn't really my name.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: D. Engebretson on January 31, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
Quote
But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.

Bingo!

Take for example, the issue of WO. The big reason why it is not talked about in LCMS circles is the fear of persecution. I know of several (Scriptural inerrancy believing) LCMS clergy that have no objections to WO, but would rather keep their opinions to themselves - so as to not the rock the boat.

Obviously the "fear of persecution" is not universal among rostered pastors in the LCMS who choose to speak out in favor of WO, or other members of the Synod.  Dr. Becker went so far as to register formal dissent.  The OWN site claims to be "a growing number of people who think the ordination of women should be publicly discussed in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" with over 1,300 "likes."   Just how powerful is this "fear of persecution" if people are as outspoken today as they are?
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 01:48:47 PM
Quote
The OWN site claims to be "a growing number of people who think the ordination of women should be publicly discussed in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" with over 1,300 "likes."   Just how powerful is this "fear of persecution" if people are as outspoken today as they are?

Are the 1,300 "likes" on the OWN site all from LCMS clergy? Or, are they a combination of clergy and laity in the LCMS? Or, could they be from folks outside of the LCMS?

"Fear of persecution" in the LCMS is a very real fear - especially with the new regime change. And, in a climate where their is a surplus of clergy, it is easy to have a fear that there could be a purging of the rosters to make more room for the young turks that don't rock the boat.

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: D. Engebretson on January 31, 2013, 02:01:09 PM
Quote
The OWN site claims to be "a growing number of people who think the ordination of women should be publicly discussed in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" with over 1,300 "likes."   Just how powerful is this "fear of persecution" if people are as outspoken today as they are?

Are the 1,300 "likes" on the OWN site all from LCMS clergy? Or, are they a combination of clergy and laity in the LCMS? Or, could they be from folks outside of the LCMS?

"Fear of persecution" in the LCMS is a very real fear - especially with the new regime change. And, in a climate where their is a surplus of clergy, it is easy to have a fear that there could be a purging of the rosters to make more room for the young turks that don't rock the boat.

One could have made this claim just as easily during the previous administration.  I don't deny that some may have this fear, but wonder if it's grounded in realistic possibilities.  As a circuit counselor and one who has regular contact with my district president (as I did with the previous two or three as well), I know of no official move to "purge the rosters" and "make room for the young turks that don't rock the boat."  If anything the younger, more conservative pastors are more likely to end up smaller churches tucked away in rural and small towns.  With more of the larger churches having migrated quite fully over to a contemporary worship format, and many even of the midsized parishes doing the same, these "young turks," as you call them, are hardly in the running for many of the parishes out there today.  While district presidents have some control over the call process by supplying the call lists, it is the congregation that has the final say, and I don't see - at least not in my district - any concerted effort to unduly influence the calling congregation, especially in favor of these so-called "young turks."  So, do you have any credible information that would substantiate a reason for this fear, any real move to "purge the rosters" under the Harrison administration?
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: LCMS87 on January 31, 2013, 02:02:56 PM
I think we should respect the position of those who post anonymously, but I think those who do should bear the burden of not hiding behind a pseudonym for the purpose of posting aggressive personal attacks one wouldn't post under one's own name.

A good point, but I'd go a bit further.  Even some things one would post under one's own name one ought not post when using a pseudonym.  That is, the standards one follows when posting anonymously should be even higher than those one might follow when posting under one's own name.

I would note that every time this has become an issue on this forum, it's a result of a pseudonymous poster breaching propriety.  If all pseudonymous posters observed proper decorum, there wouldn't be any worry.  When concern over pseudonymity has become an issue here, most of the time I agree with the person who initiated the complaint.  That is, the pseudonymous poster crossed the line.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: D. Engebretson on January 31, 2013, 02:04:46 PM
Are the 1,300 "likes" on the OWN site all from LCMS clergy? Or, are they a combination of clergy and laity in the LCMS? Or, could they be from folks outside of the LCMS?

I suspect it is a combination of all of the above.  My point was not that it is all clergy, but rather how a group such as OWN and other efforts today could be so open if the climate was only one of outright "persecution" as you call it.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: mariemeyer on January 31, 2013, 02:07:02 PM
For the record:

While at Concordia, Portland Matt Becker was brought up on charges of teaching false doctrine regarding WO.  He was cleared. Not all pastors are willing to go through the process of clearing their name.  I do not know the current status of charges against Matt.

Although I cannot give names, I can tell you that there are any number of rostered LCMS women who agree with thoughts I have expressed here, but cannot state them openly for fear of losing their positions.  One reason I asked that I no longer be rostered was that it afforded me the freedom to openly question how the LCMS defines and applies the order of creation. 

I no longer live in the fear of being removed from the roster, but this does not negate the hurftulness of being told I ought to leave the LCMS. 

Marie
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 02:13:50 PM
Quote
As a circuit counselor and one who has regular contact with my district president (as I did with the previous two or three as well), I know of no official move to "purge the rosters" and "make room for the young turks that don't rock the boat." ...do you have any credible information that would substantiate a reason for this fear, any real move to "purge the rosters" under the Harrison administration?

No, I do not have basis to substantiate a fear. However, there was a case awhile back of an LCMS professor at Valpo, in favor of WO, being chastised. I have also heard a credible witness report that the current LCMS President once declared (at a gathering of circuit counselors) that advocates of WO were heretical. Hopefully, the loud rhetoric has been turned down lately.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: swbohler on January 31, 2013, 02:45:38 PM
Quote
The OWN site claims to be "a growing number of people who think the ordination of women should be publicly discussed in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" with over 1,300 "likes."   Just how powerful is this "fear of persecution" if people are as outspoken today as they are?

Are the 1,300 "likes" on the OWN site all from LCMS clergy? Or, are they a combination of clergy and laity in the LCMS? Or, could they be from folks outside of the LCMS?

"Fear of persecution" in the LCMS is a very real fear - especially with the new regime change. And, in a climate where their is a surplus of clergy, it is easy to have a fear that there could be a purging of the rosters to make more room for the young turks that don't rock the boat.

One could have made this claim just as easily during the previous administration.  I don't deny that some may have this fear, but wonder if it's grounded in realistic possibilities.  As a circuit counselor and one who has regular contact with my district president (as I did with the previous two or three as well), I know of no official move to "purge the rosters" and "make room for the young turks that don't rock the boat."  If anything the younger, more conservative pastors are more likely to end up smaller churches tucked away in rural and small towns.  With more of the larger churches having migrated quite fully over to a contemporary worship format, and many even of the midsized parishes doing the same, these "young turks," as you call them, are hardly in the running for many of the parishes out there today.  While district presidents have some control over the call process by supplying the call lists, it is the congregation that has the final say, and I don't see - at least not in my district - any concerted effort to unduly influence the calling congregation, especially in favor of these so-called "young turks."  So, do you have any credible information that would substantiate a reason for this fear, any real move to "purge the rosters" under the Harrison administration?

After my private letter asking for an investigation into the worship services at Holy Trinity (ELCA) and Yankee Stadium was made public (in violation of the bylaws) by the synod president, I was black-listed by the president and BOD of the very district in which you serve, Rev. Engebretson (my home district, by the way).  I received threatening letters from several rostered clergy (even one or two who post here regularly) which stated they were seeking ways to remove me from my call.  The synod president at the time went before a joint conference of Minnesota North and South pastors and intimated that I had refused to meet with him, when in actuality it was he who refused to respond to any of my letters and emails and efforts at resolution; certainly such words from a sitting synod president negatively impacted my reputation and consideration for calls.  But again we are told that it is only the "confessionals" who do such things, and that President Harrison is just itching to purge the synod!
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Coach-Rev on January 31, 2013, 02:53:48 PM
Don't really have a need for a pen name here (see blog address below if curious), but if we're passing out fake names, I want dibs on "Max Power."

No problem, Max!

Didn't I see that as a setting on a hair dryer, though?  ;)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: John, an Unlikely Pastor on January 31, 2013, 03:03:56 PM
For what it's worth
I do use a partial pseudonym.  But my real name is John Heille, I am a pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in Fairmont, Minnesota if you must know.
Peace to all, John

Hey, John! My wife's family lives near Ceylon; some of the nieces and nephews attend church in Fairmont (LCMS).  Nice area.  We'll be there the first weekend in June for a niece's wedding; I forget which church it will be at in Fairmont.  A classmate of mine, Russell Reimers, is pastor at my in-laws' church in Ceylon.
I have a wedding at a park that weekend so I don't think it will be at Grace, you would sure be welcome to swing by if you'd like.
peace to you, John
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Weedon on January 31, 2013, 03:11:28 PM
I don't see the hysteria. It's a principled argument: Lutherans do not innovate in doctrine or practice as per the AC. WO is both. Hence, it is not a practice that can be acceptable in the Church of the Augsburg Confession.

As to pseudonymns: no problem if you want to use them. But don't expect me to take you seriously in anything you say. Period.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Jay Michael on January 31, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.
Rarely if ever is the term "witch-hunters" used in reference to one with which one agrees with ... leaving the use of the term as a reference to one who disagrees with you.

That being said, it seems that the term "witch-hunters" is in itself divisive and hardly demonstrates tolerance and respect for fellow Forum contributors ... and is no more acceptable coming from a non-pseudonym contributor than a pseudonym contributor.

Is the use of "witch-hunter" actually a God pleasing way to "defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 31, 2013, 03:21:12 PM
There is no right to be on a roster. A roster is simply a descriptive list-- here are people who can be described as believing and teaching x. An LCMS roster can be expected to list people who teach according to our agreed-upon teachings and practices. It is not in any sense of the word persecution to claim that x doesn't describe a person's beliefs accurately and therefore that person should not be on the list of people who believe x. Does Dave Benke "persecute" the members of ACELC when he calls them to cease and desist from what he considers schismatic activity? No, I don't think that is a fair word for it. And he is a DP in an actual position of authority and official representation. Then why is it "persecution" or "bullying" when others in synod call people like Dr. Becker to cease and desist from what they consider to be schismatic or heterodox activity?
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: DCharlton on January 31, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.
Rarely if ever is the term "witch-hunters" used in reference to one with which one agrees with ... leaving the use of the term as a reference to one who disagrees with you.

That being said, it seems that the term "witch-hunters" is in itself divisive and hardly demonstrates tolerance and respect for fellow Forum contributors ... and is no more acceptable coming from a non-pseudonym contributor than a pseudonym contributor.

Is the use of "witch-hunter" actually a God pleasing way to "defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."

We in the ELCA are glad that we have no such witch-hunters on this forum who drive some to remain nameless. 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on January 31, 2013, 03:55:20 PM

 But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.


Pseudonyms have been a normative practice of online forums for as long as there have been online forums. And today, January 31, 2013, as I look at the online forums on which I hold some sort of membership -- on matters of faith and religion, sports, automobiles, politics, science fiction, or just people gathering together from a community or holding some other common interest -- using a "handle" rather than one's real name is more common than not.

Some forums, including those what ought to have no controversy or "fear" for participation, actually forbid participants from using their real names!

That some people with long-standing reputations on on-line forums (such as this) claim to be ignorant of such merely reveals how unaware they are of things outside of their own -- actually quite narrow -- little worlds.

Pax, Zip+
No "witch hunters" in the ELCA? HA!
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: MaddogLutheran on January 31, 2013, 04:15:03 PM

 But I understand - from Pastor Hannah's writings and others - how the witch-hunters in the LCMS might drive some to remain nameless.


Pseudonyms have been a normative practice of online forums for as long as there have been online forums. And today, January 31, 2013, as I look at the online forums on which I hold some sort of membership -- on matters of faith and religion, sports, automobiles, politics, science fiction, or just people gathering together from a community or holding some other common interest -- using a "handle" rather than one's real name is more common than not.

Some forums, including those what ought to have no controversy or "fear" for participation, actually forbid participants from using their real names!

That some people with long-standing reputations on on-line forums (such as this) claim to be ignorant of such merely reveals how unaware they are of things outside of their own -- actually quite narrow -- little worlds.

Pax, Zip+
No "witch hunters" in the ELCA? HA!

Woof!
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Dave Likeness on January 31, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
It was the late, great Dr. Fred Danker who told
his students at Concordia Seminary St. Louis
the importance of Pseudepigrapha.  He said that
the theologian can learn something from these
sources.

These raises the question:  Do we make a clear
distinction between pseudonymous and the
other term in this discussion, anonymous?
As we consider the 2nd Amendment it also applies
to theologians who post on this Forum.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on January 31, 2013, 04:54:31 PM
It is a sad commentary on our times that anyone feels the need to use an alternate identity. My hope would be that folks would be willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe - in other words, to be confessors of the truth as they see it. But I suppose the time of courage and integrity has passed at least in the minds and hearts of some. And so they choose to have one public image with their own name and different more honest image using some other name. From my perspective, I suppose that pseudonyms are fine if they are used only to put forth ideas. As a rule, I generally do not respond to such pseudonymous postings even though I feel sorry for the real person behind the false identity.

There are exceptions to my personal "rule" about not responding. And that is when the pseudonymous poster engages in the breaking of the 8th Commandment to the detriment of another poster who uses his/her real name or to the detriment of someone who is not even on the forum. What happens is this: the reputation and integrity of real people is slammed while the person doing the defaming is safely hidden behind an assumed identity. I'm sorry but that is a cowardly and malignant action especially in a forum that is openly available to anyone with internet access.

There are some on this forum with whom I have had real differences. But I have nothing but respect for those who use their real names even if I disagree with them.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 06:01:42 PM
Chaplain Gard,

Believe it or not, even those of us who like to use pseudonyms can be very hurt by accusations of libel that are unwarranted. I am thinking, in particular, of a post that you made on another thread - which took me (Johannes Andreas Quenstedt)  to task for stating that I believed you were against women serving in the military. In the heat of frustration, you wrote:
Quote
You, sir, are wrong in every possible way. You continue to libel me with false statements attacking my name while your own name remains hidden. I have never said that it is my "ethical opinion" that women should not serve in the military. That is absurd as well as utterly false and insulting to me. - Chaplain Gard

Evidently, you took umbrage at my concerns about Chaplains making: "ethical" opinions related to telling people it is wrong for women to serve in the military - i.e. in battle related positions. (emphasis added).

However, that particular statement was directed at all Chaplains reading that post. For there was in fact, an ELCA Chaplain (Imagine that!) that was quoted as saying that women should not serve in the military.

Of course, I did ask you a simple question:

 So, for the record: Are you supportive of women in the military - even in those positions that are subject to combat related dangers?

I know you dodged the question. And you have a right to do so. However, reading what you have posted so far, I prefer to take the best construction on your position of women in the military and so I still hold to my statement that was stated awhile back:



So far, I have only seen just a few LCMS participants argue against women in combat. However, not one LCMS participant has argued against in women serving in the military at all. - Posted: January 29, 2013, 08:27:07 PM » (Emphasis added)

So, there you have it. Rest assured that you are forgiven by me. Furthermore, I will do my best to attempt to express and make sure that it is even made more clear by me in the future that you have in no way shape or form expressed any reservation about women serving in the military.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on January 31, 2013, 06:18:03 PM
I had earlier stated what I could.

And I fail to understand how an anonymous person can ask anyone to go "on the record."

Have a nice day!
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 06:59:10 PM
Quote
I don't see the hysteria. It's a principled argument: Lutherans do not innovate in doctrine or practice as per the AC. WO is both. Hence, it is not a practice that can be acceptable in the Church of the Augsburg Confession.

As to pseudonymns: no problem if you want to use them. But don't expect me to take you seriously in anything you say. Period.

Not that I would expect you to take seriously anything I say, but innovation in doctrine and practice in violation of what the AC reformers originally intended is an extremely difficult concept to work through. WO was not even on the mind of the reformers. However, they did state such things as:

The apostles directed that one should abstain from blood and from what is strangled. Who observes this prohibition now? Those who do not observe it commit no sin, for the apostles did not wish to burden consciences with such bondage but forbade such eating for a time to avoid offense. One must pay attention to the chief article of Christian doctrine, and this is not abrogated by the decree.

...they (reformers) ask only that the bishops relax certain unreasonable burdens which were did not exist in the church in former times and which were introduced contrary to the custom of the universal Christian church. Perhaps there was some reason for introducing them, but they are not adapted to our times. (Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII)

How do we define the church of former times - e.g. the first four centuries? And does the pope in Rome (e.g. Pope Gelasius I in the late 5th century) have the final say on what customs should be followed? The Greek Orthodox church has lots of customs that the Lutherans don't follow. Should we look to them for approval over what should be allowed?


Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Weedon on January 31, 2013, 07:08:59 PM
Oh, the church up to the 20th century should do the job. Clearly the reputed ordination of females to the office of the ministry is novelty for the Church in both doctrine and in practice. This one is not rocket science. Even a college prof should be able to figure it out! :)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 31, 2013, 07:24:13 PM
It took several hundred years for the "Church" to sort out the divinity/humanity of Our Lord. It took another few hundred years to (sort of) nail down certain other aspects of "Church" teaching and practice.
If it has taken a couple of thousand years to sort out details about the pastoral office, is that so terrible? (It might be considered terrible by all those women who felt the call previously and were denied the opportunity to follow it, but that's another matter.)
Tell me at what year/council/synod/conventicle/assembly/convention everything was set once and for all time.

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on January 31, 2013, 07:33:13 PM

Tell me at what year/council/synod/conventicle/assembly/convention everything was set once and for all time.

Easy. Psalm 119:89.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: JMK on January 31, 2013, 07:51:57 PM
Quote
It took several hundred years for the "Church" to sort out the divinity/humanity of Our Lord. It took another few hundred years to (sort of) nail down certain other aspects of "Church" teaching and practice.
If it has taken a couple of thousand years to sort out details about the pastoral office, is that so terrible? (It might be considered terrible by all those women who felt the call previously and were denied the opportunity to follow it, but that's another matter.)

And, the LCMS might take another couple of generations to work through the issue of WO. What is most important now is for various clergy in the LCMS who are open to WO, to put down their opinions for the next generation to reflect upon. For example, I read awhile back that Arthur Carl Piepkorn (although he was not a rocket scientist or a college prof) was once asked about WO.  As I understand it, he did not think allowing for WO was a form of heresy.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on January 31, 2013, 07:57:49 PM
What is most important now is for various clergy in the LCMS who are open to WO, to put down their opinions for the next generation to reflect upon.

Quote of the week!  Someone who hasn't been banned from OWN's Facebook page should post this statement there.  Yes, let's leave it to the next generation.  Those young bucks know their Word!
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Eileen Smith on January 31, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
Only those my age and older are the ones whining for WO in Missouri.
(I'll be fifty eight Superbowl Sunday)


Which is why, as stated above is so important:  What is most important now is for various clergy in the LCMS who are open to WO, to put down their opinions for the next generation to reflect upon.

When I was part of the LCMS, one of the women in our congregation felt a strong call to ministry.  After a time of discernment she went to a local ELCA congregation and then to seminary.   She didn't go as a "daughter" of our LCMS congregation, but our Ladies Aid paid for her books.  How things have changed in the LCMS!  And that saddens me. 

To the topic of this post:  I'd prefer not having pseudonyms.   It is good to know with whom one is in conversation.  As well, it can give one the sense of being invulnerable when posting - writing things they might normally not write.  That being said, after seeing some of what has been written to and about posters such as Dr. Benke and Marie Meyer - well, I certainly understand that posters from the LCMS would not feel too comfortable using their name. 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Pastor Ted Crandall on January 31, 2013, 08:42:46 PM
And, the LCMS might take another couple of generations to work through the issue of WO.

A few more and maybe they can work through the issue of promiscuity... 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: LutherMan on January 31, 2013, 08:46:56 PM
To the topic of this post:  I'd prefer not having pseudonyms.   It is good to know with whom one is in conversation.  As well, it can give one the sense of being invulnerable when posting - writing things they might normally not write. [/color]
Pot, meet kettle.  "ESmith" hardly tells the world who you are, let alone your gender...
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on January 31, 2013, 09:03:15 PM
Only those my age and older are the ones whining for WO in Missouri.
(I'll be fifty eight Superbowl Sunday)


Which is why, as stated above is so important:  What is most important now is for various clergy in the LCMS who are open to WO, to put down their opinions for the next generation to reflect upon.

When I was part of the LCMS, one of the women in our congregation felt a strong call to ministry.  After a time of discernment she went to a local ELCA congregation and then to seminary.   She didn't go as a "daughter" of our LCMS congregation, but our Ladies Aid paid for her books.  How things have changed in the LCMS!  And that saddens me. 

To the topic of this post:  I'd prefer not having pseudonyms.   It is good to know with whom one is in conversation.  As well, it can give one the sense of being invulnerable when posting - writing things they might normally not write.  That being said, after seeing some of what has been written to and about posters such as Dr. Benke and Marie Meyer - well, I certainly understand that posters from the LCMS would not feel too comfortable using their name. 

Interetsing. When I was part of the LCA, I wanted to become a pastor. But I was told by LCA professors that I needed to change how I viewed Scripture and accept their position. After a time of discernment, I went to a LCMS congregtaion and then to seminary. I did not go as a "son" of the LCA congregation but did receive occasionally financial gifts - small ones but of great encouragement. How things have changed with the ELCA! And that saddens me.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Eileen Smith on January 31, 2013, 09:17:14 PM
Eileen Smith
St. Timothy Lutheran Church, Wayne NJ
Female :)

Sorry - pseudonym not intentional.  I had trouble logging in at one point and needed to register on the site a second time - so went for simple:  ESmith.

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on January 31, 2013, 09:24:20 PM
Eileen Smith
St. Timothy Lutheran Church, Wayne NJ
Female :)

Sorry - pseudonym not intentional.  I had trouble logging in at one point and needed to register on the site a second time - so went for simple:  ESmith.

Thank you! My name is (obviously) Daniel Gard - male  :)

There is nothing I enjoy more on this forum than to discuss issues with actual people. By the way, my sister shares your name.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: LutherMan on January 31, 2013, 09:29:01 PM
Eileen Smith
St. Timothy Lutheran Church, Wayne NJ
Female :)

Sorry - pseudonym not intentional.  I had trouble logging in at one point and needed to register on the site a second time - so went for simple:  ESmith.
And I am Craig Johansen, Omaha, NE.  Mt Calvary LCMS as I have posted numerous times.
Despite the Danish surname, I am more German (mother's side) in behavior... 8)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Eileen Smith on January 31, 2013, 09:37:18 PM
Good to meet you both.  In spite of the surname, "Smith" - I'm Italian - my family name is Albertini.  I'm emotional and love to cook - so I'd say I'm Italian in nature! 

 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: LutherMan on January 31, 2013, 09:40:07 PM
Good to meet you both.  In spite of the surname, "Smith" - I'm Italian - my family name is Albertini.  I'm emotional and love to cook - so I'd say I'm Italian in nature!
Oh man, do I ever want to have dinner at your table.  I love Italian food... :)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on January 31, 2013, 09:49:40 PM
I spent spme time in Sicily with the Navy. The food there forever spoiled me - to this day I cannot stand the way Americans make "Italian" food in our restaurants. It is not the same.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Eileen Smith on January 31, 2013, 09:55:39 PM
Then if you are ever near Wayne, NJ, let me know and we'll gladly invite you to dinner.  I promise that i use my mom's recipes - from Ortona. 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on January 31, 2013, 09:59:21 PM
Eileen Smith
St. Timothy Lutheran Church, Wayne NJ
Female :)

Sorry - pseudonym not intentional.  I had trouble logging in at one point and needed to register on the site a second time - so went for simple:  ESmith.
And I am Craig Johansen, Omaha, NE.  Mt Calvary LCMS as I have posted numerous times.
Despite the Danish surname, I am more German (mother's side) in behavior... 8)


Do you think you're so important to us all that we'll commit that information to memory, or somehow tag and bookmark this post to refer back to it every time we wish to respond to you? If you don't want to hide behind a pseudonym, don't. If you do want to, do. But it seems like a lot of hubris to think you're so special that you can simultaneous be both pseudonymed and identified. I don't think it matter much which you select, but I do think you should pick one or the other option, or at least put your real identity in your tagline.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: SmithL on February 01, 2013, 12:28:21 AM
By the time we got to ALPB, most of us understood that having any kind of web presence opened ourselves to all sorts of mischief.  Spamming, stalking, offline harassment, and even identity theft have resulted from registering and regular posting on some websites.  For that reason alone, I used a pseudonym when I registered here. 

I was here for well over a year before I decided that it was safe to use my own name.  I've never regretted the decision to use my own name, but I certainly understand why some people wouldn't.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on February 01, 2013, 08:07:39 AM
so what I think I hear is being said generally is that it more matters why a person is using a pseudonym than the fact that one uses such identities.  Why not put in your tag line the truth for the use of a false name, like "fearful of my church's retaliation," "due to caution due to potentially stolen identity,"  "hidden to allow greater boldness," "veiled to enable greater slander and mudslinging," "penname for dipping into more deadly poison," or similar things....   Of course we would all have to pledge some degree of honesty.  But then what is hidden honesty?   Harvey Mozolak
 
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on February 01, 2013, 08:35:22 AM
I like "fearful of retaliation by heresy-hunting mobs."
Or "gutless weenie."
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 01, 2013, 08:57:25 AM
Heh heh.  I always liked that one:  "gutless weenie."  That's a good one.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Jay Michael on February 01, 2013, 09:03:05 AM
I like "fearful of retaliation by heresy-hunting mobs."
Or "gutless weenie."
Add to these ... careful, prudent, and responsible.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: FrPeters on February 01, 2013, 09:16:35 AM
A parishioner now dear departed reminded me that there is no such thing as Italian cuisine.  Sicily has its own character, Southern Italy, and Northern Italy.  She was an amazing cook and an even more hospitable host.  In our first 13 years in the parish, we spent countless days at her house, gently assisting where she would allow, and feeling the most special guest of all in the room...  A delicious eating experience that began with cocktails and appetizers at 4 pm, salad about 7, main course at 8 pm and dessert about 9 pm... then to end with an unparalleled selection of after dinner liqueurs.

Quote
I spent spme time in Sicily with the Navy. The food there forever spoiled me - to this day I cannot stand the way Americans make "Italian" food in our restaurants. It is not the same.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on February 01, 2013, 09:22:49 AM
Being "careful" and "prudent" Jay. lies in what one says and how one says it, not in hiding behind a phony name.

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Jay Michael on February 01, 2013, 09:45:24 AM
Being "careful" and "prudent" Jay. lies in what one says and how one says it, not in hiding behind a phony name.
An opinion you have and are entitled to ... but an opinion that I respectfully disagree with.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Coach-Rev on February 01, 2013, 09:48:48 AM
It took several hundred years for the "Church" to sort out the divinity/humanity of Our Lord. It took another few hundred years to (sort of) nail down certain other aspects of "Church" teaching and practice.
If it has taken a couple of thousand years to sort out details about the pastoral office, is that so terrible? (It might be considered terrible by all those women who felt the call previously and were denied the opportunity to follow it, but that's another matter.)
Tell me at what year/council/synod/conventicle/assembly/convention everything was set once and for all time.

Ah yes, the same old response I hear all the time from libs:  "The Holy Spirit hasn't definitively spoken on the matter yet."  Heard it ad nauseum during the runup to CWA 09, and then after, all I heard was the opposite.

So there is nothing definitive about anything in theology?  Then let me ask you this:  why do any of us even bother?  I've got far more important things that I would like to do on Sundays.  But I don't succumb to my own sinfulness because I (as the church does) believe that the absolute truth of God is far, FAR more important.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Pastor Ted Crandall on February 01, 2013, 10:25:55 AM
I like "fearful of retaliation by heresy-hunting mobs."
Or "gutless weenie."
Add to these ... careful, prudent, and responsible.

Not to mention Heresy-Hunter-Hunters...

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on February 01, 2013, 10:43:05 AM
Being "careful" and "prudent" Jay. lies in what one says and how one says it, not in hiding behind a phony name.


APOCALYPSE ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pr. Austin and I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on February 01, 2013, 10:51:34 AM
Pastor Cottingham writes:
Ah yes, the same old response I hear all the time from libs:  "The Holy Spirit hasn't definitively spoken on the matter yet."  Heard it ad nauseum during the runup to CWA 09, and then after, all I heard was the opposite.
I comment:
And often, one hears what one wants to hear.

Pastor Cottingham writes:
So there is nothing definitive about anything in theology?
I comment:
Yes, there is. But what constitutes "theology" and what is definitive is constantly under discussion. Among Lutherans, I have seen no wavering from the Gospel message that we are saved by grace through faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But can you really say that nothing in "theology" has ever, since the time of Our Lord, changed? Really?

Pastor Cottingham writes:
Then let me ask you this:  why do any of us even bother?  I've got far more important things that I would like to do on Sundays.
I comment:
If you do, then do them. Are you suggesting that you come to church only out of a sense of obligation or guilt or like a whining pre-teen that says "Mom! Do I really hafta go?"

Pastor Cottingham writes:
But I don't succumb to my own sinfulness because I (as the church does) believe that the absolute truth of God is far, FAR more important.
I comment:
OK. Good. I think. But you may be packing way too much into that phrase "absolute truth of God." Once that phrase included, for God's people, things we no longer include. But you know that.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 01, 2013, 11:03:24 AM
Warning: off topic  :)

A parishioner now dear departed reminded me that there is no such thing as Italian cuisine.  Sicily has its own character, Southern Italy, and Northern Italy.  She was an amazing cook and an even more hospitable host.  In our first 13 years in the parish, we spent countless days at her house, gently assisting where she would allow, and feeling the most special guest of all in the room...  A delicious eating experience that began with cocktails and appetizers at 4 pm, salad about 7, main course at 8 pm and dessert about 9 pm... then to end with an unparalleled selection of after dinner liqueurs.

That is true, Fr. Peters.  My aunt married a man from Sicily and my grandmother insisted he wasn't even Italian.  However, he taught us many delicious dishes.  So, I can promise Chaplain Gard and LutherMan a starter of arancini.  I make a soup from my mother's town which you really wouldn't find in other regions.  And we all think our way is the RIGHT way.  Hmmm....sounds like the church catholic (small c intentional)  :)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Coach-Rev on February 01, 2013, 11:10:27 AM
I comment:
And often, one hears what one wants to hear.



And one often reads what one wants to read, as you so obviously read things into what I wrote that simply weren't there and most certainly aren't true.    Sometimes I wonder why I bother with you at all.  Oh yeah:  its because you are so often wrong on everything.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 01, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
Coach-Rev:  the deficiency in others which you claim re perception of your views might instead stem from your own words.    I am a former English teacher and I know whereof I write. 

It's the splinter in the eye kind of thing.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Team Hesse on February 01, 2013, 11:36:40 AM
Being "careful" and "prudent" Jay. lies in what one says and how one says it, not in hiding behind a phony name.


APOCALYPSE ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pr. Austin and I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Please don't encourage him.


Lou
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2013, 07:00:35 PM
A parishioner now dear departed reminded me that there is no such thing as Italian cuisine.  Sicily has its own character, Southern Italy, and Northern Italy. 


She is mistaken. The various regional variations within the overall world of "Italian" cuisine are richly varied. Sicilian, Neapolitan, Roman, Milanese, and all the other regional variations of Italian cuisine are distinct enough from each other to be easily identifiable as unique. But though they are distinctly different in many ways, they do share enough similarities to make them all recognizable as cousins in one large, extended culinary family. Milanese and Sicilian cuisines are different from each other, but no so different as either one is to Moroccan, Russian, or Korean cuisine. 



Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on February 01, 2013, 07:41:24 PM
For heaven's sake! "Italy" didn't even exist until the late 1800s. And the tomato, having originated in what would become "the Americas," didn't reach the boot-shaped peninsula until the 16th Century.
There is no "Italian" cuisine.
And the degree of differences among the various regions of what is now Italy is quite great.
True "foodies" and people who know their way around a kitchen never refer to "Italian" cooking.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 01, 2013, 08:23:29 PM
For heaven's sake! "Italy" didn't even exist until the late 1800s. And the tomato, having originated in what would become "the Americas," didn't reach the boot-shaped peninsula until the 16th Century.
There is no "Italian" cuisine.
And the degree of differences among the various regions of what is now Italy is quite great.
True "foodies" and people who know their way around a kitchen never refer to "Italian" cooking.

It's like American cooking, many regional variations so that New England, California, South West, and New England cooking all have their own distinct characteristics.  Similarely Chinese cooking.

Dan
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2013, 08:46:13 PM
For heaven's sake! "Italy" didn't even exist until the late 1800s. And the tomato, having originated in what would become "the Americas," didn't reach the boot-shaped peninsula until the 16th Century.
There is no "Italian" cuisine.
And the degree of differences among the various regions of what is now Italy is quite great.
True "foodies" and people who know their way around a kitchen never refer to "Italian" cooking.

It's like American cooking, many regional variations so that New England, California, South West, and New England cooking all have their own distinct characteristics.  Similarely Chinese cooking.

Dan


That is correct. While Italy didn't exist as a nation-state until the 19th century, it existed as a geographic region. However, most foodies I know, including those who taught me when I worked as an Italian Chef, recognized that there was an order to all cuisines. It is not unlike the way that biologists use the layers of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.


"European" cuisine differs from Asian or African cuisine. European cuisine can be divided into Scandinavian  Central European, Mediterranean, and other categories. Mediterranean cuisine can be further divided into Greek, Italian, Spanish, and other categories. Italian cuisine can be further divided into Neapolitan, Sicilian, Roman, and other smaller categories. Sicilian cuisine can be further divided into the cuisine of Palermo, Messina, Ragusa, etc. The cooks on the northern edges of Palermo have slightly different variations on their food from the cooks who live in the southern part of town. And, Mrs. Cabrone uses a little more garlic in her sauce than Mrs. Barranti.


If anyone wants to be a jerk about declaring where to draw the line, have at it.


That is one reason why it's important to know the true identity of people. Otherwise, you wouldn't know if it was Mrs. Cabrone's sauce or Mrs. Barranti's.



Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: LutherMan on February 01, 2013, 08:48:52 PM
For heaven's sake! "Italy" didn't even exist until the late 1800s. And the tomato, having originated in what would become "the Americas," didn't reach the boot-shaped peninsula until the 16th Century.
There is no "Italian" cuisine.
And the degree of differences among the various regions of what is now Italy is quite great.
True "foodies" and people who know their way around a kitchen never refer to "Italian" cooking.

It's like American cooking, many regional variations so that New England, California, South West, and New England cooking all have their own distinct characteristics.  Similarely Chinese cooking.

Dan
True "foodies" and people who know their way around a kitchen never always refer to "Italian" American cooking...
 :)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on February 01, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
McDonald's, anyone?  :)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 01, 2013, 08:53:58 PM
Well, I do understand what George is saying, but I also understand the Italian woman who said that there's no such thing a Italian cooking.

For Italians, the method used in one's region is the right way!  I hear it in the way my family and other Italian families speak.  "How do you ('you' not a person, but region) make your gravy?"  "We (again the region) do it this way."  Italian cooking is very regional and regions do not yield easily as to cooking methods.   I cook in the style of Abruzzo - that is, the right way.  Get it!

As to whether or not there is "Italian food" - the Culinary Institute of America has on its website describing their restaurant, Caterina de Medici, "...is located in the beautiful Colavita Center for Italian Food & Wine.  Its a' la carte menu features....and authentic flavor combinations of this much-beloved cuisine.

For a laugh on Italian cuisine, try to find the movie, "The Big Night." Two Italian brothers open an Italian restaurant, seeking to serve "real" Italian food - that is, not spaghetti and meatballs.  A woman orders risotto - with a side of spaghetti.  The brothers try to explain that you simply don't eat two starches together.  Well, maybe you would had to grow up knowing that one NEVER has two starches together to appreciate this - but it is a really funny movie.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2013, 11:03:53 PM
Well, I do understand what George is saying, but I also understand the Italian woman who said that there's no such thing a Italian cooking.



I suspect that the Italian women in question was merely engaging in some regional chauvinism, using a little hyperbole to make her point.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: RevSteve on February 01, 2013, 11:26:00 PM
I use my real name but have no problem if someone chooses not to. We have no idea why someone might choose not to and frankly it's none of our business. I really don't understand why some on here seem to feel entitled to know everyone's real name, nor the need to suggest that hiding one's real name is cowardly and unethical.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 02, 2013, 12:20:12 AM
I use my real name but have no problem if someone chooses not to. We have no idea why someone might choose not to and frankly it's none of our business. I really don't understand why some on here seem to feel entitled to know everyone's real name, nor the need to suggest that hiding one's real name is cowardly and unethical.

That is also my view. To me, it is enough that posts on ALPB Forum come up in Google. For many, that may be enough reason to protect their privacy. Privacy is not a bad, much less a sinister, thing. I decided to be very open because (1) as a Catholic I consider myself a guest on a Lutheran board, 5-star classification or not, and (2) the older I get, the less I have to gain or lose. I have made one concession to privacy, however: realizing that my birth date could be useful for identity theft, I've "simplified" it on my profile. The Internet is a very public venue.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 02, 2013, 01:57:35 AM

And often, one hears what one wants to hear.


This is most certainly true.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 02, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
For heaven's sake! "Italy" didn't even exist until the late 1800s.


The political state called "Italy" did not exist until 1861.

"Italy" has existed for millenia.  For example: "Ἀνὴρ δέ τις ἐν Καισαρείᾳ ὀνόματι Κορνήλιος, ἑκατοντάρχης ἐκ σπείρης τῆς καλουμένης Ἰταλικῆς..." (Acts 10:1)

Gutless (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4764.msg287393#msg287393)
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Charles_Austin on February 02, 2013, 03:09:57 AM
Nice try, Steven, but not effective. And you are one of those - who through all the years of ALPB Forum - have been honest about using your own name.
I was, of course, speaking of "Italy" as a political unit as understood today.
The annual "Columbus Day" oddities, when "Italians" get all excited also ignore the fact that there was no Italy and that the explorer was a Genoan sailing for the Spanish.
But we digress.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: LutherMan on February 02, 2013, 03:14:22 AM
Pr. Tibbetts makes a great point...
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on February 02, 2013, 09:39:55 AM
I understand that some may choose not to post with their real name.

I do not understand why a few who do so choose to libel and attack others by name while hiding behind a fake name themselves.  Could someone explain to me how it is that such behavior is not unethical?
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 02, 2013, 09:47:29 AM
I understand that some may choose not to post with their real name.

I do not understand why a few who do so choose to libel and attack others by name while hiding behind a fake name themselves.  Could someone explain to me how it is that such behavior is not unethical?

1) The medium is not the message.

2) The unethical behavior is the libel, not the name used to commit it.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on February 02, 2013, 10:00:54 AM
I understand that some may choose not to post with their real name.

I do not understand why a few who do so choose to libel and attack others by name while hiding behind a fake name themselves.  Could someone explain to me how it is that such behavior is not unethical?

1) The medium is not the message.

2) The unethical behavior is the libel, not the name used to commit it.

While I am not sure that I understand #1, I partially agree with #2. Here is the problem as I see it: The libel is unethical. So is the person who engages in it - a fact whether the "libeler" uses his/her own name or not. But when the "libeler" does so in a public, open forum against someone else and the reputation of that "libelee" is thereby damaged, should not the accuser put his/her name to the accusation? Even the secular courts allow one to face their accusers - should not Christians be held to an even higher standard?

While it is "not the name used to commit it (libel)" that is unethical, the person using that fake name to commit it is unethical.

This thread has shown me that some feel that they must post under a pseudonym. OK. All I would ask is that they refrain from going on personal attacks and stick to ideas.
Title: Re: The Use of Pseudonyms on ALPB, yes, no, or maybe
Post by: cssml on February 02, 2013, 01:50:05 PM
I understand that some may choose not to post with their real name.

I do not understand why a few who do so choose to libel and attack others by name while hiding behind a fake name themselves.  Could someone explain to me how it is that such behavior is not unethical?

It is unethical, and anyone who willfully persists in it should be dealt with by the moderators, whether they use their name in public forums or not.