On 2008-04-04, Nomen Nescio wrote:
No, it says that the poster has enough honor and integrity to stand behind
his words.
I've got no problem standing behind my words. That's why I sign my
posts.

Not with your name, you don't. That's not standing behind them.

My rationale:
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to protect.
If you've got nothing to protect, you've got nothing.

I've got plenty to protect...and I'm capable of doing so, without resorting
to cowering in the shadows.

Are you married?
Do you have children?

No and no.

If I were some nutcase who decided you needed to be "taught a lesson"
because I was offended by what you wrote (which I'm not, BTW), how
would you feel about having me visit your house?

To borrow a line: "Bring it on."

How about if you weren't home, but the wife and kids were?

My roomomate is as capable of protecting himself as I am. If neither of us
is home, then I'm not worried at all.

And specific to this group:
I could probably come up with a hundred things I could do to your plane
that would go undetected at preflight, but make the thing somewhat less
that airworthy. (and again, I never would).

You'll run this risk whether or not you stand behind your words. Let's say
you **** off someone in traffic, and he follows you to the airport...

That being said, I don't think too highly of the anonymous sniping that some
people engage in (as in changing Usenet identities to conceal the fact that
different posts are from the same individual)

Anonymity merely encourages that. If you're not standing behind your words,
there's no need to keep them civil.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)