I enjoy the good conversation that one usually finds in Newsgroups and on chat boards like the one at www.comicon.com. I have generally been able to tolerate the occasional clown who posts with the sensibilities of — and often, the same motives as — a 12-year-old making prank phone calls. One of the problems inherent in public electronic communication is that those who post often think they're going over better than they probably are. You often see debates where some guy is like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: He gets his arms and legs whacked off but he's too danged stupid to know it. (Actually, that's not the best analogy because, on discussion boards, such wounds are usually self-inflicted.) Much of the problem occurs when a forum allows, as most do, its participants to hide behind handles. Anonymity is a great empowerer of the craven, giving them the opportunity to hurl mud at real people (i.e., those whose identities are known and undisputed) who, in turn, can only return fire at phantoms.
I believe in always being polite and respectful to all who post. If you do a Google Search on my old messages, I think you'll find that I always have been. I am, however, beginning to feel that simple rules of courtesy need not extend to those who cower behind monikers; that in the electronic chatting community, they are and ought to be treated like second-class citizens. The other day, a message on www.comicon.com attacking a friend of mine struck me as so egregiously rude and stupid that I found my breaking point. I have withdrawn from that forum and decided to do likewise in any venue where such folks run too rampant.
The reaction, at least in my e-mail, has been interesting. The rude messager is defending himself on two grounds, one being that I am somehow suppressing his free speech by taking umbrage and refusing to participate any longer. This is, I'm afraid, an altogether typical response. A lot of folks seem to think that the First Amendment means that they can post something stupid and no one else is allowed to say it's stupid and/or to refuse to listen.
His other defense is that he is functioning in the time-honored role of critic. He compared himself to Dorothy Parker and Alexander Woollcott — both of whom, as far as I can tell, always wrote what they wrote under real names. (They could both also spell.) He accused me of being "thin-skinned," even though — in this case — I was not the one being criticized. I wrote back to him that I've had my writing trashed by The New York Times and other such publications. A badly-written slam by an anonymous crank on a computer forum is barely a gnat bite by comparison. Really, I find his position indefensible and assume he will soon disappear, at least under that name. Perhaps, when he starts over under another identity, he will be a bit more judicious.
None of this is an immediate call to action on my part. I just felt I ought to write here about this change in my attitude. I intend to continue to be civil and helpful to all, even the anonymous guys as long as they behave themselves. But I've decided that hiding behind a handle does not show much respect for others and that, when such folks get abusive, they forfeit the right to be treated with any respect. Perhaps if this approach becomes the Internet norm, more forums will be erected wherein the participants have to use their real names, thereby accepting responsibility for what they write. It could only elevate the level of the discourse.