<<False Names will ruin the Internet. This is supposed to be a "valid" source of information. Names are important. Credibility is at stake. Why should I value anything ToySoldier has to say if he can't use his name?>>
I disagree. Determining the "validity" of information in any forum (internet, print, TV, etc) is up to the reader, and the "value" of information provided by any poster or author is totally unrelated to the convention used when displaying their "name". For all we know Peter Connolly (whose name LOOKS real) is really Sean Connery (who I may or may not want to take IT advice from). Just because the convention he uses to "name" himself here looks like a "real name", does that make his opinion more "valid" or "valuable" ?
There are people with pseudonyms on SI who have helped me make a lot of money. I determined their information was valid after reading many of their posts and checking against other sources. If those people did not post here because they didn't want to use their "real name", I would be the poorer.
Conversely, there are people on SI who use their real name who are total morons. I wish they WOULD use pseudonyms so as not to constantly embarrass the parents that sired and named them. But they have a right to post, so we go on.
It is obvious now even to the novice that the internet is valuable to us as investors in that we have access to so much more information, (and some from people actually in the know who use pseudonyms), which we didn't have before, and which is extremely valuable. It is up to us to determine the irrelevant or incorrect (in the context of what each of us need), filter it, use the "Next" button, and move on. Those who are most successful at identifying the "valid" information (regardless of the moniker used by the presenter) will make the most money in the long run. I like that, sort of an objective "Internet/Economic Darwinism", totally objective, totally not dependant on the naming convention used.
Jack Whitley (maybe) |
