Sunday, July 25, 2010

CNN's Kyra Phillips and John Roberts Prove They Have No Idea Who Silence Dogood Was

I thought everyone knew that Benjamin Franklin, one of America's earliest known journalists published many of his works under the ANONYMOUS name Silence Dogood and Poor Richard. Might I recommend that CNN's Kyra Phillips and John Roberts take a look at this link to study a bit on Benjamin Franklin writing as Silence Dogood.


  1. Well done Lady, another teachable moment. If only the media was teachable.....

  2. And weren't the Federalist Papers written under the pseudonym of "Publius"?

    Nice picture of Mr. Franklin, btw!

  3. Proof, yes it was, just like the Federal Farmer of the Anti-Federalist Papers.

    These liberal progressive goons of the MSM have conviently forgotten their history.

  4. To get an idea of what Phillips and Roberts were talking about you need look only at your own rules:
    Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Disagreement is welcome, even encouraged, but spam, unduly profane, or offensive speech is subject to removal by the staff, management, editor and publisher of this blog.

    As far as this writer can recall, Silence Dogood used the pseudonym in order to get published, not to defame or ruin peoples' lives..

  5. "not to defame or ruin peoples' lives.. "

    Do you have any evidence of an anonymous blogger defaming or ruining people's lives? For example, did you feel more comfortable posting here as "anonymous" rather than using your real name. Would you have posted otherwise? Was it your intention to defame anyone or ruin someone's life? No. But the anonymity afforded you the chance to express your opinion without fear of retribution.

    Libel laws apply to bloggers as well as newspaper publishers. And any blogger who earned a reputation for lying would soon not have a following. The system is self correcting.

  6. You tell me "Proof"....what's YOUR real name?
    Where do YOU live?

    At least Phillips and Roberts have the courage to put their names behind what they say - agree with it or not. Every day, they and so many other so-called MSM journalists and op-ed writers risk "retribution" from people who hold a different point of view. But they don't cower behind some clever little screen name.

    What retribution are you worried about?

    This very website reserves the right to limit free speech if it finds it "offensive or profane", so maybe y'all should look in the mirror. Why complain about the speck in your neighbor's eye when you have a log in your own?

    The CNN anchors were talking about people who hide behind a shroud of anonymity when they engage in hateful commentary or post inaccurate or untrue information.

    If you have something nasty to say about someone, say it to their face, and let the chips fall where they may....otherwise, you might as well - as Roberts said - be writing on the bathroom wall.

  7. "You tell me "Proof"....what's YOUR real name?"

    LOL! Anyone who signs in as "anonymous" and asks me for my name is irony impaired! I just recently discussed the reasons for my anonymity in an excellent piece that can be found here:

    I have volunteered the city in which I live on more than one occasion.

    "What retribution are you worried about?" Maybe you should ask yourself that question first, and then get back to us, "anonymous"?

  8. "What retribution are you worried about?" I have already experienced the lies and libels of some liberal whack jobs who failed to win any intellectual arguments with me.
    I have no doubt that some of them are deranged enough to stalk me, given the opportunity.

    But, as I stated earlier, the use of a pseudonym was to make sure that my opinions were correctly attributed to me and not confused with anyone else's. And now, more people know me by the "brand name" of my pseudonym, than know my real name. I shall continue to capitalize upon that recognition until it is to my advantage, or I choose to do otherwise. It's that whole "choice" thing that liberals are always going on about! Heh.

  9. Proof...Here's what I believe.
    Stand behind what you say with your REAL identity.
    If you have controversial thoughts and opinions, have the courage to put your name behind them.
    If you open yourself up to "retribution" because of it, so be it.
    At least you will go to the grave with the comfort of knowing that you never hid from anything.
    That's how I have always lived my life, and always will.

    As for who I am and where I live - here's an answer to your "irony impaired". Have at it.
    John Roberts

  10. As I said in another place, John (if that's your real name), Sometimes the anonymity makes other people focus on the ideas themselves, not the person behind them. For example, not knowing who you are, I have to take your words at their face value and deal with them as such.

    Any plumber or ditch digger or dentist, young or old, black or white can express their ideas anonymously on the Internet without necessarily having the ideas dismissed because of their person. As Lady Cincinnatus (also not her real name) pointed out above, a number of the Founding Fathers chose to circulate their ideas using pseudonyms. Would you say that they did not "have the courage" to stand behind their opinions? If not, which ones?

    For one to assume that anonymous bloggers are somehow doing so out of cowardice or a lack of courage is not consistent with history and assumes facts not in evidence.

    As I said before, in the article I linked to, (that you probably haven't read), "fear of retribution" was never my primary reason for a "nom de cyber". So, all your aspersions on my "courage" miss the mark.

    BTW, John from Atlanta: You must not get home much on the weekends! ("John" is emailing me from New York)

    "Stand behind what you say with your REAL identity." That's easy! I'm Batman!

  11. Again, you miss the point. I'm referencing hateful, profane, offensive, inaccurate, or deliberately misleading information - items this blog itself reserves the right to censor.

    I'm not asking for censorship. I simply believe that the purveyors of hateful speech and inaccuracy should have the courage to tell us who they are. Do you disagree?

    I'm also a little surprised that while I have revealed to you my identity, you continue to stand behind a shield of pseudo-nymity.

    Really, what are you afraid of? Do you think your arguments would be less valid if you published them under your own name? Please...

  12. Again, John, if that is your real name, have you bothered to read the reasons I gave, posted only yesterday. I gave you the link.

    If there is "hateful, profane, offensive, inaccurate, or deliberately misleading information" it is not limited to anonymous blogs. People who engage is such information can and should be shunned. But knowing it was Bill.Smith@ or Bill Smith writing as "Martha Stewart's Ugly Stepsister", when you identify the site, you deal with the content and you vote with your mouse (or your remote) whether or not you want to read it.

    A good example might be the fellow over at "Little Green Brainfarts". His was once a well respected and often visited site. Many people linked to it. I used to comment there on occasion. Now, not so much. But whether you knew his name or not, you can easily read what he wrote, and people have come to reject that in droves.

    If my name were "Bob", would "Bob Positive" make any sense as a blog name? My name is a "brand" that helps me to stand out from the crowd. The "CNN anchors" as you put it, have had a very large forum handed to them that was built up over the years. I'm building my own network, one byte at a time!

    If you were starting from scratch at a 250 watt daytime station in Montana, and it was shown to you that you could attract a greater audience by calling yourself "The Whistling Cowboy" are you saying you wouldn't do it?

    While I was going to college, I worked two radio gigs: One was a college radio station where I used a pseudonym, on the other side of a glass window where everyone could see me. The other, was a paying job, at a little radio station out in the country where all I could see out the window was cows. I used my real name there. "Courage" had nothing to do with it.

  13. Proof,
    I would hope to build an audience by what I said, not something as shallow as a name. Good grief.

  14. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!
    Stage names are as old as the hills, John. People use them because they work, even to this day.
    (Who was that fellow formerly known as "Prince"?)

    "I would hope to build an audience by what I said"
    That's what I do here every day. I've stated the reasons why I do so anonymously. I don't know if you disagree with them or simply didn't bother to read them.
    So far, your most eloquent argument was signing in here as "anonymous". Somewhere in your heart of hearts, you know there are reasons not to always lead with your own name. Reasons you followed. Your speech about cowardice and hiding does not exactly jibe with your actions. Actions speak louder than words, John.

    BTW, you said you would hope to build an audience by what you said, but you didn't answer the question: If it were demonstrated to you, as a 250 watt daytime DJ, that you could attract a greater audience by changing your name, are you saying you wouldn't do it?
    Don't tell me what you'd "hope", tell me what you'd do. It's a yes or no question.
    It might be hard to envision from your comfy studio in NYC, but give it a try.

  15. I can see, "Proof" that you're a 'last word' kind of guy and it may be that you perceive that you 'win' intellectual arguments simply by posting so many times that your opponent stops responding to your repetitive circular remonstrations.

    But here's the deal.
    I started - not at a 250 watt radio station - but a powerhouse 5-thousand watter in rural Ontario, Canada.

    I reported news and spun country records.

    And I worked my way up - town by town - station by station, never resorting to calling myself a Whistling Cowboy or a Humming Plow Hand, or a Burping Buckaroo or any name that might derive from an emanation of a human orifice.

    I put my name and my face on everything I did.

    And no - I wouldn't embrace such silliness even if I thought it would get me ratings.

    That would be like downloading a picture of some famous writer off the internet to use with my screen name - in some inflated attempt to engender either notoriety or credibility.

    Which, as we know would be like the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug".

  16. Ooh! Little Johnny Roberts (if that is his real name) thinks that it might be unusual for me to get the last word in on my own blog. Almost as if I had a vested interest in it. Imagine that!
    Who'da thunk it?
    If you think blogging is easy, Johnny, send me the link when you get yours up. Use any name you like.

    Your usual emanations from your usual orifices should suffice.

    It appears that what is "inflated" about you Johnny, is your ego and your head.
    But, drop by any time!

  17. Ouch...he goes for the 'ego' put down...

    Like I said....a 'last word' kind of guy...

    Nice chatting with you "Proof"...or Sam, or Whistling or whatever your name is...

  18. Good thing you're "anonymous". If John had come back, I'd have had to tell him that until this little Internet kerfluffle came up, the only John Roberts I'd ever heard of was on the Supreme Court.

    But stop in again anytime. I don't always get in the last word...