A pseudonym is a name that a person or group assumes for a particular purpose, which differs from his or her original or true name (orthonym).
Okay...I'm sure you all knew what that meant but felt the need to provide the definition.
The definition in and of itself, a name a person "assumes for a particular purpose", leads me to think of a couple of things. A person wants privacy which is understandable. But the second thought, and I tend to think more strongly towards this in the context of this blog, is that people don't want to stand on their legs, take ownership and voice their opinions as exactly who the person is that they are. Why would one care what other people thought if they felt strongly about something and had an opinion on it? Isn't that the purpose of why we participate and doesn't it make you feel good that you are actually entitled to have a voice?
There seems to be a constant debate on almost every thread whether or not people should be allowed to use pseudonyms. I never have; it never occurred to me that I needed to until after a few comments that I made were not taken well. I can assure you, I have been called every name under the sun! I have always been me and said exactly what I thought and never would hide under a blanket.
At first, I didn't care about the pseudonyms that other people chose to use but, after having been on the Patch for as long as I have and seeing what goes on...I would be willing to bet you a million dollars that if people were not allowed to use them on this platform, the negativity and ridiculous name calling would be taken down ten notches at the very least.
It seems (that with the exception of a few who actually do use their real names) the majority of that nonsense comes from the people hiding behind fake names and that each and every article goes WAAAAY off topic.
Own your points, people...with your REAL NAME! It seems to be cowardice when you do so otherwise and you are not taken nearly as seriously. It doesn't mean the world will agree with you but I would bet a thread with 80 comments would be cut down to 40 which would include people who actually have a point pertaining to the article and not a desire to insult people.
Curious as to other people's thoughts on this.