I am sorry for appearing again on the same topic. Let "sorry" be screwed up first.
To Agentsmith:
Cordial thanks for calming down the situation. I knew your real name and nick long before. There is hardly any coner of Bangla Cricket, where I have not visited or did not try to do so. By this time, I could link some nicks with their real names. But that is not my real concern.
I honor the auhors's right not to disclose their real name in the front page articles. Even if it becomes a popular demand, there is no way other than honoring their choice.
But it is simply meaningless that poster-turned-authors (can be added to the dictionary)
would be asked whether they will allow to use their nicks. His nick is known first in this case. So whether he wants to include his real name is the question may be asked after he would agree to publish it in the front page. By the name of a Professional look, he cannot push us to confusions. BUT, again if it is the policy of the Board (Please!!!!!!!! Consider revision), I am ready to accept it. We want more nice articles like the latest one although the author is not kind to disclose the name. So for the sake of better enjoyment, I am ready to stay with my confusions.
However, if it is the situation,
why should some nicks be introduced as authors? If you cannot introdduce their real names as authors, you simply do not have the right to disclose their identity as authors. Is it not the case? Rather than healing the wounds from not knowing the nicks/real names of some authors, is it wise to more curisity or confusions.
Now they are introduced as authors, but what happens when I introduce for Instance, Agentsmith as a Terror and just ignore others right to be informed little more. In this case no body complained yet and it can be expected that they are authors. This is not creation of curious mind but pushing people to tedious serach or punishing people for curisty.
Anyway, thanks that you at least understood that there is a valid point in what I am trying to say.
To chinaman:
I did not want to reply further. But you made a question again.
"If someone is not ready to give up his right, he should not ask others to give up their's. (Did I say it correctly?)"
You are simply
wrong. Nobody asked to give up anybody's right. How can a poster-turned-author bear the right to remain anonymous? He has disclosed his name already. The idea of Professional look is of the administrators or the moderators, which prompt you to ask the real name. Otherwise he might be fine with his nic for the articles. Even if he becomes stubborn and pose a condition to hide his/her name for publication of his article, then that might be considered. This is what my logic says.
But in this thread, that was not my intention. If the policy goes in favor of the authors (an autocrat Government style, authors are not for the members, rather members are for the authors!), ok let that be continued. But
Don't hamper my right in anyway as a member in the board. I have the right to know about all the posts, about their contents and know whatabouts?
You can request anybody. Thats fine. We need more articles for our knowledge or enjoyment. But you specified some nicks giving the impression that they are frequent writers, if not, you have no or insignificant trust on other members. I may not write well but exclusion of my name in your list should give me the feeling of an inferior.
If you honor members right (oh! you told no right!), you should not introduce some nicks as authors denying to inform more in detail.
I have very high evalauation of you the poster of the largest number of posts in the board. So would you please be kind to tell me why was my serach not good enough.
I will not ask further why my request was bad? I know a request can be the best to somebody while being the worst for someothers? When a beggar begs, somebody donate even a huge money ansd some evn slaps!
A last question: It is appreciable that you sometimes post as a moderator and sometimes speaks as a member only. That is a very nice idea. It helped me to decide whether to reply or not to your post. I do not risk any ban from my most favorite site criticizing any moderator, wven if he become to outrageous on me. Sorry, making it longer. My question is- how do you know the policy of the group, the strategy towards the authors, members etc while speaking as a members only?:duh:
Inferiority complex entering inside my brain!
---------
Don't scold me, please.
Hope this ends my response on this topic. You are welcome to criticize me. But, if you would be asking any more questions or blaming for any comments, I may have to reply bu u2u.
[Edited on 24-6-2004 by abhs]