Comments without attribution are like vapor -- they have no substance. To evaluate or consider opinions, you need the reference of the source. Otherwise, ignore the remarks and let them blow away in the breeze.
If legitimate questions are included, you could consider addressing them.
As much as I am irritated at times by Eddie and Randy's posts, at least they have the guts to own their comments and advocate a position. I respect that even if I may disagree.
I have to say that I am disappointed in both OUSA leadership and the other candidates in this election in that they have not distanced themselves from sammy's incendiary remarks, but rather seem content to let sammy spew anonymous lies and personal attacks on their behalf.
Couldn't agree more with these sentiments. You (aka the Coalition) have all been exemplary role models worthy of office and I applaud the way you have dealt with divisory commentary and attacks. Emotional intelligence factors greatly into political success and sadly there are those who, by a lack of action, have become tarnished assets. The coalition has my vote and support!
Thanks, Daddy-O and Bill!
@Boris - additional condemnation of sammy from various quarters would have been nice but why should anyone feel obliged to distance themselves from sammy if they haven't previously cozied up to sammy? I doubt it ever even occurred to any of the OUSA leadership/other candidates that they ought to feel a need for additional distance from someone whose identity they don't even know.
Or to put it another way, there's nothing wrong with not feeding a troll.
In the most general terms, I'm pro-anonymous comments because I believe comments should be judged on their merit. Requiring identity can itself be an ad hominem crutch that allows ideas to be rejected for the wrong reasons. For example, anonymous hiring practices tend to hire more women in tech jobs. But using anonymity to engage in non-constructive criticism and ad hominem attacks is just wrong.