I just refused to post another comment from a reader who entered a BugMeNot e-mail address. What is BugMeNot? I wrote about it years ago on the Ethics Scoreboard, as an Unethical Website of the Month. :
“BugMeNot allows web users to access sites that require on-line registration, so they don’t have to divulge their real names, e-mail addresses or other personal information. Through BugMeNot, they share active user names and passwords for more than 130 forced-registration sites, such as the New York Times, and Washington Post sites. In other words, the site facilitates dishonesty in multiple ways. It permits users to access information from a provider without meeting the conditions required by that provider for access, and it facilitates deception, as consumers acquire entry to restricted sites by using false identities.”
I prefer that all posters here use their full names (thank you, Tim, Tom, Bob and Steven!) but I will allow single handles as long as I am given a real e-mail address. (See the conditions of commenting in the body of the page here). Getting a fake screen name from a commenter who lists a BugMeNot address is not only a violation of posted rules, but also an insult: someone who does this is bugging me. If you don’t want to post under the restrictions of Ethics Alarms, fine, but you have a lot of nerve sending in a comment with a fake e-mail address on the theory that I’m infringing on your privacy. I require some modicum of accountability from commenters, who are my cherished guests: don’t tell me I’m “bugging you” by requiring some honesty on an ethics site.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m always a little hesitant to use my full name. On the Internet, I almost always call myself by my handle, “King Kool” (as I’ve done here a few times by mistake). But I’m always the same guy, whether or not I use one name or the other.
Besides, Ethics Scoreboard veterans were all “grandfathered in.” The key is that I know who you are.
BugMeNot? Synonym for ‘Coward.” If one wants one’s opinions read by others, he should have the guts to use his or her name. My name IS Elizabeth, and anyone who wants to argue with me via EthicsAlarms is welcome to do so. It really frosts me that so many people want to hold forth, rant, disagree, and call names without having the guts to identify themselves. Cowardly. Dastardly. Ugly. Cheap. And lazy.
I always figured that if you have an opinion to offer on the internet, you ought to be as upfront about yourself as if you were speaking in a group or on a stage in an auditorium. Still, I make allowances for others who might have a special need to guard their identity. As long as they keep their posts free from obscenity and have a point or information that has some validity, I’ll respect that. Naturally, I respect my correspondents personal info in any case.
BTW: Jack, I’ve been having some computer problems recently that have made accessing your site difficult. I hope that’s at an end, now!
Me too!
I’ve always been of the opinion that if I can’t trust an *Ethicist* not to misuse my email address, then who can I . . . ?
Any comparisons of Alarms to The New York Times are purely coincidental.
–Dwayne
I’ve been spammed enough as a result of registering at other sites, that I can understand where someone may want to be cautious about divulging their email address or other personal information on line. But caution and honesty are not mutally exclusive. Even if you wanted some unreasonable information like, say, everyone registering for Ethics Alarms had to provide their Social Security number; well, your site, your rules. Not too many folks would be registering, of course, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. In the event, clearly a bunch of us don’t think you’re asking too much of us. (BTW, the name I’ve provided you with is the one my parents provided me with.)
I have to say, at least your parents did not name you Copper (or worse, Cooper).