I haven’t spelled out my thinking about anonymous comments, so I’m taking a minute now. I prefer that anyone who wants to share a comment here be willing to share their name. I will post anonymous comments so long as they do not contain anything libelous or accusatory without an apparent solid basis in fact (e.g., rumors). Your comment comes close, but doesn’t cross a line that disturbs me. If Tim O’Reilly, Kathy Sierra or Bert Bates disagree, and they find this blog, I’ll be glad to post their comments too.

Tom

Then O’Reilly starts blaming a random responder as being an attacker. And when bloggers respond, most of the track backs lead to O’Reilly’s Radar Website – and (duh – as an Internet expert!) he is unaware that there are persistent error messages generated in his responders’ posts, so that it becomes a hit and miss game whether the post actually gets published or not.

Perhaps Tim’s involvement relates to this little gem.

Sierra’s current gig, along with her partner Bert Bates, is developing and producing the bizarre new Head First series of books for O’Reilly

Cops (Police) that patrol the streets. Now most of them are good upstanding professionals, however, there are a few of them that decide to use their power (badge) for evil instead of good. An oath of ethics is sworn unto them when they graduate from their respective academies to help protect and serve.

Doctors have an ethics board to ensure that they are treating patience fairly. They also have an oath sworn onto them reminding them that they are in practice to help cure the ill and not help them end their lives (which is another blog stream of thought for another time). Hence the problem with Dr. K.

The list could go on and on with people that have true “power” and the innocent are at the mercy of these people.

So I guess the question to ask you Tom, are you using your power for good? Or evil?

For that matter, one time I asked on John Wagner’s blog (where he will tell you that I’m a loyal reader) what separated a “professional communicator” from a mere “communicator.” And I wanted a definition that third parties (such as HR personnel and “the market”) would understand. I didn’t want an answer coming from a practitioner who thought he or she was really good at communications. You know, professional. John declined to answer me. (Chicken.)

“Because I believe that all people inherently are flawed” Whew…that’s pretty sweeping. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I can tell you that a code of ethics that doesn’t have any teeth (i.e., possibility of a disciplinary procedures and punitive damages, including publication of the infraction/sentence) is going to have a limited influence. If any. Whether it be on a blog, or whether it be the code of ethics of a trade association. Especially with all of those inherently flawed people running/blogging around. But I take you out of that mix, friend. I’ve never known you to exhibit anything but the utmost integrity, whatever the dealing or circumstance.

I now have a “stuck in the muck” refrain running through my head. Thanks for that!