Repost: What alias are you carrying in your wallet?

My name is Roger A. Baylor, and I am NA Confidential.

I live in New Albany, work in New Albany, own a business in New Albany, and currently see no reason to believe that any of this will change any time soon.

Full disclosure aside, for a full account of the exchange we’ll be referencing here, please go to the burgeoning “comments” section of "NA Confidential vs. NA Incontinent at Monday's City Council meeting." Specifically, near the end, you will find two February 10 posts from “Rhiannon of NA.”

Now, according to Rhiannon's logic, MJ -- who as far as we can tell is the only member of the current administration to post here, and does so with unvarying grace, intelligence and grasp of the issues -- undertakes the effort to do so as part of a conspiracy to defend the unholy secrecy of the Garner/Gahan hit squad.

Huh?

It's way past time for a reality check when we begin equating City Council work sessions with the second Nixon administration, which in terms of hyperbole is reminiscent of the Tribune’s Chris Morris describing work place smoking bans as Gestapo … but with one very important difference.

Chris Morris signed his name to the piece.

In the interest of fairness, and in the interest of fairness alone, consider that apart from NA Confidential's many and varied reasons for existence, each and every rhetorical grenade lobbed from these pages into the lap of targets like James Garner, Jeff Gahan, Marcey Wisman, Dan Coffey, Bev Crump, Tony Toran, Shane Gibson or any other elected or appointed city official is tossed according to the dictates of one critical precondition:

The recipient is clearly visible to the one lobbing the grenade.

We all know who these public officials are, don't we? But they don't know who all of us are, do they? Isn't it just as logical to assume a conspiracy on the part of the anonymous individuals posting here as it is in city hall’s alleged cabal of the elders of the protocol of whatsoever?

Now, did the people mentioned above accept the burden of detailed and even potentially microscopic public scrutiny when they decided to run for office or accept an appointment?

Yes. If they forget it for a single minute, stern rebukes certainly must be issued, because they are servants of the citizens of New Albany.

But my point today is this: Elected or appointed officials may have accepted a burden, and when doing so, they may have forfeited some degree of privacy, but they did not forfeit the right to face their accusers.

Simply stated, we know who Jeff Gahan is. We don’t know who Rhiannon is, and until we do, we know only part of the story.

This isn’t to suggest that we all “come out,” because I know that’s not the way the world works. Readers are encouraged to continue posting in whatever fashion they wish.

At the same time, I wish there to be no confusion whatsoever as to my feelings on this matter.

When it comes to the customs of human discourse, I abhor anonymity, especially (though not exclusively) when it applies to me.

NA Confidential may be a pen name of sorts, a nom de plume, but there has been absolutely no effort to hide behind it, a keyboard, the Maginot Line or any other wall, real or imagined.

My views are mine, inseparable from me, and I’m not about to praise or criticize a living soul without that individual knowing who I am.

That said, I believe there remains a case to be made for anonymity, but not without certain obvious exclusions.

As an example, I believe it is reprehensible for one person to post behind multiple and contrived facades. This has happened on NA Confidential, it might happen again, and for all I know it may be happening now, but make no mistake: I am opposed to it.

Likewise, I believe that the deployment of anonymity to veil the mentality of a non-constructive, flame-throwing, attack dog also is disgusting to me on a personal level, but it probably must be tolerated in an open society. It doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I believe that such exceptions do prove the rule. There are cases when a person in a sensitive place must utilize anonymity for protection with respect to his or her position, but this is rare, and understood strictly in a narrow context.

Otherwise, no.