anonymity

I was watching a special on TV about the "hit series" COPS the other day and one of the producers was marvelling about how the majority of the people who have just done something "stupid" and were then caught by the local authorities will actually sign an authorization to allow their face to be shown on camera. If you have ever watched the show, you will remember that a small percentage of the people shown will have their faces blocked out so they can not be identified. The majority though apparently want their 15 minutes of fame. Who am I to argue, it makes good TV.

This special reminded me of some books I read last year dealing with LDS Church history. In several cases, names have been changed to reflect only the indviduals initials (Orson Hyde is referred to as OH, etc.) and some are in print simply as "Brother S_______." At first I thought it odd. Why did the writer and/or editor think it was necessary to change some of these names? Not all names in these books were changed, just some. It was even more interesting when at the beginning of an article about an individual, their name would be printed as "Brother S________" and yet a few paragraphs later it would state "Brother Simmons." Editorial mishap? Were the names changed to protect the innocent. Were they removed at the individual's request? I may never know as these books were all written in the late 1800's. But I must say it was like a game, trying to see how many names I could come up with to fill in the blanks or that matched the given initials.

I liked the use of "Brother S________" so much, that I have decided to adopt the practice in future postings. Think of it as a game....with no prize attached. Hey, I am poor, what do you expect?!