Real, Fake and Both.
One of the things I like about TPM is the creativity of my fellow TPM-ers. I enjoy how they go about presenting themselves and the topics they write about. That was a big factor in my wanting to join the commenting community. Before that, for the last six or seven years, I would read the front page and go off to my regular haunts.
I like that there is a variety of voices and outlooks. I like that there is real creative bedrock of personal lives from which people come. I like that there are raucous and milder humor threads/posts along with serious ones. I like that we all sort of "know" each other and have formed a level of bonding. I like you all, very much.
Every now and then a new persona emerges and that too is fun. Particularly those clearly fake personas like Mr. Crankypants or Mrs. No Pic or Pirate Peet and many others I don’t even know about, that are fakes. But even in their obvious fakery, they are real in that they belong to some individual and is that person's expression. They are fun (generally) and contribute to the richness which is TPM community. I would not want to hinder any of these personas and their supporting actors in their activities. That being said, I draw a clear line between a "fake" persona and a "real" one. A clearly "fake" persona, in my opinion, would be Mr. Crankypants or idiotic or Pirate Peet. The person(s) behind them I'm sure post regular comments and blogposts here at TPM and therefore are real individuals.
I had wondered about Cypher and sure enough, he revealed himself as a multi-pseudonymous on a history related thread. He has not appeared for a while. Perhaps he's assumed yet another persona which is not a problem for me. I define as a problem when the multiple personas belonging to one individual begin to gang up on another lone individual on a thread. A virtual mobbing I cannot abide along with personalized demolition and vitriol. That said, I too have, alas, engaged in said vitriol myself in the heat of the moment. I am attempting to mend myself.
Most of us are here under assumed names. Most of us have assumed avatars which reflect our spirits or our interests or some facet of our insides. Does this make us fake? I think not. Suppose we were to post under our real names and our real picts were our avatars, would that make us more "real" or would there still be a facet of a "fake," because who's to know what we are like in the real time? Who would confirm that "realness" for us as to whether a poster is "real" in his/her comments? Will it require for us to each make a "pilgrimage" to that room, the Little TPM away from TPM for us to be judged as "real" or "acceptable" by a cadre of mutually defined "real" judges? I hope not. I don't know of any characters that are not "real," here at TPM.
I don't want to limit the personas people assume. Neither am I willing to insist on binding people to one voice and one persona. We are not that monodimensional or monovocal and to impose that constraint would be more essentialist than I am able to be.
What do you think?
PS: For some of the background on this, see this <a href="link'>http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mandela-at-90-reconciliation-a.php">link for the previous discussion.</a>
The link: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mandela-at-90-reconciliation-a.php
July 22, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, sorry, wrong post - thought you were continuing the lusty conversation with Sir Crankypants about your "eye" and somesuch. Scusi.
July 22, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The discussion began on your thread, Desidero. That's the reason I linked. No offense meant, really.
July 22, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense taken unless you say I have a dried out hollow husk.
July 22, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. ;) Only one old coot has a dried out old husk and had the temerity to tell me I could "roorback" it, yesterday. I'm still laughing over that. ;)
July 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this, and agree with you fully.
Top notch, Yva!
July 22, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, articleman. ;)
Welcome to my very first TPM post. A bit scary, really, given that I'm rather on the shay
July 22, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was supposed to be --shy.
I hate this laptop. Vista fucking wrecked it.
July 22, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Know the feeling, though not about Vista - new to posting.
It's grand. Good job!
July 22, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, barefooted. ;) Appreciate the support.
July 22, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yva. Thank you for writing this, and a personal apology from me for the VERY long entry below. I hope it adds something to your post, rather than just eats up the space or hijacks the debate. If you feel it does, I'd be happy to try and take that part of the debate elsewhere. but one way or another, apologies for my making such a long comment on your first post. But you hit a good issue I think, and I hope what I've written adds to it. Yours,
quinn esq
July 22, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Upgrade to Windows XP ;)
July 22, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or at least wait until after Service Pack 1 or better yet 2!
Great thread Yva!
July 22, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even Service Pack 27 is going to fix that mess.
July 22, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
we both should beg Yvainne's pardon for talking off topic, but I agree! I uninstalled Vista off my dual-core machine and reinstalled XP.
July 22, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes it's nice to have something everyone can agree on, isn't it? The only thing I like about Vista is that MS finally improve the calendar/date-setting UI.
July 23, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Vista. It ate my laptop. But it has such a cool feel to it.
July 22, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats on your first post.
July 22, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, 1849.
July 22, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's interesting is that it turns out to be rather difficult to define "real" and "fake," because there are several different criteria.
I.e., if Pirate Peet is someone's second avatar, that might make him seem to count as "fake." But if Pirate Peet is someone's *only* avatar, then it would probably seem more "real" . . . although psychologically, more worrisome.
July 22, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Screw the avatar. And the name. Sorry to be so blunt, but aren't the words they say what matters? The communication at ensues? After all, many of the most vocal here have no avatar.
July 22, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, imagine if you heard some swashbuckling next door! Very funny comment, thanks!
July 22, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Pirate is psychologically worrisome? Nah. ;)
July 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this Yva. Rec'd. And I agree with much of it. I'm going to take up some space here, and anyone is free to shout at me for it, but I may well be the only one here who has lived on the unhappy border between Real and Pseud - so I thought it worthwhile to respond at some length. If you wish, feel free to engage, or just pass on over my head. and APOLOGIES TO YVA, for now here I am, breaking netiquette and messing up her first post. But Yva... ask a good question and...
Having been the unwitting subject of some of these recent events, I'd like to especially add some on the issue of "ganging up" or "mobbing" behaviour. There is no doubt in my mind, from my life, and what I know of history, that "mobbing" occurs with entirely separate, "real," individuals - in life. Out there. This is not just something done by people who use pseuds online. Anyone of a strong personality, artists, anyone with given characteristics (colour, sex, etc.) experiences this. And yes, it happens here. Every day. Humans are social animals, and they tend toward this, if they don't fight very hard against the impulse. I share it myself.
Now. If we agree that mobbing happens.... how do we single out some of those who mob as being "unacceptable?" 1) Is it because they've broken our standards of vitriol and personal attack? Perhaps. I can see there being lines we draw around that. But I'd want to keep that noose fairly loose. Free speech and all. Because there are many occasions I've run across here where people say fairly awful things not even knowing who was reading, and was hurt. But lowering the vitriol - fine. I agree.
But to say then that 2) "Pseuds mobbing" is not acceptable, while mobbing by "Reals" is.... sorry, but that won't wash. Mobbing is mobbing. and I'd like to keep this point separate from the complaint that some have that they felt betrayed or that the character lacked depth or whatever. I understand that feeling. But being shallow or narrow or betraying someone is NOT reason for exile. Full stop. If so, it could get lonely in here... that's a joke people, lighten up a little, willya? ;-)
What I'm saying is, EITHER we all move away from MOBBING, in the same way as we move away from overly-personal or VITRIOLIC stuff.... or.... we admit that we accept it by some (Reals), but not by others (Pseuds.)
Now. At this point, I can hear the protests ringing in my ears about those darned pseuds, and how badly they make us feel. Well, frankly, at this point - you need to shut that shit down, and listen. I may be a dork and a weenie on lots of things (stop listing), but I'm also one of the few here who's actually lived on BOTH sides of that fence.
I was taken for a pseud, while I clearly was and am not. It's a bit - tiny tiny scale - what it must feel like to be taken for gay or female or whatever, and not being that. As I say, tempest in teapot, but I shall plunge on. Because.... I learned some things. As you know, numerous people said, even today, that I was a pseud of XY or Z. And today, I lost my temper over it. I shouldn't have. But I'm no Mandela in the grace-dept yet. But the thing is, and here's the stinger folks, and I'm gonna ask you not to try to wriggle out too quick, just sit and tell yourself the truth on this one, and then respond, even if you don't at first like it:
Of those of you who named me - in writing - as being Billy or Des or Cypher, and then PRINTED IT FOR OTHERS TO READ, I ask you.... WHO THE F&CK MOBBED WHO? Cause I sure as shit was in no "group." I was the lone one. Just me, no multi-avatars, right? While YOU were doing the talking, the judging, the vetting, about whether I was real enough, amongst yourselves. You were the plural, I got to be the singular. Who mobbed
Some of you felt you had to VET me. Do you hear the footsteps of this argument catching up with you? Because I can absolutely 100% hand on Bible or Koran state that I am not Billy, Des or Cypher. So.... when it comes to "mobbing"... my dear fellow Reals... has anyone got a mirror?
Now, some of you will say that this kind of mobbing" was of a milder nature, not vitriolic, and so on. AND READ THIS. I AGREE. MOST OF THOSE WHO DID SO WERE FAIRLY MILD ABOUT IT, WILLING TO LISTEN & LEARN, AND OVERALL - I COULDN'T GIVE A RAT'S AND DON'T FEEL HURT. You're good people. I have some sense of perspective and even a sense of humour. And am happy to throw this into the dustbin of history and move on.
But. It's one HELL of an interesting little thought experiment, and experience in my case, to suddenly feel that slight vibe of .... gonna say it.... Salem. i.e. Is "quinn" a witch - i.e. inhabited by another? And if so, does he have special or unfair powers? i.e. He can "mob."
Again, I repeat. I am claiming NO high moral ground here. Not against anyone. I have been a racist, sexist, arrogant, unfaithful, hypocritical, unkind to small animals and children. This is NO BIGGIE in real-world terms. But intriguing... hell yeah.
One last thing - this one for YOUR peace of mind, not mine. How many of you FELT, when you spoke to me, that you thought you were actually talking to a creation of Billy, Des or Cypher? show of hands? And how many of you, if more than one of us critiqued you, felt you were being attacked/"mobbed" by pseuds? How many of you, when watching us debate - as we talked to one another - felt you were watching some ONE talk to themself? I suspect if you think about this, you'll realize that you now have memories of "someone" who turned out to be MORE than one someone. I know when I arrived, someone mentioned that Billy had created Cypher and Donnerpass and maybe even Des - and I thought they were right. So all of my early readings of the debates involving THOSE characters, are deeply coloured by that ERROR. They're merged in my head.
This is long, I know. But I also know, some people have been MORE upset by this debate, personally, than I. I'm a reasonably tough, hammer-headed bastard, with 9 sibs. So don't worry about me - I'm fine. (Even if I do grump from time to time.) And I'm more than happy to drop any negative past history, have a laugh, and plunge on into life. But there are some, I do know this, who have been more personally upset & threatened than I.
What I'm after here is a way to distinguish - overly-personal attacks & vitriol.... from mobbing.... from pseuds. these are quite different things. Apologies for the length. AGAIN. But I DO think we can learn one hell of a lot from our various experiences on this. And remember.... Ark Ark, Mars Attacks!
July 22, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow , quinn. Does it help that I understand?
Speaking only for myself, I have read comments from others that give you, perhaps, reason to defend yourself. Don't. Just do not.
You are yourself, no matter the visual, no matter the avatar. What you say to those who care to listen is that you are a person of thought. Great thought. Truly, quinn esq, that is more than enough. To those that question? They will continue. No consideration of you will be given. Screw that. Screw them, if they must.
Breathe, you have survived the flood.
July 22, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Yva, sorry for losing your thought. Or did I? Perhaps you just made it well.
July 22, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
quinn -- what a horrifyingly poignant phrase: "reals vs. pseuds." Reminds me of big enders vs. little enders, or, possibly cyborgs vs. humans in a science fiction drama. In an exclusively virtual community, it is impossible to identify "real" from "fake" in the sense that neither "real" nor "fake" has any explicit meaning here. At the same time, however, this community has been rapidly progressing past its formal boundaries into a more "reality"-based form.
You arrived on the scene at a time when people felt like had been toyed with by a "fake," and I think that a few people jumped to the conclusion that you were someone's alter-ego to protect themselves from that experience again.
I'm not saying that's fair, just saying that's how I interpret events. At any rate, what does it mean for this community to extend more into reality? There are risks to the purity of the all-inclusive online concept from people forming friendships and "real-life" connections. It does make the inclination to recommend a friend's post stronger a stranger's.
At any rate, what I think people are really looking for is not a real person behind the avatar as much as continuous context for discussion. If we argue about something, I want that argument to stay finished at the end.
July 22, 2008 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of hunger, what's the difference between fed and pseudofed?
July 22, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the difference between boredom and pseudo-boredom? Go to TPM and you can study both.
July 22, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the boardroom, in the blueroom.
July 22, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
One avatar's boredom is another's comfortable entertainment.
July 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
precisely
July 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently: sleeplessness, nervousness, excitability, dizziness and anxiety, tachycardia and/or palpitations, hallucinations, arrhythmias, hypertension, seizures, ischemic colitis, recurrent pseudo-scarlatina, systemic contact dermatitis, nonpigmenting fixed drug eruption, and episodes of paranoid psychosis.
I'm suing.
July 22, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, quinn, if I were you, and I am, I would cut down on all those Latinate words--the style is off-putting. Dude, try some pure and strong Anglo-Celtic words. Never use "fornicate" when you can write "fuck." It's one thing to admire Latin, but quite another to lie down and be muscled into foppishness.
July 22, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fop? I'm a Dapper Dan man.
I'll be damned if I know what you're usin'. Whatever it is, that squid stuck to yer noggin seems to like it.
July 22, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Guy, Let's tell the truth. We are both blue to hide the fact that we are one. It was such a subtle hint, wer'nt' it?
If we were different colors, we would me mistaken for our other mind, the chimp. Did you follow that, quinter, cause I didn't. And do the newer nit-nauts even remember that a chimp-id once roamed? Ah, the old days. Billy's eyes and Monica's thighs.
July 22, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
But if I'm really Quinn, as some may contend,
I've mobbed myself (though vast undeserved)
Though he did as well (understandable)
So both us lose while all of us win.
But what of the mob that boosts itself,
A pat on the back when a kick would serve?
And who but a lout would dare defend
That a lout would his own loutish raves recommend?
But just to assure, I am what I am
I don't have a dog in this fight to pretend
That I could be more than clever by half
If I only pretended to make myself laugh.
So if you see a bereft eskimo
In defense of a hound with a fiendish glow
Drive them both off to the freshest snow
And wait for the retributes vengeance to sow.
July 22, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I give it a 7.
It's got a dog in it. What colour?
July 22, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
7? Wanna see what I 8? Oops, looks greyish.
July 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yer greyish. No yer greyish. Stop talking with your mouth full.
July 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, there is no distinction.
I think it comes down to intent. If one is using a psued to further conversation, or if one is using it to play headgames. The former is acceptable, the latter adds nothing, and is deplorable.
I don't see it as a particularly murky difference. I'm not sure why others do. It seems to me that it muddies otherwise fairly clear waters.
July 22, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
bee, i think the question of intent is a good one -- but i also think intent is largely indeterminable in a forum like this.
July 22, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paige?? How the hell did you get here before me? You're my creation. Get back to the asylum. Errrrr, California.
July 22, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Q, as much fun as it is being a figment of your imagination, the great wide internets where calling.
July 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one's gone rogue. After her...!
July 22, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if one writes a post to disparage and ridicule other posters, I think the intent is self-evident.
When all this nonsense started, I warned folks this was a slippery slope.
TPM never had this problem before. Oh, well.
July 22, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to write a post to praise other posters. I hope you appreciate the positive spirit of it.
July 22, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Praising doesn't bother me. Why would it? If you prefer, I'll stay out of it.
No problem.
July 22, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heya Bee. I'm with you on the vitriol & the mobbing. I donno how to draw any precise lines there on what's ok or not, but I do know I like it kept to a minimum. Some like it a bit more raw. Like Billy. He finds it much easier to talk tough & tell people to piss off than I do. So I've just decided that I have to get used to it. Fair enough. I just strap on my asshelmet these days, and see what's out there.
But my dislike of too much vitriol & of mobbing holds for me whether it's coming from individuals or just someone doing a multi. I don't like it much either way. I'm not sure anyone does.
July 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, as one who once accused you of pseudism (I still owe you a beer on Paige's fundraiser page for that), I think that the witch hunt metaphor is apt. A communal paranoia has evolved at the cafe such that new members, especially those who interact with Cypher's pseuds, are treated with suspicion. The suspicions are then fed by rumor. I called you Billy Glad after having conversed with others about your Gladishness, which made me feel more confident in my suspicions. Finally, like a witch hunt, pseud accusations have been used to target disliked individuals. The biggest target of the pseud hunt was not you but Glad, which in retrospect is not surprising given the degree of antipathy he has provoked in many of us. Of course, there was circumstantial evidence--shared terminology, mutual praises, common references--but many of us moved from suspicion to certainty in a manner that is reminiscent of, as you say, a witch hunt.
Now I don't the think that the community bears all the blame. Unlike witches, there really are pseuds out there. It's ironic that Cypher, who never stops complaining about how new members are not welcomed, has been instrumental, through his use of pseuds, in creating an atmosphere where new members like you and stillidealistic are treated with suspicion.
But that doesn't mean that the accusers don't bear responsibility as well. I've apologized to you, but I suppose that I should take this opportunity to apologize to Billy Glad for joining the finger-pointers who have accused him of creating pseuds with insufficient evidence.
And to other members who use pseuds, including the creators of Cypher-Donner and MonicaL, I ask you to reject your avatars which are not obvious fictions. They have created an atmosphere of suspicion which is detrimental to the cafe.
July 22, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotta include Ripper here to be fair, yes?
July 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, well, some would say that the atmosphere of suspicion isn't created by the clowns but the schoolmarms. Sort of like blaming the blacklisted for McCarthyism.
July 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accepted responsibility for contributing to the atmosphere of suspicion and apologized for unsupported accusations. Criticizing me for what I just apologized for is ungracious.
Unlike Glad, you have acknowledged using pseuds. Your use of them disturbs people and makes them suspicious of newcomers. I didn't write the comment to pillory you. I wrote it to politely ask you to stop.
PS I didn't know that ripper was a pseud. If that is the case, then I reject and denounce ripper as well.
July 22, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper used Eddie Crankypants as a psuede one night, and admitted to it the same night.
Hardly the same thing as willfully trying to mislead people.
July 22, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, shirt, I'm just visiting. Haven't been here in weeks. And don't plan on it. Just coming back to give my dissertation on crap speak.
And, if ya noticed, the piece above was about the merits or demerits of pseuds. So, seemed appropriate, yes? We all get our say one place or another. Some with grand self-righteousness and others, just little Yeshiva Bochers from the lower east side...
The ones that remember the original Yonah Shimmel's Knish place on Houston Street, The Two Guitars Russian Gypsy Club and Ratner's on Second Avenue. The original Russian Tea Room before it was "re-done," And Ebbets Field.
We, the old New York crowd make claim to humor, satire and revolution from the Left. We still have our "union made" cotten
tee shirts. We remember when the bus and the subway cost 13 cents. When the Museum of Natural History was free. When the Hayden Planetarium only had 7 planets. When Broadway singers weren't mic'd. When Jimi Hendrix and Cream played the FIllmore East.
So, fuck off.
July 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, cypher. I do so love your dissertations. I never tire of reading the same self-righteous condescension (and hypocritical denunciations self-righteousness) over and over again. And I am in awe of your true New York authenticity and hilarious old-left satire. You are a superior person, or non-person as the case may be. I prostrate myself to your greatness.
PS Yonah Shimmel's is still there, next to the new Landmark Cinema, which is one of the best cinemas in the city, the only place to see art-house films with big screens and comfortable chairs. There's still great music on the LES too. But it's true that Hendrix is dead.
July 22, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I said the original Yonah Shimmels. I thought you might get that reference. Making the difference between the culturally authentic and the mere tourist attraction--as you understand. But, hey, at least we get each other's jokes....a bit too insiderish, no?
But you got t make your jokes with whomever might get them, even if they don't like them and even if they have a flashing shirt.
But shirt, do stoop so low as to root for a ball team?
July 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, Cypher! Way to kill my thread! Please answer the question I posed for you below.
July 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am obviously fictional. Unless other pseuds, I have acknowledged that I am a fragmentary, satiric thing not pretending to be someone.
If that's not honest, I don't know what is.
And I have been most rec'd a few times. Josh praised one of my posts as funny, which is uncommon. I don't think your comment is intended to kill that, but if it is, you need to circle back with the censor who invented your suggestion, which is quite poor.
I am not here to hurt someone. I am here to have fun and create. I don't yell or swear or act jerky, and I like 90% of posters here.
So I greatly respect you, of course, but I don't need your advice on this front. TPM does not need a papacy. It needs social sanction over assholes. I am not an asshole. People are free and entitled to mock my mockery (that whole prior restraint thing), but I'm not here to pretend "Monica" is a whole person. I disclaim she's not; and I don't flirt as her, or want to pick up girls or boys. Anyone somehow imaginably injured by the mere fact of my performances is fragile, censorious, probably humorless china that should excuse itself when my evil form appears.
July 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We want - nay, demand! - more MonicaL!
July 22, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I can tell you for sure that MonicaL does not flirt. I flirted with her once and was felled under satire even while she wore the hoofprint. Come on people, lighten up!
July 22, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true.
July 22, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about a written code of ethics? We have none that I know of. It would explicity deem certain behaviors unacceptable and morally reprehensible.
Here's a list:
Use of ethnic or misogynic slurs in a way that someone in that class would feel is demeaning
shilling without acknowledgement (people paid to support an issue or candidate should identify themselves as such)
pseud attacks discussed above
Repeated reposting
July 22, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
speechless. Monica. That was me. C
July 25, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
How has MonicaL created an arena of suspicion? How? Where?
July 22, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Genghis.
July 22, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many people (here and elsewhere) are probably 'more real' when communicating under their assumed monikers than they would be if doing so under their actual names.
Certainly not true of all, but more than not I think.
After a short time, whatever the 'name' used, certain traits and motivations (positive and negative) by those who choose to participate are exposed.
Because, no matter the psuedonym - what's in our hearts and heads is reflected in our posts.
Thanks Yva - and rec'd.
July 22, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Straight, sweet and to the point. Thank you, Aunt Sam.
July 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to censor what's in my heart to make it safe for family viewing, but howya doin' anyway? Nice digs you got here, should post more often.
July 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, don't censor. Tell as is. My dress is made of teflon. ;)
Thank you, Desidero. You honor my thread.
July 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your Grace. Pay no attention to my little step-brother up there. A dimb bulb, that one. Deficient in so many ways. I'd list 'em, but for starters, he's got no pants. Which says a lot, knowhaddimean?
Now.... Care for a walk?
(Hey you - thing that rhymes with Orange. Keep an eye on things for me willya? And what are you grinnin' at, anyway?)
July 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not a grin, dontcha know a stupid irritated glare when you see one?
July 22, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
A number of people are almost certainly using work computers and perhaps even doing it on company time.
July 22, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assumed names and assumed personalities are different things. There is every indication that Lewis Carroll was the same person as Charles Dodgson, the pen name was required to protect the fact that he was a distinguished math professor.
Ben Franklin invented Mrs. Silence Dogood so he could write opinions in his brother's newspaper. I post under a pseudonym because of privacy issues -- I have a long Google trail and one never knows how someone could use my postings on this highly personal political forum in unexpected ways.
On the other hand, Marcel Duchamp created Rrose Sélavy as one of his "ready-mades". He literally appeared in public in drag as this character. Still, I might categorize Rrose as the MonicaL or Pirate_Peet of that time.
Clearly, this is different than simply assuming a different name. However, for the next step, to fool people and creat a "serious" but false person, I refer everyone to a movie from the 80s, TOOTSIE. There we have a fictionalized account to see what happens when people interact with a person who is not whom they think she is. They are understandably angry, because they were literally made to feel conned. That would certainly be my reaction here if I was having a serious discussion with someone who was simply viewing it all as sport.
People show here to TPM for a variety of reasons, so I suppose there will be a variety of motivations for how people post. At the end of the day, the beauty of this board is you can always choose to interact (or not) with whom you want. There are those people with a legitimate track record of blogs and long comments whom I seek out (a good reason for a distinct avatar). I like to think that these posters I seek out are "real people" merely posting under a pseudonym... whom I can take seriously and perhaps even learn from.
I like to think that anyway.
Very articulate posting, Evianne -- don't take too long for your second! Rec'd.
July 22, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT. I'll continue out non-conversation, this one last time, over here - rather than at Ripper's. You just suggested (on Riper's post) that treating me as a pseud was at least partially justified by the fact that "apparently Genghis thought the same thing and Articleman saw similarities as well."
And yet, rather than perhaps ASK of of these people what they thought NOW, you decided to fix your opinion even more firmly. Is this how you do science? Is this how you do open debate? To make things worse, you then went on, and this after numerous requests to stop, to say "I do find it interesting you are doing exactly what I would expect of a performance artist now." And then turned down the chance to apologize and clear the slate.
Please do think about this, CT. Clearly. Your avatar and name risk being placed high in the TPM 'Irony' Hall Of Fame.
Or some other.
July 22, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Risk"? Seriously, Q, get over it - he/she outed him/herself long ago. Clear as mud, leaping sideways to conclusions. I am therefore I think. I think. Not.
July 22, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's the Doctor here, pal? Exhibit A here was just showing signs of life, and in comes Intern Butinski with the "he smells gamey to me." Well listen son, they're not dead 'til I SAY they're dead.
Now. 50 cc's of Pastache.
Keep talkin' and I got 100 for you.
Breathe dammit, BREATHE!
July 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
One day it's no one can be a pseud. Now the nit-nauts are trying to assign motives and dividing the good pseuds from the bad ones. What bullshit. Who would think that people could be so vapid and petty on a fucking website -- a medium built in the world of anon. Ah, the exit !
July 22, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we give the pseudodudes a vapidectomy?
July 22, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
see, you're making my job of chronicling crap speak more difficult be inventing more words in High C-Speak. You have to keep track of them for my thesis. I claim:
crap-speak (the word itself)
crap-think
crap-art
'nauts
nit-nauts
if ya want credit for any, go back in the threads and show me..
I will not be trifled with on my work in CrapSpeak, one of the few things that I created (other than the blues) that gives my life meaning.
July 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, a few others:
pic-people
insiderpicspeeps (the tribe)
come on Chimpo with your bad self. Let's have some lingo for the final opus. I want you to have your say. Many a chimpism has been lost in the threads.....pony up!
July 22, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a penguin or a pony, that may be an epiphany for you but it's peanuts for me.
July 22, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
there's a point at which you are either too arcane or too smart for me to follow, Chimp. And that was it.
July 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I lost myself as well, but no worries, I know I set me down somewhere near by...
July 22, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised to see you here. Who's dividing "good pseuds" from "bad pseuds?" My post does no such thing!
July 22, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, just speaking in the grand scale of things, the larger gestalt. Haven't been around, but visited here and TPM -aholics recently at the suggestion of a real person. Don't take it personally, lady. It's part of Cypher's style to speak out of context. Had I visited as that boring old varmint donnerpass, I would have been more rational. Nice outfit.
July 22, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but as Donner you always talk people's legs off. Then their arms. Then their ears and other tender parts...
July 22, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I donno. I always kinda liked ole Donner. The man had soul. Depth. Mules. Extra Jerky. When's the last time Blue showed up with food? You know, a sandwich or somethin'. I say he's a moocher. Or got one hell of a metabolism.
Gawd I'm hungry. BRB. :-)
Damn, that felt good. Gonna do it again. :-)
July 22, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that donner said it was better to talk them off than cut them off, or wait till they dropped off in the cold. I was already pissed because I couldn't piss, and I just got on with it and used the knife. Old donner chomped that stuff down though. And wasn't talking when he was chewing.
July 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis Carroll is to Charles Dodgson was Mark Twain was to Samuel Clemens. That is, there was no secret. I can't say I completely understand the motivation, but I don't think it was to protect their good names. (However, maybe at the very beginning there was a component of that.)
I was going to point out that when Queen Victoria asked him for one of his works he sent her a copy of one of his mathematical texts, but I just discovered that old story to be false:
http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/carroll.asp
July 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dodgson had an "alternate" life and needed to keep the two separate. After all, if you want to be taken seriously as a mathematician, you don't want to be writing the equivalent of Disney movies. Remember in his day, actors were just above prostitutes in terms of respect.
Conversely, if you want people not to come to your books thinking you are a stodgy old professor, you need the split there as well.
July 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, clearthinker.
July 22, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those accused of being a troll...after many back and forths I think I finally convinced a few that I'm real...
Part of the problem is that people new to blogging don't even know what trolls are, never heard of them. It came as a big shock to me that there are people out there that make posts just to jack other people up. I wouldn't know a troll if it came up and kissed me, let alone be able to tell from a post who is real and who isn't. I'm having a hard enough time trying to figure out where you're all coming from, let alone trying to figure out if you're real or just jacking people up....ughhhhhhhhh
Anyway, I'm learning a lot and enjoying the exchange of ideas very much...I can see why people get addicted to blogging...you all are much more interesting than the people in my real world!
July 22, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome, stillidealistic. Yes, I too was confused in the beginning. It (the confusion) goes away in a while. ;)
July 22, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW...How do we know that you aren't, say me? Obviously the entire casts of the various troupes adore what you've written. We all emailed each other and headed over to give this thread some
further fodder for the pic peeps. But if I were me, wouldn't I be you and write this piece.
Nice pic, whoever you are, and good piece. If I do say so myself.
July 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WELL MATEYS:
ME WAS READY TO PULL OUT TO CHELLY-SEA
BUT WHAT ME READ IN THE HOURS WEE?
THIS REALLY DOES TAKE THE CAKE
ME BEING CALLED A PERSON FAKE
WENCH HILL IS NOW HARD TO FIND
HER BANK ACCOUNTS ARE IN A BIND
SO ME NEEDS TO RUN WENCH SELECT
AND SWEEP HER OFF TO GAIN RESPECT:
THE NEW YAWK WENCHES WOULD ALL BE EASY
ONE EVEN BAKED A CAKE THAT'S CHEESY
OR MAYBE LEFT COAST TO ENGAGE
AND GRAB THE WENCH CALLED CALI PAIGE
BUT UP THE MIDDLE IS THE BEST
ME KNOW THEY'RE HERE FROM MIDWEST
NOW ONE! NOW TWO! NOW MAYBE MORE!
ME BED'S TOO SMALL, WE USE THE FLOOR!
NOW YE RESPECT, YE FULL OF DREADS
CAUSE I'LL BE BACK TO MARAUD YE THREADS!
PETTICOATS GET ME HOT! PUT WENCH HILLARY IN ONE AND SHE WILL RUN THE TREASURY FOR SURE!
RUN ON BANKS, CORPORATE RAIDING! TREASURES TO PLUNDER, NO HESITATING!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
July 22, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I tells you before, pirates talks in present tense and in plural. We makes walk the plank, we pillages and plunders, we's sails our bounty o'er the bounty main. If you'se wants to be a pirate, laddy, betters gets with the program.
July 22, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can say "Arrrrrrgh Billy. Have ya ever been to sea?"
Can I be Captain Peet now for a while?
SORRY. CAN I BE CAPTIAN PEET NOW FOR A WHLE?
July 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Pirate honors my thread. Welcome.
July 22, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
;0! Is Pirate Peet propositioning me?!
oy! The one-eyed coot has some fab lines there. I missed it on my first run through. Peet, floor's ok but it better have handcuff links attached. Can a toon handle that? ;)
July 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Yva is the blog-posting version of Yvainne? I'm sure there is some hidden meaning there... but until I figure it out, congrats for your first post!
Most people want to keep some level of anonymity, for varied and usually good reasons. At the same time, most people won't pretend to be someone they aren't. They just keep certain details to themselves.
This is a good thing in a way. No one has any authority because of who they are, only because of what they say and how they say it. That is, anyone could claim to be a lawyer or a doctor or a university professor... but because anyone can do that, this alone has no value. The readers need to pay attention and make their own judgments whether what's being said is credible and makes sense.
As for "alternate personalities"... I don't have a problem with them either. I'm certain idiotic or MonicaL or Pirate Peet aren't real, but that doesn't make them any less interesting.
July 22, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pirate Peet isn't real? Next thing you'll be saying fake Sinbad isn't fake Sinbad.
July 22, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fake fake Sinbad. Now there's an idea.
Would a fake fake Sinbad be the real Sinbad?
July 22, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
codegen86! ;)
Heh, fake fake Sinbad would be uber fake. Or, it would be a double fake. Or, perhaps doppelgangers ganger?
July 22, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ex-kat! ;)
A double negative is a positive, no? Look at it this way, the real Sinbad is not a fake Sinbad, and is therefore a fake fake Sinbad.
July 22, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or Fake Sinbadder.
(No Meinhof jokes, Code. I saw you thinkin' that one....)
July 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That'd be Sinbaader, right? Of the other RAF...
July 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, that should bring out Girl From the Bronx unless she's been absconded by another avatar. Wait! She was me all along! That makes 5!
July 22, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You, Code and GFTB are the only ones that really speak German, so you all must be the same person, right? Ich bin immer klug..
July 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, and we're all the blue guy!
July 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
du bist immer blau
July 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mein lieber Scwhann, was ist los?
Ich bin hier aber muss weg.
Will be back later.
July 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of play be'est this? Where I summon souls from the void and they appear like flickers of light to torch my soul? Nothing of permanence, this feeble mortal coil resonates with a scarce hint of betrayal - have the Gods conspired to confound me? Block whispers of doom, begone you netherings you.
July 22, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ich bin wieder da. Du bist wirklich ein Zauberer! Du hast befehlt und ich befolge. Ich habe mich tot gelacht über die leute hier heute. Die sind alle viel zu ernst für mich! Aber du mein lieber Chimp/Bombe hast alles in ein paar strophen gesagt. Wie immer-- klug und schnell.
July 22, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keine Wörter, nur die Stille, vielen danks.
July 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ein, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben
Wo ist denn mein Chimp geblieben
Ist nicht hier
Ist nich da
Ist jetzt stumm, kein tra la la. :(
Gute nacht.
July 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gefrissen bei Schweine ich war. Tra la la.
July 23, 2008 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you Schweine, smart boy. Buggering of for lunch in Siena. Yeah, so long and thanks for all the pasta. What ever happened to mucking the stable with the rest of us sloths?
Wha? Oh. REALLY. No no, morrrre. I muuuust know. FanTAStic.
Ahhhh Siena!
Clonk. Back to work. And a bit more 9-5 EST if you please.
July 23, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
moose ! short time, and not enough, but you've been a good friend. Don't take no crap, OK?
July 25, 2008 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. I'm blue. I may have to shift back to that possum in the middle of the road avatar for a while. Stay unsane.
July 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I won't be back till after noon. Carry on. Play nice. ;)
July 22, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
See that, Orange? THAT'S how it's done. I ask the lady if she'd "care for a walk," next thing you know... she's off for a few hours.
That's called bein' "genteeel." As opposed to "having no pants."
'N stop glarin'. You weren't gettin' anywhere.
July 22, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think it's more than medical curiosity? We'll see. And for God's sakes remember to suction.
July 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
des, don't be a disturbance at TPM. Please. Can't you see there are some wery , wery serious peeps here? Christ, des, have you ever been to that TPM -aholics place? No one is no one is one. You can only get by with that infantile crap-speak. I'm astounded that people would do that in public. Weally.....
Gotta finish my dissertation on Crap Speak. There is too much material. And these pic peeps take themselves so seriously...
wazzup pic peeps? u mad at wittle wittle me 4 not being
sewious?
me bad
July 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, Cypher?
I like Crap-Speak. I like silliness. OMG. ROTFLMAO. Like light, fluffy summer reading or talking about a television show with friends. Not much point, maybe, but the pointlessness IS the point.
Plenty of people don't like that or get it, but that's why the silly space was created to begin with. Crap-speak central, if you like.
July 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading this thread back, well, your comment really made my day. Seriously, I think crap-speak, and baby speak is an interesting aberration on the internet, especially as a model for students. But you have a different view, and I hope you will talk it up when I post on crap-speak.
You know I was really pissed when Maureen Dowd lifted one of my lines from TPM. When giving my picks for Obama's cabinet, I said John Edwards should be Secretary of Haircuts. Next day in the NYT, she had the line. Well, first off, I like getting paid for my work, but second, she didn't even credit TPM !
Well, here it is. If Maureen Dowd reads TPM, and I guess she does, I want her to credit me with the whole crap-speak ideation. Really. No kidding. I want my work appreciated. I'm a proud talking head.
It is an interesting question, you know. Should adults teach students how not to spell? And to substitute trite crap and symbols for words? Not the best way to get into Harvard I'd say. And why adults would talk and spell as children --I don't get that at all. And I find it especially revolting. And really stupid. It's not about anyone in particular. The people I respect here, especially the good writers, never do it. Cool becomes Kewl. What becomes Wot. Very becomes Vewry. WTF? And it's really funny in sentences. I don't have a clue. Crap-speak. Crap-Think.
July 22, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have such contempt for shortened words and creative spelling, why not just stay away from it. If you don't like what you see there, you must not know, or interact, with anyone under 20.
The only crap around here is you
You are a sanctimonious, corrupt, addle-pated LOUT.
There, 'gud' enough English for ya?
July 22, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yvainne (or do you prefer Yva?), great first post...er...meta-post. Don't be shy, you're an excellent writer.
I agree with articleman's contention in the other thread you reference that what's disturbing about some pseuds is sense of deception. In that thread, I compared it to fiction vs. memoir. Crankypants is fiction. Most bloggers here are memoir. It's true that even in memoir, the narrator and subjects are constructs, but unlike fiction, a memoir attempts to represent real people. The disturbing pseuds are like false memoir. They only pretend to represent real people. Such pseuds are disturbing for the same reason false memoir is disturbing: it causes people to feel misled and manipulated.
Disturbance in and of itself is not a problem IMO. I'm pro-disturbance. But insofar as the disturbance caused by the deceptive pseuds has bred an atmosphere of distrust and created a significant distraction, I think that they've had a negative impact on the quality of "life" at the cafe.
July 22, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, Genghis. I think so, too.
It's too bad, really. Unnecessary.
July 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but Genghis, literature is FULL of multiple narrators, untrustworthy narrators, multiple layers, mysteries, surrealism, twists & turns & codes, riddles & spoofs. Even the Simpsons do it - it's that widespread now. Why do the authors do it & people buy it? Because they enjoy it, find it interesting, learn something. Me? I find it disturbs me. I'm frighteningly literal. But I've found that as I can keep tackling it, I enjoy it more.
Your sentence in the last para sounds fine, but swap out the passive and abstract terms, it changes things. "The disturbance caused by the deceptive pseuds has bred an atmosphere...." "Atmosphere" kinda hides any sense that anyone OWNS the response - whereas you say, "the disturbance caused by the deceptive pseuds." What if you'd written, "The contributions of the pseuds upset the overly-literal reals....?"
What I find surprising is that some people seem to think "serious political discussion" has no artifice in it, no games-playing. When for me, it seems that's just about ALL it is these days. All the discussion about Obama's "real" motives, and what he meant by doing X on FISA. Or the use of surrogates, and whether Bill or Wesley Clark MEANT to say X, or were talking off the cuff, etc. Politics today just IS one of the wilder worlds of games within games. And I know you'd agree with me on this Genghis - even if you can't say it here - when I say that the purely literalist take on Obama & co adds almost nothing to any political discussion. Multiple takes is the only way I can make ANY sense of it anymore. And so if it's hard here sometimes to discuss it, what with not knowing who's who and who's a troll and all of that, well... isn't that a part and parcel of the way things are now?
July 22, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just keep in mind, that the outrageous abuse of others trust recently experienced here is what directly led to your bad experience.
Poor behavior is poor behavior.
July 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What outrageous abuse of trust? That's so hyperbolic. How could he have "betrayed" trust?
July 22, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using one psuede to butter up an individual while several others trash them is pretty vile.
Using one's knowledge of anothers personality or flaws to condemn them while pretending to be a supposed "newbie" is vile.
Using psuedes to back up your own POV or to belittle others, or somehow strange or to accuse them of outrageous things they never did is vile.
Perhaps this has never happened to you personally, but this jerk lost me when he went after Billy, as did so many others here. My disgust earned me a few of his "psuede-lashings" as well as any that don't like his kind of "amusements." Or appreciate his supposed "brilliance." He scares people.
I do hold him responsible for creating an atmosphere of mistrust here. His "amusement" has poisoned these boards, and there never was a problem like this until he showed up.
Yes, I do resent that.
July 22, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are angry at him for what he did to Billy? All your suspicion and distrust is because of what he did to Billy? Are Genghis' feelings also about defending Billy?
July 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy be a big boy and no stranger to controversy.
"Billy, don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life..." We ain't coming here for the ham sammiches, it's the altercation and ups & downs that pleases us, and seems to be Billy & Blue figured out which way to dance their hoedown. In short, let them fight their own battles or at least bear the burden of their own heartaches.
July 22, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, sure. Billy's a big boy. Pity he doesn't post more, eh?
Ever ask him why? I think it's pretty obvious.
Maybe he's not as immune to this stuff as you think.
July 22, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, regarding literature and art, there's an ephemeral line between desirable and undesirable deception. Creating a fictional characters who is the opposite of what she at first seems might be appreciated by readers and critics. Publicly promoting a memoir which turns out to be false, in contrast, is a base form of deception. I'm not going to try to suss out the difference--I'm sure that people have written dissertations about it.
But I wasn't really talking about literary games or political games. It's the personal games that are the issue. We're having discussions in these threads. We trust that there are human beings who believe what they write on the other side. Without that trust, the conversation wouldn't happen. Why argue sincerely with a character? Convincing it would be meaningless. Would you try to persuade Crankypants not to vote for McCain? When that trust is exploited, it's infuriating. So sure, I could have made a similar point in language that wasn't pejorative, but that would not have represented my point of view. The witch hunt was an overreaction, but the feelings of suspicion are unavoidable consequences of deceptive pseuds.
's not the political games that
July 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How then to discern between a deceptive pseud and a sincere one? The most obvious pseuds then seem to fall in the fictional character category. Then the subtle ones, how can you know if a pseud's words are not the real person's beliefs?
July 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a gray distinction of course. We're all pseuds in a way. But most of us try to express what we really believe, and when we reveal details about ourselves, we try to be honest. But I guess what I'm primarily pushing for, in agreement with yva, is that with the exception of obvious fictions like peet and cranky, people use only one avatar. (Not sure why Yvainne created Yva, but there's so openly and obviously the same that I don't see yva as duplicitous.)
July 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because you and a few others have chosen to reveal details about yourself shouldn't give you the right to preach to others so relentlessly. People come here for various reasons and with differing opinions about what to reveal or not. That you seem to always end up blaming Cypher for this distrust situation is utterly ridiculous. It must speak to some other issue I can't comprehend.
This policing of what is exactly what has driven many people away.
July 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is largely to blame.
Them's the facts. Like them or not.
July 22, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher has been rude to you, but you seem to be lashing together everyone who ever used a pseud and attributing all their crimes to one evil malignant him, which appears to be organized around Cypher. It's not a persuasive argument. Not everyone who ever posted under any other name is Cypher, or is mean, or is bad.
July 22, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have, on the contrary, been pretty clear.
I somehow doubt you slogged through this entire thread, and even if you have, you have misread my objections as well as my intent.
I have said before I agree that there is a difference between humorous spoofs and misleading bullies. I even said so on hits thread.
That Cypher has gone beyond the pale in the number and variety of psuedes he's used and admitted to is not my fault. I am hardly the first or only one he's been rude to and I would prefer it never happen to anyone else, ever again.
Ignoring it and moving away doesn't seem to be working very well, does it. I'd prefer this subject never came up again. How about you.
July 22, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis -- preachy? Seriously? C'mon, GFTB. He's always the first to own up to his own mistakes and miscommunications. And I don't think I've ever seen him request personal details from someone -- just eschew dishonesty.
July 22, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
GFTB, right on. People come here for different reasons, take on different personas, deal with chaos in different ways. Some like serious, some like humor, some like both. Some seem grumpy, some seem friendly, occasionally I'm receptive, occasionally I go snicker-snack with my vorpal blade. None of these are in Rules for the Commons, so cease and desist. The next thing we know multiple languages will be banned as will crap speak, nuclear avatars, overt flirting, cannibalism, cricket and aspertame. People can yell at me all they want, just part of the game.
July 22, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. There are unspoken rules of etiquette here as there are in any human interaction. You obey them all the time without even realizing it.
Anytime anyone here politely asks for a change of behavior, a number of posters rise up to complain about an imminent police state, as if the person who made the request had any authority whatsoever, as if the act of making such a request would lead to a slippery slope where the cafe becomes an ice cream social or a pep rally for robots.
Disagree with me if you like. Argue that the pseuds are good or at least harmless. Or ignore me. But fuck off with your self-righteous accusations of self-righteousness and the-sky-is-falling overreactions.
July 22, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you now or have you ever been......
July 22, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as posting honest parts of our own lives, there are posters here that do, and some that don't. And we can never truly know if someone we've never met is being truthful or not. Personally, I write this from the prison computer lab. Gives me lots of spare time for TPM-ing it. And who would have known I was a mass murderer?
July 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are being disingenuous, which is interesting.
There is a difference between "spoofs" like crankypants and Peet, and donnerpass/levi who present as "actual" individuals. People relate differently to spoofs then they do to individuals, and that is merely human nature.
To leave that out of the equation is excusing poor behavior on the part of those individuals that would abuse other's trust for their own "amusement."
July 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, bee, you're being disingenuous.
In your comment, Crankypants is diminished as an acceptable "spoof" so you can attack the other pseuds. But in his first outing, you called Cranky "a troll in its most insidious form" and even, illogically, blamed it for the outing of a beloved Cafe member's Facebook page in a post.
You then went on to offer that:
"The thing that really strikes me as funny, though, are people who are so in need of approval that they are willing to create multiple user IDs. That is a sign of mental illness. The groupthink around here validating it isn't funny. It's tragic."
Mentally ill?
July 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
Your first post was horrid.
July 22, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me qualify that. It was awful, because you appealed to the basest emotions of Obama supporters, to spoof and denigrate Hillary supporters like Billy and Dijamo and Bruce. You got them, too. It was a sad day in the history of the Cafe. Race to the bottom. Nice.
Then you were so pleased with yourself, you went on to attack Billy himself, singularly as "Willy Gladd". That one didn't get as many recommends, did it.
No wonder that "spoof" hasn't returned. See, I see what you do and put myself or anyone else I care for in that position and I think that you've opened up a can of worms that is festering, and you can take responsibility for that. Or not. I don't care.
Why'd you change from Monica, maybe her scolding wasn't sharp enough?
I've left you alone as many people I respect find you amusing. I don't. I find you mean and spiteful.
I hope that's clear.
July 22, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disingenuous? Not at all. What it really boils down to is that I don't have a problem with pseudonyms. I understand fully that not all feel that way.
Cypher has been entirely honest from the beginning. He's said, multiple times, that he felt rather ignored as Donnerpass, so he chose to create the crazy blue guy to see if he could provoke responses. Which is unsurprising, considering it is often that the most provocative pieces shoot straight to the top. But you note that it is acceptable for a pseud to further conversation. Well, looking over Donnerpass's posts, he's written about pioneer history, foreign relations with Iran, polling, affirmative action. Nary do I see a post in there that denigrates anyone. Look - I like most of the posters here. I also understand you have your differences. I'm completely unaware of where he attacked Billy. I have on the other hand, seen the so-called "spoofs" poke fun at Billy and others.
You say:
Well, for one, I'm pretty sure the Cypher/Quinn thing was a joke. Secondly, it was not Cypher that began the idea that Cypher was Billy Glad. I distinctly remember this, as I took part in the discussion and thought for a moment that he was Billy Glad. If I could find the thread, I would post it. It was a small group of other posters, myself included. As to who spread the notion that Quinn was Cypher? Again, not Cypher. Other posters.
But this nonsense of insisting new users identify themselves is entirely unbecoming. I've now seen it happen to multiple posters. When it first happened with Quinn, I thought it kind of funny. (Sorry Quinn!) But it's taken on a life of its own now.
July 23, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Which one? I'm at Sing Sing.
I didn't mean that most people do or should reveal their personal details. I meant that most of us don't misrepresent ourselves, e.g. create fictional narratives. If you choose not to reveal that you're in prison, that's cool. But don't tell me you live on the beach in Hawaii if you're in prison in New York. And no, I don't actually know that most people don't misrepresent themselves. It's just my sense.
Likewise for the avatars. I was surprised by Laura Jordan too, but I know that people play around. I've played around. I also think that most people aren't often creating different avatars that seem to be real people and actually blog and get into disputes at the cafe. I don't know that either. It's just my sense.
Anyway, the point is just that I'm tired of wondering whether someone I interact with is mostly real or mostly fictional. It's already provoked me to write things I regret. Maybe others feel differently, but obviously there are others on this thread expressing the same frustration.
July 22, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woo! A big shout out for my peeps at Sing Sing!!!
I pretty much agree with Genghis. The blurring of reality and illusion is cool and all, but in practice I think this virtual "community" works better when people don't shift identities except in ways that are clearly marked as comic pretense.
I actually had a rarely-used second avatar, which wasn't a "pseud" -- it was my real name. But I stopped using it a) because I actually feel I need anonymity and b) because I came to the conclusion that it was getting into a gray area ethically to have two "non-comic" avatars.
For whatever it's worth.
July 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL!!
That explains the flashing shirt. ;)
Btw, welcome. ;)
July 22, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bee & Genghis. I donno about the others here, but I'm feeling like I'm dealing with vague hints about stuff, and having only been here 7 weeks, how the f*ck am I supposed to piece this together? In sum, at this point, I feel like you guys - and maybe others, I donno -are dancing around things, but I don't know WHAT. That would normally be fine, except by talking about it in wider, more general terms, other people are getting caught. And Cypher is gone, so he ain't gonna speak on it - he's just too mad, and Kripsy Kritters, I don't even know WHY - not really.
Like when I read, "abuse of trust." And then I ask myself, "How the hell can someone abuse trust here?" By being someone they weren't? That makes no sense at all. There's dozens, nay, ALL of us here who to some degree create "fictional narratives," as I believe Yva pointed out. So it's not that either, or at least not GENERALLY that, as a principle.
Did someone come up and ask for your wallet, and then hand it off to his buddy? People who write here can only do THAT - it's just words here. I thought the rule was, if you don't want to talk to someone, you just don't. Which is way simpler than all this stuff about pseuds and trust and non-playful deception... I feel like I'm debating phantom arguments here, with no one willing to just say, "We really don't like the dude." Or, "I really don't like them." Cause if that's it, then the one simple rule - don't talk to each other - seems to me to work fine. Doesn't it?
One last time. I read, "when people start getting pissed off and paranoid, I think you're pretty clearly in the deception space." Ok, fine. But from the OUTSIDE, I'm, left wondering - "Why are these people paranoid?" just as much as I'm left wondering, "Why is this person being deceptive?" Just treat me as the dumb newbie for a minute willya (it's not hard, I got the dumb covered.) Beyond all the high theory, is this just about different people not liking each other? Because if so, great. Don't play in the same pen, don't talk to each other. You all know the pseuds, the pseuds know you. That was the advice I was given, and it seems to have been perfectly good advice. But otherwise, we're doing shit that caught me, might well catch Monica and Cranky, Ripper, Laura, etc. And they're just the ones you guys seem to KNOW about. And then what? Further rules on who's being authentic enough? If so, there's a lot of names we're gonna have to toss into that tank. I really, at this point, after sticking a fair amount of time into this, just feel like I've wasted it. Batting down theories that are just polite ways to say "We don't like each other." Faaaaark it all to hell. Just go to an old post and throw insults at each other 'til you're tired. The debate, as it stands right now, isn't working through. And the shit, whatever it is, ain't washing out.
July 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, Cypher feels angry because he feels mobbed. What you say in this comment, YES! Thanks.
Don't know if anyone glanced down far enough to see my post about how we live between truth and fiction. That's how real life is, btw. None of this antiseptic "true person" that people are clutching at so tightly.
July 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely. Reality is what you make of it, which means it's seriously biased anyway. And communal reality sits somewhere in between individual realities. And individual fictions.
I don't see anyone clinging to an antiseptic "real" person, but maybe that's just my fictional bias.
July 22, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to think that may be it, unacknowledged though it is being kept. I'm also not sure that the problem is wholly Cypher's to bear. I think many people have contributed. Certainly Billy Glad has had his share and we all have individually contributed. But how to move forward into forgiveness without owning up our own share of it? And even if we own up to our share of it, will Billy Glad ever own up to his share of it? I doubt it. But that should not constrain us from moving forward into accepting and playing with multiplicity.
Cypher should not be singularly blamed for this suspicion. Many of us do not have this suspicion of the pseudonymous.
Frankly, I'm more paranoid of that chatroom where it appears decisions get made. And no, I've not joined and don't plan on it.
July 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would likely dispel your paranoia if you did.
July 22, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy?
That's another farking Cypher lie.
Billy is Billy. No one else. This is what I mean, you get one dishonest poster with several identities spewing crap like that and pretty soon EVERYONE believes it.
That is so wrong on so many levels, and if you don't "get" that, I'm afraid I'll pull a "billy" and just put you on ignore.
Some things are just really, pretty easy to understand. The muddying of waters here is just...horrid.
Thanks for the education on just how willfully blind people can be.
July 22, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's people like you who make people like Cypher. Look at what you just did. I said something you did not like and your immediate response is so adult.
Ignore me? Heh, go ahead. Billy has never spoken to me and until recently neither did you. What's next from your chatroom - hmm? Banish Evainne Campaign?
I've seen Genghis say things about Billy too. How are you with him on this? Or is it only lowly first time posters like myself that you demonize. Billy Glad can take care of himself. That you feel the need to demonize people in the name of defending him is fascinating. Your ire has nothing to do with me or with Billy Glad and everything to do with you. Own it! Stop hiding behind some image of the great defender of Billy Glad. And you go after the pseudonymous? Unbelievable!
July 22, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My "ire" was on the part of everyone.
It didn't have to be Billy, it could have been Destor, or LisB, or anyone. Including you.
Have you ever been stalked, abused, battered by a psuede? It isn't pleasant. It's even less pleasant when there are several of them and they spread rumors and lies and stories they made up. Heck, look at your twisted (and nasty, actually) view of the chatroom. Who put that impression there?
Oh yeah, that was Cypher. Hmmmm. Go figure.
If you haven't seen my response to several of your comments in the past, I'm sorry. This is hardly the first time I've read you, or responded
Um, last time I remember was remarking that your new avatar was very extraordinary in Destors Limerick thread, or maybe the Haiku one.
I'm sorry I made you angry, but I'm tired of explaining that difference between a funny spoof and a stalking, twisted bully. I just don't think that kind of thing should be condoned or excused. There are standards of behavior it is fair to expect.
July 22, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Decisions? Hrm. I think I can see it'd appear that way from the outside, but I don't think that's what's going on at all. For one there, there are a number of different people who have made off-TPM (I hesitate to say "real") connections with each other, and only a small percentage of those -- that I'm aware of, anyway -- have been facilitated by the chat room. For another, the discussion there is more often social chitchat than anything related to TPM itself. For some, I think, that makes it a distraction and not worth visiting; but I hardly think it's a reason to be afraid.
In fact, I find that most of the time people are very conscientious about making sure TPM discussions stay on TPM in order to maintain the inclusive environment here.
July 22, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to offend, CalPaige. I went on a night when Genghis showed up and it was kind of scary, the rites of admission. Perhaps I misunderstood. But I also recall a thread where Cypher cut and pasted a bunch of stuff emerging out of that room. From that cut and paste, it looked scary. I'm speaking from the outside. People should be free to do what ever, I don't like to get in the way. But the two exposures I've had were both scary. I hope you can see it from an outsiders perspective?
Also, Quinn talked about how he had to go there to be believed as a real person. Which implies that decisions of "real" and "fake" and "acceptable" and "unacceptable" are being constructed there. Just my, concededly, uninformed view.
July 22, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Yva,
No offense taken. I remember that night -- it was weird, and it was scary, and it was also atypical. But there is something strange, too, about the shift from TPM -- where, even if you're anonymous, you still have a consistent name and avatar -- to a chat room where identity comes mostly from content and style. (Though most of the regulars have uploaded their TPM avatars now, and that improves the feeling of cross-platform consistency.)
The "rite" of passage, as you perceived it, was the result of particularly bad timing, I think. Someone -- no idea who, and I don't care -- had been showing up and derailing the conversation, which made people there suspicious of anyone who entered the room. Not fun for anyone.
July 22, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I just realized I totally missed your point about quinn feeling the need to prove himself "real." I also think that was lame, but I don't think that was because of the chat room -- rather, that that lingr central was a tool he could use for said mission. As far as poor quinn's trial-by-fire initiation, I think that's a broader cultural issue that your thread here, drama aside, sheds light on.
Anyway, I don't care whether people are real or fake here.... (Though I can't stand the "fake" people I meet in real life. Ugh!) I just want people, or characters, to be respectful of each other's perspectives and share their ideas without being totally redundant or dismissive. But that's MY Utopian vision, and I'm sure not everyone shares it. Would be boring if they did, I'm sure.
July 22, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yva:
Don't know if you will see, this, I hope you do.
I went into the chat room once, mostly to talk to the regulars because there was a discussion of the cliquishness forming on TPM: so I went to the source. What I found were several posters whom I very much respected from their posts -- acting like a clique. In addition, I tried addressing the bee who said some amazingly hurtful things to me in the past -- only to find that she shrunk back in the corner and I was facing her own posse of these other posters. Somehow everyone thought that workerbee couldn't engage on her own. Interesting, no?
(To top it off, there was a spamming troll that entered the room which was really irritating and ended up cutting off most of my attempts to make conversation. It also didn't help when I found out that people could trivially spoof your ID.)
End result? I left with a profoundly different set of ideas about some of the posters I met there -- and it was sad. I have little doubt that watched my departure feeling similarly. I wish I had never gone in there to begin with. I still read some of those posters who are still smart, of course, but I don't feel quite the same kinship with them. In part because I did notice that their comments on my blogs have dried up (and at least one of those posters seemed to be a fan of my blogs -- that bothered me the most). Clearly despite all the happy talk about hugs, etc. from this group there are hard feelings that were had all the way around.
So people in that chatroom have become a bit exclusive as you would expect among a tight group of friends. I wasn't surprised to later see that workerbee announced to that room that she was going to stir up trouble at TPM (this because the Cypher character posted the logs here).
I feel worse for CaliforniaPaige who created that room to promote a real-time playground for people here. She is a person on TPM who is one of the most even-tempered and good-natured I've seen (you are another). I feel the chatroom turned into something different from my one visit and I haven't been back. This wasn't Paige's fault obviously and I give her nothing but kudos to try to spread a little bit of love in the world.
July 22, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, if you've only been here 7 weeks, how'd you know about Bizzaro day?
Just asking.
July 22, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I've been here since March and I don't know about bizzaro day.
July 22, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Bee. I really wish you hadn't asked that question, because it really can only mean one thing - some sort of suspicious hint about me. Like, how could I know of something on May 13th if I've only been here 7 weeks? But before I answer, I'm telling you that when I'm done, you REALLY owe me an apology. What you just wrote was the on-line equivalent of calling me out. That's your right I guess. I don't hear anybody chiming in to say the question is out of line.
But you know what? I don't need 'em to. I played hockey. And it's now my right to answer. And I can tell you, when it's done, you're gonna look bad. I waited for a while to send this, because I thought you might come back & apologize. You didn't. And now, when I'm done, you're gonna apologize. and then, we're gonna shake hands, and wake up tomorrow, and we'll be fine. You may like me less, but that's your call. I just don't really want these kinds of questions here anymore.
You asked how do I know about Bizarro Day if I've only been here 7 weeks? Like this.
1. I entered TPM and created a password on May 22, by my records. Wrote my 1st test post, May 28th. It's on NAFTA. Woo, big exciting issue, I know. But I wanted to see if I could do it.
2. How do I know about Allsburg's May 13th post on Bizarro Day? Simple. It's on his profile. Why did I even go there? Because on July 17th, Billy wrote a piece on passing the torch, and Hillary and the older generation retiring. And Allsburg made some crack about how the older generation had "disenfranchised" him. And it pissed me off. So I wrote a response, stating that I hoped to hell he was joking. But since I didn't KNOW Allsburg, I went to his profile to see if he/she had a habit of saying this stuff, and whether he/she was joking or not. And left a comment basically saying, "I hope you were joking, cause that was outlandish." When Allsburg didn't reply, I kept reading his/her stuff, and eventually figured they were either joking, or embarrassed. So I made another comment saying I was eating crow for having been mistaken - just in case, to let 'em off the hook.
Now, in hockey Bee, THAT is a TKO. I don't need more suspicion, more rules, more shit like this. Leave it outside. If other people dig it, fine. I fucking do not.
The reason I'm reacting like this Bee, is that your question, to ME - not to any one else - deserved it. It was way over the line. And you know damn well you shouldn't have made it, because if ANYBODY has gotten the Inquisition here, it's me. I have given you and various others my city (your own dear Winnipeg), the street I live on (which I'll suppress here), where I went to college (Magdalen College, Oxford), my home province (NS), and yes, even my home village of 480 people and the size of my family (9 kids.) I think everybody here knows this by now.
Are you SURE that's enough? Apparently not. I didn't start blogging here until May because I didn't start spending enough time on the net until April. Why? Because I nearly died in late Feb/early March. Obstructed bowel. Brought on by scar tissue from an old appendix operation that went bad. I can show you the hospital. the charts. Wanna see 'em?
But you know what Bee? This dance is done. Genghis came on and owned some shit. He stood up. I'd be happy to disagree with him all day long, but he STOOD UP. And that's fairly rare. He said that things here had gotten a bit Salem-like, and that some people's dislike at Billy was kinda smudging off. And that, in my terms, is the right thing to have said.
But you're wandering around here today - TODAY - asking people shit like where they been and how they know this or that and you know what? I have been fucking POLITE, Bee. Way more than you or Billy or 1/2 this damned crowd. Wanna count the number of jokes I've made about this? The number of times I've offered people a way out?
So now, you apologize. And I accept. And then, I forget about it. I can do that. And if you'd like, we get along just fine afterward. But no more with the questions. I'm done with that. Just say what you wanna say, play how you wanna play, but leave the other stuff out. It's got no place here.
And by the way. There's a FEW others of you - note that, not all - that read this today, or wrote here, and you've been part of the sortof rumour machine, or you stand back and allow shit to get laid on people online, nasty questions or the bullying and the mobbing thing. But even today, you said or did nothin'. You didn't even have the guts to step in, which at least Bee DID. So if you're smiling, I'd be wiping it off right now. In fact, it actually makes me feel like buying Bee a beer.
The rest of you? The ones that stand by and smirk and whisper and let shit happen? You can eat me. Consider yourself called.
July 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, I chatted with you last night, and I believe you're real.
I think there has been a lot of bullshit little child melodrama around here. I'd suggest not stepping into it, though some of it has dogged you a bit.
I originally wondered how you appeared to know everyone, and I won't apologize for that, because I think that's a sensible reaction to the data I had. I wasn't the only one to wonder that, but that's not hateful to wonder, not disrespectful, at least in my head it's not.
But I believe you're "real", whatever that means. You're a head on a chat room board, just like me. But I like you, and to me you're "real." You're also apparently real in Winnipeg, so cool.
So that's what I have to say, that and that you should only be here to enjoy, and to encourage you to shrug at what seems insane to you. It helps me. (Hate to see someone get dragged down by the bad spirit.) Best, A
July 22, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are really taking this shit way too seriously.
July 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I guess all that "drama" about being "afraid" for your wife and family was just a little joke on your part, eh Cypher?
July 22, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Articleman, and I aim to take your advice. Especially since I'm getting the same harmonics from a number of quarters. Ok, from every one. i.e. Calm the f*ck down, life is shot. So I will, and I do. It just usually takes a few hours. Sorry for the heat. Usually I aim more for light, but my pants caught fire. Damn. $29 too.
July 22, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are overeacting, but if you want an apology, I'm sorry. Your explanation was fine, you mentioned seven weeks, like I said, I was just wondering.
I will not apologize for standing against multi avatars though. I guess when Cypher asserted that you were one and the same and you didn't tell him to shut up, it made me wonder.
I knew he was being an asshole, I just wondered why you thought that was "OK" It seems to me you got angry at everyone else that even inferred that you were Cypher, so your behavior confused me.
I'll be happy to buy you your choice of beer at any reputable establishment in Winnipeg. I will apologize to your face., as well as here, as I did last time. It doesn't help when people muddy the waters. This is exactly the slippery slope you are kinda defending on the one hand, but gleefully furthering on the other.
I see a clear distinction here. I see that this kind of question, which is actually not one that has occurred to just me, would get you so angry. That it did, I do regret, and humbly take back the question. .
Howz dat?
July 22, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bee? You know what? That was damn fine. Absolutely accepted.
On my side, yes, I'm over-reacting. Partly because I want to write more, and better, and haven't yet gotten myself the room I'd like to do that... partly because as I wander the backthreads of this place, the question kinda comes in & it irritates me... partly because I'm just bloody new at this... and partly just because I'm a hot-headed prick. Mostly, the latter two I suspect.
The multi-avatar thing, well, in general, we may just have to disagree. This is not the end of the world I think. The stuff with Cypher, I donno - I just seemed to come in after it or miss it or whatever. But you're both big people, and I - believe it or not - like you both. Bee AND Blue Guy. And I don't like making choices between people. So that's just gonna have to stand too. You guys can sort out the history, or not - your call. I did what I could, at the Chat Room, and here. Apparently, I'm not a diplomat after all. Well, imagine that. ;-)
It's the same thing as you getting along with Billy, while Genghis ain't so sure. so same thing as me liking both you and Blue Guy. Sometimes good people can have differences over when people are being too "mean."
Basically, my thanks to you and Genghis and Articleman. I'm good. And I'm tired of apologies & explanations. And officially now, with these debates, really fucking tired of being so earnest. I hope you guys are all good with the others mentioned here today - or if not "good," can at least just live side-by-side with only the occasional cold stare.
And the bottom-line on why I got up to speed fast was that I can read like God's own wind... plus, I'm a lazy fucker who's put too much time into TPM lately. Which I'll rebalance in the future.
As for those of you I gave my "goon glare" to, and called out.... Well, you're just gonna hafta wonder. Will tube-boy go off if I say hi? I donno. Maybe. We'll just hafta see. (Goons never announce they're retiring - that's part of the code. )
But Bee? Thanks. I'm good. Signing off now.
July 22, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect anyone to agree with my assessments, or heed my warnings. We're good. You aren't the only one with a temper.
I do prefer them to keep out of the way when I feel compelled to defend myself and others over what I see as unacceptable behavior. I have a rather visceral reaction to blatant dishonesty that is used for the sole intent of manipulation or disparagement.
I'm comfortable with my feelings on it. I am not looking for validation, but perhaps understanding.
I'm very glad we understand each other.
July 22, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to get this right, flasher, I'm in no way a fictional person. I write about what I know and have experienced. Either I know things or I don't. People can think it true or not, but since you have no proof that your assertion is true, nor do I have any obligation to make it clear to you, how do you come by all this high and mighty stuff? I get that you don't know when I'm being humorous, and I have to lay that at my poor writing skills at the moment. But because someone writes in different voices (read styles) and assigns different subjects to each, but tells the reader, how does that make me fictional rather than multi-dimensional? I tend to write to the avatar, as I've stated many times. That doesn't make me fictional. I have also made clear that I'm just writing in different voices. It would be rather boring to have Cypher write to himself using the same blue pic. And since I'm up front about it, and some people enjoy it, what exactly is getting your shirt riled up? I assume you don't mind me calling you "shirt." You have a flashing collar after all. I use nicknames for most people, and most people don't mind. In fact, many have stuck. You may not like my style. Why not just say so?
BTW. I'm hoping to get a flashing pic myself these next days. If that's alright with your honor.
July 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilary -- I agree that amount of personal disclosure is a -- well -- personal choice. And I don't mind if people play around with secondary avatars. Or tertiary avatars. And I can see the value in a Nickel and Dimed-type challenge of proving yourself "from scratch", without an unestablished indentity.
Since you mention them, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on my philosphy: my avatar and handle were based a very specific idea of exactly how much I wanted stay about myself. My name -- uncommon, but hardly unique -- a little information about my perspective -- and then a picture, just obscured enough that it still reflected my personality but hid the rest behind a screen. At least, that was the idea. Part of what I was looking for in writing and commenting here was a chance to force myself to express scary, risky thoughts -- which, in this case, means openly discussing the taboo subject of politics -- and the the mostly-me approach to my indentity was part of that program.
Of course, other people show up here for other purposes, and therefore take a approach. And that's cool.
July 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your avatar and name suit you perfectly Paige. As an honest and thoughtful voice on the site it seems poignant that you use your real name and photo. For whatever reason. Psychology of avatars, I guess. Sort of an interesting thing.
I like this line:
This is sort of part of all human nature, right? You know that saying about the comfort of strangers. Sort of like that. Like it's easier to be open and honest without the normal politics of relationships. And we all have different levels of confidence, or need for anonymity, I think. Some people just woulnd't feel comfortable posting their thoughts under their full identity. Some can't, for professional reasons, or other.
Really, I was serious about the poetry thing. Prose comes really easily to some of the posters here. Not me. If I were to try my hand at it here, I'd have to create an alter ego. I'd be too embarrassed, shy, whatever, to post it as myself. There are pros and cons of anonymity, I guess. It sort of removes inhibitions. Which can make people less concerned about being polite, but can also make people perhaps a little braver, willing to try something new, to post something really outlandish, or whatever.
July 23, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality is somewhere between Genghis and GFTB. Is that not obvious to everyone?
July 22, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Genghis. I'd like to reply with this also to what you wrote upthread (12:55), as it's kinda gone conga-line there, no room to cut in without breaking the rhythm.
1st. You get points from me for standing up, and owning some of it. I was wondering if anyone would, and you did. That counts. So thanks for that, and for - after the initial misread - recovering & responding to me, personally, as you did.
2nd. You can see from the discussion here that there are just some preferences (that may also run deeper into people's values & characters) that just plain differ. Some can handle playing with kitties, some wanna eat 'em. Some are old-time lefties, some are brand new Obama-backers. Some wanna roar, some wanna coo.
And this is where your "ephemeral line" in literature comes in - and it extends to this site. Because the odd thing is, we're writing here. For some, it's like speaking -chatting. For others, it's a work - more like literature. But - esp. since this form is new, and generations are piling in - I don't see any way to rule whether it should be chat or memoir or formal debate or barroom brawl or post-modern novel. Chat-speak = Crap-speak for some. Memoir is what the words on a screen say to some, while the writer may be pitching multiple narrators. I can't sort it. Truly. So I'm having to learn to play new styles.
The personal. You say we need trust. I agree. You don't feel you can convince or persuade a "character." I'm not so sure about that. People are often playing out, voicing, the uncertainties they hold. The multiple perspectives. This happens in real-life conversations too. People play Devil's Advocate. They participate in debates at the Oxford Union. They make jokes in conversations with close friends they'd never make otherwise. For me, I was LITERAL as hell when I started. Which is why I never became a lawyer. I'm one of those idiots that just could NOT hold it together, defending someone I knew was guilty.
So sometimes, there are gonna be Pseuds that, no, you can't persuade or convince. I absolutely agree. But. There are also a fair ole number of "Reals" that ain't ever gonna be persuaded. And.... that's a shame. I find that - inflexibility, a lack of openness - to be as hard to take as over-the-top vitriol, or mobbing, or witch-hunting or trolling. I'm not gonna sue over it, it just irritates me & I move on. But I think wonder how much the issue of pseud/real got overlaid on these other problems.
Does this adequately cover the list of things we find unpleasant or unacceptable, the things any forum like TPM has to deal with?
July 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but there's a difference between playing and deliberate non-playful deception. Only the latter destroys trust. Sometimes that may be necessary, but if you do it, you should have a damn good reason for it b/c trust plays a critical role in human interaction.
Or course, there's plenty of borderline stuff between play and deception--that's the ethereal line (I meant "ethereal," wrote "ephemeral," though that has some interesting connotations too). But when people start getting pissed off and paranoid, I think you're pretty clearly in the deception space. If the deception served some important literary or pedagogic purpose, I'd be cool with it. But my sense is that the deceptive pseuds are more for the creators' interests than the audience's interests. I can't ban them, and I'm not sure that they should be banned. I'm just asking them to stop.
July 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you for approved disturbance?
July 22, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, I think Obama himself would say that he should not be essentialized and locked into a "monotone." Isn’t that what we all want, to not be boxed up and labeled as a monotone. Sometimes it’s hard.
I hear your distinctions between "memoir" and "fiction" and have to respectfully disagree. I think the distinction is exaggerated. I truly believe that people are liminal to truth and fiction. Our lives are comprised of both. We are forever betwixt and between truth and fiction. Why should we park that at the door when we come into TPM? Is it possible to do so? I don’t believe it is possible.
The distinctions between "deceptive" pseuds and "non-deceptive," "real" and "fake" are false distinctions. The real issue, for me, is to 1) limit the virtual mobbing, 2) the personalized demolition and 3) the burning vitriol, all of which kill threads, discussions and confuses newbies. We are a community and quite "reality based" without the chatroom to perform gate-keeping functions of awarding "reality" or "acceptability" to anyone.
I think, Ghengis, you and I are disagreeing on something much more cosmetic/surface than depth. You are saying that the fakery of pseuds like Cypher have bred distrust at TPM. I would agree. And so, *looking at Cypher* I ask:
Cypher, why did you bring your most angry persona to this blog today?
July 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats for making me look into a dictionary.
July 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long ya been around the place? Might go back and read Cypher's attempts to be friendly. Why not click on my name, and read my first post, but check the dates of subsequent posts to understand the situation. Then we can talk.
BTW, it was Ghengis who decided that Cypher was Billy. The whole thing was never pursued by either Billy, Des or me. I always said I was Cypher and donnerpass.
Plenty of anger at this place, most often passive aggressive. I just tell the truth about bullshit/
July 22, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis says he apologized.
July 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this thread last night -- actually managed to falls asleep while trying to reply to quinn above, so I'm sure that response is less-than-coherent.
Anyway, it sleeping on this and reading through again in the morning, I see a few different threads 'n slices.
1 - Trust. Deception. As some someone sharing a discussion with you, I want to trust you to be who I think you are. Which means if I get that wrong, and you're not the avatar or the person I thought I was talking to, I'm going to feel betrayed -- even if it was my fault for getting it wrong in the first place. And if I think you set me up for it on purpose, I'm going to feel toyed with, dumb, and angry.
2 - Continuity. I want to know people/avatars, and understand their positions and perspectives, because I think that makes for a richer dialog. Without continuity, we just rehash the same arguments repeatedly.
3 - Anonymity. Reliability. Is the great promise of the Internet anonymity? Or an abundance of information? None of us -- least, in our capacity of reading and commenting on this site -- are professional journalists, so we don't have the same standards of accountability and reliability they do. (Or are supposed to.) But I do think that less anonymity does provide a greater deal of potential reliability. It's a tricky balance, though, as there are plenty of people with interesting things to say who couldn't say them non-anonymously. (I do think reliability and accountability can be achieved anonymously; it's just a little trickier.)
July 22, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my suggestion, if you spend every day of your life posting on a place like this, time to do a real check on your own reality.
Cause if you are here and at TPM-acholics everyday, and some of you ALL DAY AND NIGHT --- that is a real addition.
Trust me. As much as you can trust someone who isn't here.
July 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know people are there day and night...how?
Your spite is showing again.
July 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, Cypher, that's not where I was going at all. But if you really want to know.... My own reality if pretty busy, but it keeps me tethered to the computer a goodly percentage of the day. So leaving a presence in the chat room, and responding there when people comment, is simple for me. But I appreciate the concern.
July 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Valley Girl (affectionately) , when you say "oy" does that mean you are really Jewish, cause we Jews like to keep our own lingo in the shtetl...a bit apart from the goyim. See, this was a joke. Lots of California girls are Jewish, and lots of Jewish Californians are Valley Girls. Well, that's the difference between New York and California also. We have real bagels and you don't. We have real deli and you don't. Though you live longer and some say better.
July 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and you also have real summer -- we don't. Happy in 100 degrees and humid?
July 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
ahh.....born in North Hollywood Paige. Miss the the beach. But fortunate these days to have a house in Oregon, and be in the city a bit less.
July 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Paige. "Trust" is a damn tough one. I got told Billy was Des was Cypher. By "reals." They were wrong. It messed my head up. Didn't know who was what. Now... at first, whose "fault" was my issue - because I felt confused/upset (as you described), but - because I've been confused more than once in life - I then shifted to the "what should I do" question. Which ended up telling me to.... "go with it." So now, if I like how someone is, real or pseud, I play. If I don't, I don't. Same with past spats with people. I've had lots of spats, most of them waaaay more important than any here. And I've learned to forgive/forget. Not always, but I can dance with people I used to fight like hell with. And it's turned out.... real well. If you take Des and Billy, what makes me laugh is that they're Clinton-backers. I'm not. But I still like 'em both.
Finally, I agree, anonymity & reliability are questions on the Internet. But for me, the greatest of joys has been.... multiplicity. I can get multiple "takes" on issues. Meet & stay in touch with people who'd otherwise be locked into my past - they LIVE now, even if it's just on a screen. I can work in multiple places at once, with quite different language styles and issues under debate. And I suspect many others here do the same. Agreed?
July 22, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
careful quint, you might get blue-listed..
Get a sense of humor pics peeps ! Lighten the dialogue. Kinda stuffed up and clogged these days.
So few of you posting also. Get some new life into this place. It's that old Billy Glad again. What a pain in the ass. When he's here he's a pain, when he's not it's worse cause it's boring. So many of you want his approval--whether you say it or not, having it once and now missing it, wondering where you might fit in.
You live in a post-Billy world ! Face it.
Pick it up. This place had gone down the tubes (sorry, quinine).
July 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the attitude. The resilience. Love it when you & Des spar. And agree that the point of coming here is for different perspectives and ideas. I prefer one person's authentic perspective to polished journalism, at least much of the time. Or one character's not-so-authentic perception. That works, too. But what draws me in is the personal stuff. How politics applies to us, in our daily lives. That, and chatter about identity, reality, and cultural understanding, which is how I alwasy end up on these sorts of threads.
July 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I love it too. When it gets hot, when it gets personal, when it gets deep, when it's funny as hell, when there's a heck of a fight. Even when it's boring. Because everything is boring from time to time. Except my sex-life. Scintillating!
But I've come more & more to see it, feel it, want it, like vaudeville. Or Marx Brothers. Merry Melodies. The cat comes racing around the corner, gets a frying pan in the face. but you know he'll be back tomorrow. Billy Bloody Glad, the meanest man in town, showing up at High Noon, every bloody day - looking for someone to shoot. And some idiot shows up. Every damned day. The regular, peaceable dude, who one day goes postal. Or just dropping in on someone's porch, shooting nothing but late night horseshit.
I've lived a lot of places though. And there's one thing you can learn from Canadians. Hockey. We're the world's boringest people, all polite & peaceable. And then there's hockey. Where we strap on the gear, and become freakin' berserkers. For years, I was the hard-working mutt who dug the puck out of the corners for the hotshot scorers. No glory, all guts. But late in my career, I became the goon. The man you love to hate. Weirded me out for a while. And the fights and the blood and the stretchers - that shit is real. It wasn't wrestling. I got knocked cold at center ice one time in Brixton, on the ice, with 5,000 people going nuts. The brawl then broke out in the penalty box, went into the stands, cops, the whole schtick.
But. At the end of every hockey game, you take off your helmet, bleeding & bruised, and EVERYONE shakes hands. And then comes back tomorrow. For more. Often, you all go have beer - together. And sooner or later in your career, the guys you fought even show up on YOUR team. and hate turns to love. Respect.
We could use some more of that at TPM. Here. We all laugh, and bleed, and LEARN, and find comfort - cool. And tomorrow, I don't care what crest you got on or whether you love Hillary or got called a troll or got mugged on a thread... you show up. Another day. And maaaaan, hockey is a rush. And this place can be too.
We just don't need the game too tightly refereed. And some people, they got multiple styles. Some play old-time hockey. Some want fancy moves and no bodychecking, like the Europeans. I say, we sort it out on the ice. And go have a beer.
July 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
O hellyeah - that's what keeps me coming back - for over 6 years now.
I love it - I love the conversation and the personalities and the wit and the fabulous brains and even the witlessness of the trolls - otherwise I wouldn't have been hanging around liberal political blog boards for all these years.
July 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers to both of you. Quinn, just wanted you to know that the only reason I didn't reply to the above is that I couldn't think of anything to add.
July 22, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
me bad
did not explain that one can go to the chat room and click on archives and scan the day and night's conversations in a minute or two....
fear not
just visiting at an invitation from someone I thought might have been real --saw what was or wasn't happening, checked out me old buddies --only Des, really, as the quinn is new, and heading back out to my real life.
nice to visit.
will return with my dissertation on crap-speak
July 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher, why the acid and vitriol? As long as Sir Josh and Lady L. do not ban you, you carry on.
However, I think the point we all keep coming back at you with and you keep evading is simple -
why the vitriol, the personal demolition, the acid in the face tactics. Why? You have something to say and you want to be here. So say it and be here. But leave the flame-war at the door.
July 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey, I'm gone.
July 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, now Cypher feels ganged up on. He feels mobbed.
July 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sauce for the goose
(shrug)
July 22, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the new bee-in-motion avatar, workerbee. As for Cypher, two wrongs don't make a right. He came in good faith and I should not have participated. It's just when I saw him swearing at Genghis I got a bit pissed and lost my normal equilibrium.
Cypher, if you are still reading, I apologize. You felt you were defending yourself. I get that. You feel that you have not been given a fair break, I get that. You feel clamped and unfree, I get that. But, Cypher, what of the others here? People here feel that they've had to defend themselves from your directed barbs which they feel they did not deserve. Can there not be an exchange without the personal demolition? Say it's not so, Cypher. Say it.
July 22, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't read this whole thread and see that I'm just talking to my friends, and then responding satirically when the thought police show up. I'm not going to go point by point. Take a look at who talks with whom, and decide whether we have a right to be ourselves. To suggest that I'm ruder than, say, Billy is downright madness. Listen. The mean spirit here is passive aggressive. There's a bunch here that think they own the damn place and it's up to them who gets in and who doesn't. I stood up to them. And the more snobby they were, the more I developed the Cypher character. Everything here is backwards. It's like Alice and Wonderland. Whatever you do, it comes back backwards to you.
I'm not around much anyway. Had a reason at one time and played that out. I think that people who post here everyday are addicted to the place, and have serious issues that make Cypher's madness a walk in the park. Everyday? What's that about pics peeps? Get a life.
July 22, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carry on, I'll be back in a half hour with some coffee and time. ;)
July 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I don't think half the people on the threads think I'm using my own picture and name - I'm a fool, I've always used my own ID cause I have a philosophy that I won't bore you with.
If everyone came out from behind internet anonymity, I think they would all still be as creative and as interesting.
What they would not be is as mean.
Anonymity promotes that.
July 22, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are utterly fab! Even when you were behind that other avatar. ;)
July 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, right back atcha - and I've said so before.
July 22, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to hear you philosophy on this Tena
July 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just a personal thing with me - I don't like secrets because I don't want something to be hidden and to worry about some jackass finding it out and using against me. I've always been like this - I used to tell on myself to my parents - and my mother told me later she would never have found out some of the shit -
It's a personal philosophy that helps determine my way of doing things.
July 22, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Tena, that sounds about right to me.
July 22, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Tena, that sounds about right to me.
July 22, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad. We never even got to revisit with Donnerpass the radical historian.
Come back, Cypher and bring Donnerpass.
July 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What everyone sees here is pretty much what one would see in person, hence I use my real name. In case you were wondering, friends and family don't always like it in person either. :O)
July 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I used to have pictures of myself and some that I had different effects. I settled on the ninja as an avatar that could wear many hats.
July 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Thanks for your words of encouragement. ;)
July 22, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has a multiple load of avatars, I have to say I like your ninja. Very nice. ;)
July 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I ok under your post's theory of the world?
I hope so, and I would appreciate knowing.
Best, acknowledged fragment personality MonicaL
July 22, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
MonicaL, you are so in my post's theory of the world. Welcome. ;)
July 22, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great post, and you are a very wise person. There is so much high school antic social engineering that goes on around a website like this. Silly silly silly.
Not being mean, being creative, and having fun is what matters.
You do all those. I tip my avatar to you.
July 22, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink