[FONT=Arial]

hypothetically~ if two people are supposed to be in a mutually loving, committed, basic male/female relationship, should one of them be offended or suspicious if the other didn't want certain friends to know about the relationship??

DANGER, Will Robinson....

what are the reasons given?

maybe this is your clue that it's just not going to work?
better now than later...

I would say that communication is key. Such as:

Did this person understand that the relationship was mutually loving, committed, basic male/female etc?

Was the person not advised of the relationship due to mitigating circumstances--such as certain legal implications like, oh say, divorce or separation?

Does the person in question have any emotional issues with the uninformed third party?

Was Jerry Springer involved on any level? Sorry, couldn't resist!

"basic male/female" is creeping me out.

Are there plenty of examples of "nonbasic" male/female out there that I'm unaware of?? Mind you, I spent Saturday night explaining necrophilia to about 50 Indianians.. A co-worker had a Halloween party and another dressed as "Nick R Feliac" and his wife as a corpse with her atual wedding dress on.. So maybe I'm off-base.

i think it would depend on the reasons. if the party that wishes certain friends did not know had a good explanation as to why, and the other party was agreeable, then maybe so, but I agree with DustyVolume, communication is the key.

Unless one of those friends is an ex whose feelings might be damaged, or something similar, this is a danger sign. Trust me on this one.

I would say that even if the reason is an ex whose feelings might be damaged. I say this because it indicates an existing attachment that is inappropriate to another relationship. If it's too soon since the last relationship, then that in itself is an indicator of a rebound situation, which often involves close friends matching up. Rebound is never good for the reboundee, and rarely for the rebounder, except in the immediate sense, by which I mean, useful distraction. If it has been a while since the previos relationship ended, then hiding a new relationship based on that fear of damage suggests a different level of inappropriateness, namely, a weakness in demanding a clean break, or the existance of emotional connection, or both. Neither scenario would be good for the new person and are very definately warning signs.

Of course, none of this applies if you've been dating this person for, like, one day or it is super-new or something.

thanx for the insight. due to circumstances beyond my control ( i'm sure you can figure it out), unfortunately this thread has been currently deemed irrelevant and should probably be disscontinued. i appreciate all opinions and will take them into advisement for future situations.

If you were posting this here because the person with whom you were in the relationship could see it, rather than approach them face to face, then that was uncool.

Maybe some insight into why the relationship was kept private to begin with?

Just asking...

Not only is that, but that would mean this Walnut person is an "alt" poster (something quite common on the CJMB) - someone posting here under a different or "alt" name. Not cool.

it's pretty obvious or at least apparent (to me anyway) that this is a troll and/or "alt". this was their first post, about a relationship issue. no previously stated interest in the band and/or music in general, no introduction, no previous posts and they just dive in about a personal relationship issue with a group of people that they don't even know? c'mon folks, this ain't dear abby.

imho, it was an pretty sad, lame and obvious attempt to intimidate, harass and/or embarass someone here, isn't it better to let this stuff die on the vine rather than feed it? just sayin'...

Uhm .... or maybe it's "irrelevant" because it's in the "Forum Stuff" section and this isn't a question that directly pertains to the forum. That was my first thought.

Then again, I seem to be irrepressible optimistic, despite my best attempts.

boy, I just didn't get any of that conspiracy theory vibe that some of y'all at the end there are getting. What's wrong with posting under an alt name? I've never done it here, but I certainly do it at other boards.
Intimidate, harass or embarace? how in the hell would this anonymous post about no-one-named-in-specific possibly do that? obvious?? maybe the obvious ain't so obvious to me, cause I just didn't see that. I'll agree that this ain't dear abbey, but good lord, we've talked about advice-column type stuff a million times around here. silly question maybe, and a fair bit loaded, but still...

I was as confused as you were Brook. Then I took a closer look at the O(pening)P(ost) and realized that if the person Walnut was referring to was another apple, and if that person didn't want to announce their relationship on the board, then, well, the OP would be exactly as mark & bill called it.

"that person walnut was referring to" is the part I'm stuck on. who cares if it's another apple? there was no inferrence one way or the other to indicate "who" it was, and it seemed like a legitimate discussion to me, persons known or unknown, intentions malicious or otherwise. lordy, are we really judging another persons posts based on their intentions? (i.e. their inner experience, which none of us can possibly know of another). how the hell could we possibly discern that in this kind of post (or place for that matter)? I'm afraid that just wouldn't hold up in a court o' law...

i think it's funny how everything around here turns into a conspiracy. i mean, those types of things are childish like this COULD be and like the mysterious deletion of GMAIL songs etc... ...it's childish maybe but who cares?

And even if it were an alter-ego from the boards here, then fine, it is still a valid question for that person and they are looking for an answer that does not betray the trust of said relationship. so what?

Walnut (aka hypothetical relationship conspirist), it all depends on the cirsumstances involved and the reasons given. I have been in a situation similar to yours many years ago and it was the right thing then for a short time... ...we were able to communicate and eventual be completely out in the open with our relationship... ...that was ten years ago and we are still together... ...the difference was that it was both of our ideas together not just one running the show with no explaination. hopefully this person has good explanations......

I'm curious what motivates you to do this, Brook. Personally, I hope Drew boots anyone who tries to create multiple identities here, based on the damage I've seen them do in other forums. On the CJ message board, many people are now afraid to talk to newbies at all for fear of being taken in by a regular who's jerking them around.

Although I'm not trying to answer for Brook, I will speculate.

I think the appeal of it is much the same as that of cheating on a test. Perhaps due to the sheer lack of ability to otherwise earn the desired results that one's original identity seems unable to evoke, a reversion back to a "quick fix" may seem warranted.

Also, it could be the stilted appeal of playing a prank that leads one to take on an alteranate identity. Perhaps it's the rush of adrenaline one gets when suddenly no longer responsible for their own actions.

It also could be the quick fix of attacking a person or an action from a vantage point that would be widely viewed as unbiased...

Or maybe it could just be bad judgement?

I agree those are all potential motives, Mark. I'm just curious why Brook does it.

I still don't see how little ol' Walnut's alter on here could be anything "harmful".

It seems obvious that it was an Apple (let's call him Apple 1), dating Apple 2. Apple 2 doesn't want to let people know that they (Apples 2 and 1) are an item.

Apple 1 seems distraught.

As I would be.

And no, this isn't about Drew and me.

Sorry, I thought you were ambi-inquisitive. Heck, maybe I just thought you were open to speculation. I guess open speculation is wrong of me. Maybe I should only post in the threads in which I was directly queried. Maybe I should... Uh oh, I may be feeling the onset of "alt user syndrome".

Sorry, this made no sense. I think I may be losing my mind.

I just found this in the "guidelines"



And FTR, I'm not endorsing the theory that Walnut is an alt user.

I don't know about doing any harm, but if it was in fact posted by a regular forum member here, then it seems inherently manipulative to me. If a distraught apple wants to solicit other apples' opinions on a relationship with another forum member they prefer not to reveal, it's easy enough to PM or email them without mentioning the other person's name. This provocative post would appear to be staged for the other forum member's benefit. That may not bother others. It does bother me.


There was no implication intended that your response was "wrong", Mark. I was trying to clarify that my question was meant specifically rather than generally. FTR I think alts can be fun and innocuous myself, but on balance, I've seen them do a whole lot more harm than good.

And there was no implication on my part that I felt you were saying I was wrong, either. I was actually just apologizing for answering a question that I thought you were soft on, but it actually turned out you were firm on what you wanted.

And FTR, I can't think of any examples when alts are totally innocuous.

What are we, in high school?

If someone wants to talk about being distraught, they should not be taking that to the people they have specifically been told by the other party are off limits to the info. It's manipulative, plain and simple. Everybody on this board has friends in real life, and at any rate, there's always Dear fecking Abby if it gets that bad. If hints that have been left and suspicions that have been raised are true and I was apple 2, I'd ditch apple 1 like a murder victim. Which, judging by walnut's last post, is exactly what happened.

I don't like alts and socks because I hate to be lied to, and that's what it amounts to, unless it's very obviously for light-hearted fun. This thread is obviously not fun, except in a Jerry-Springer-meets-Lindsey-Lohan-&-the-Simpson-Sisters train wreck kind of way. Drama.

well, now that Dusty's laid out all the negative reasons for alt posting (Moulder fan, by chance?), let me try and lay out a couple possible positives.

I post regularly over at Sarah Masen's board under a couple different names. David Dark (Sarah's husband) has done the same thing quite often. and if you know David, you know there are certainly no negative motives involved.
I started over there because I know David and Sarah personally, and wanted to say a few things anonymously. they were nice things, but I didn't want them tainted with a pre-concieved notion of who was saying them. they were observations about the industry she was in, and I was expressing feelings (sort of frustration, actually) that, if they knew I said them, would suddenly turn into specific fingerpointing (because of who I know in their industry, at the time directly involved with them). gosh I love vague name dropping...anyway...
I continue to post pseudonymously because I just like the anonymoty(sp?), being able to say things without preconceived ideas regarding who is saying these things. and then I started enjoying the creativity involved in writing in certain voices. I think my different names all have distinct "voices" if you will, different personalities. and it's fun. and now you think I'm a schizo, and that's alright.
I think people here certainly read certain posters and know what to expect, or know how to read their posts, and to a certain degree that's good, we're getting to know each other. but on the other hand, it also limits the effect a post might have because "oh, that's just so-snd-so, they're always a crank / not serious / saying stupid things". people get typecast, and one of the great things about a message board could be the ability to break out of that with a different or unknown name, putting the focus back on what is being said.

(gets on soapbox now)
I didn't realize that about these boards, that we are only allowed one account, and so you can add that to my list of frustrations with these boards (or replace the swearing one with this one, now that I've been led around that little roadblock). there's just this overall feeling of being treated like irresponsible children around here, don't do this and don't say that and stay where I can keep my eye on you, etc... and I just feel like, if you expect people to act a certain way, they will live up to your expectations. put up limits and those limits will attract those who want to push the limits, challange them, and I just think you've created more headaches for yourself than you would normally have. I find it funny that Linford's letter came to our mailboxes without stars (as it should be), but wasn't clean enough to be posted here without editing. I also find it interesting that there just aren't nearly any of the problems over at Sarah's board that those here are so worried about. yeah, people swear, and people attack and get mad and then we talk it through and there are apologies where warrented and we all move on and are the better for having talked through the problem rather than being scolded for talking about that subject, like that...
(gets down off soapbox and apologizes profusely for the tangent)

peace,
John Jenkins

This does seem like a good reason, though it would seem a short-lived, one-time example.



This I think is wrong, and I'll tell you why. You're writing fiction into people's everyday lives. One of the reasons fiction is so popular is because it is a choice. You volunteer some time to something you know is made up in exchange for a feeling of entertainment. While life can certainly be entertaining, it isn't entertainment, and what you describe is, for you, and, you hope, for your readers. If you like it so much, I think you should actually start writing then, rather than toying (sorry to use that harsh sounding word, but that's how it comes off to me) with the lives of people, whether you know them or not. Or you could experiment with some blogs, which would allow people the choice of coming to you. Like I said in my last post, I think it's a form of lying. I have no idea if you've been an alt on this board, but I at least respect you for coming out about it now that this discussion has started, even if I oppose the activity.

The thing you said about getting the focus back on what's being said is interesting and I will consider it.

PS It's anonymity.

"toying with the lives of people"

yeah, I gotta say this is way overblown in my opinion. If you are putting so much emotional stock in what someone you don't even know is saying, or whether that person is really who they claim to be, well then you've got problems bigger than any that person might have. If you know the people on a message board outside of the message board, well that's one thing, but if you think you know people simply because you know them on the message board, well I think you're delluding yourself.

I met Bruce a few weeks ago, for just a minute or two, but I knew in that short amount of time that my image of him from these boards was pretty off the mark. I mean he struck me as the nicest guy in the world, but on these message boards, he was just someone I teased every once in a while for loving Duran Duran. and my image of his personality was just wrong. and that had nothing to do with any kind of misrepresentation he was proffering. If you only know people from this message board, well, I would suggest you don't know them. and so there you have inherent fiction, real name or no. You only know what they are saying, and that has little if anything to do with the name attached to the writing.

I would also say that writing in and of itself is a kind of misrepresentation... There's a guy over at Sarah's site (just for example), who writes as himself, but is very confrontational and opinionated. and a lot of people get mad at him, at the close-minded things he says, and probably think that if they saw him in person they'd give him a good loud piece of their mind. but in real life this guy has a phobia (who's name escapes me right now) regarding others. social phobia? that's not right, but you know what I mean... (Paxil's the drug) And he's quiet as can be, very very slow to speak, long on deep thought, keeps to himself, and the idea of anything approaching a loud volumed, highly tense conversation with him becomes ridiculously absurd in real life. I can't imagine this guy offending anyone in real life, and yet he offends most everyone on the message board at one time or another. that's an extreme example, but I think an accurate one that is true to one degree or another with everyone on a message board. the written word just comes across in too many different ways to too many readers for it to be anything like a real-life portrat of the writer. Editing is not something you find in real life. A message board should mostly be about what is written here (the "message"), not who is doing the writing.

It's also kind of fun to try and guess if this person is really a person, or someone's pseudonym, and if a pseudonym, then who's... and when an alterego is revealed, the feeling is one of fun amusement, rather than hurt or anger (in fact, I can't imagine that kind of response to any of the revealed alts over there. we all have a good "no kidding" kind of laugh about it, like when you find out who left the anonymous package on your doorstep).

Kentuckianna... is that your real name? why not just use your real name as your username? isn't that a kind of lying in and of itself? I don't even know your last name. how can I trust that you are who you claim to be? why, your name might not even be anna... and if it weren't, well then everything you've said would be invalid because of it...right?

It's interesting how much I disagree with almost every point you're making, but since I have to leave for work in a few minutes, for now just let me say that I think the message should reflect who the writer is. In the vast majority of cases here, it does, which is why I felt I knew everyone I've met from this forum pretty well (especially Bruce, lol) before actually meeting them face-to-face. Having an online persona shaped by the nature of the medium is absolutely not equivalent to pretending to be someone else. I'm not as outspoken or articulate or (quite as) lecherous in real life as I am online, but I don't think that means people here don't know who I am -- in fact, the people here probably know me better than most of my local friends.

I guess a lot of it comes down to what you're looking for in a "message board". I really think of this place as a supportive online community myself, and that depends on knowing who you're talking to.

silly keith...i don't think you're lecherous at all!

i, for one, have been told (more than once) that i am *exactly* what someone thought i would be, based on their interactions with me online.

as for the alternative personas...i guess i feel the same way as anna and keith. i don't like to be lied to. i understand brook's point of posting positive comments under another name, because someone would just assume that one was "sucking up" or something of that nature...but for more than a couple of posts, i don't see the point.

of course, maybe that's mostly because i don't feel like i am a creative person, and that i don't think i would be able to create a new personality online. and because of this, maybe i have an inherent trust of others...i am being true to myself in these online posts...doesn't that mean everyone else is?

and yes, i read the papers. and yes, i've heard of lecherous people. i even know of a guy with whom i went to school who got caught up in a trap of someone pretending to be who they aren't. *sigh* not saying that brook's persona's are wrong...they're just wrong for me.

that's all...

Internet message board dynamics constantly amaze me!

The good and bad of the OTR online groups is that the core (hehe) of them are SO TIGHT. On and offline, I'd say, 90% of the 30 top posters here have so much invested in their OTR "friends and family" that it's so tangible, yet inexplicable when making comparisons to other friend-dynamics..

HappyScout could have gotten a master's degree if she would have dissected our dynamic for a thesis.

The best thing is that by far and away OTR has the best fans of any band I've ever seen in my life. The most warm, genuine people, with a true interest in the music.. There was a time just a year or so ago when Dan and I were generally leery of this group and steered mostly clear of this board.. Once meeting all of you though, it's definitely easy to get hooked all over again.

Do I have a relevant point?

Nah, not really. I just wanted to gush how good y'all are in an inappropriate thread.

And to say that whereas I tend to agree with brookd on most of his statements, especially The ModeratorHammer™ on here, I still see us as all a cohesive crew. Our argumenting is severely limited on the forum, I don't see it making us stronger or weaker together - it just makes it a more pleasant place to escape to from time to time.

And brookd - you need to haul down to a Rhineland gathering. These are good people!

Sorry to sting you, as I apparently did judging by your tone. I tried to make it clear by the end that I wasn't mad or anything. Anyway...




Lying my ass. My name is Anna and I live on the KY/IN border in an area that bills itself as "Kentuckiana." Can't get much more truthful than that, other than using my real, full name, which I would be happy to do, except I was already known to a number of people here as kentuckiannna before I came.

Anyway, you don't have to accept that alts and socks are violations of online etiquette. Your experience as you get exposed or expose yourself will show you how unacceptable it is. Here's an example: As I was reading one of your posts in another thread last night I found myself chuckling maniacally over something you said. Now, what am I to think, dear John? That you are really like that and I would probably like meeting you, or that it is on of your "creative voices" and you aren't like that at all, and I would be disappointed to meet you in real life? I have no idea who you are now and I don't trust you anymore, really. I did trust you before, to an extent appropriate for a MB and considering we've never met, because your persona seemed consistent. It's really quite sad, actually, because I always liked you, or at least I thought I did. Who knows now, since I can't even remotely tell who you are.

And that crap about "so much emotional stock" was unneccesary. Some people on this board are very close as a result of relationships we've developed outside of the Orchard. For some reason--probably jealousy--this seems to piss off people who don't feel accepted. WTFever. Cry me a river over those sour grapes. I'm not about to feel bad because I have good friends and don't like being lied to, even by people I don't know and will probably never meet.

At any rate, this thread didn't start out about you and your peculiar habits, unless you're 'fessing up to being walnut. Aside from you and bruce, I think most people agree that what went down in this thread was creepy, stalking alt bullshit that apparently ended in perfect justice.

yet another point about message boards (and I think we've had this conversation somewhere around here before), but "tone" is something you, the reader, bring to the message. I felt no sting, and was/am enjoying the "blessed back and forth" (as my friend David would put it). there was/is no anger or vitrol in my tone from this end, but you don't know that, of course, and so certainly my posts (because of their argumentative nature) can come across as upset or whatever high charged emotion you want to attach to it. I do enjoy a good debate though.


I think I acknowledged that and the different nature of those relationships at the beginning of my little diatribe ("If you know the people on a message board outside of the message board, well that's one thing"). but I will still insist that you don't know someone until you've met them IRL(my example of the social phobic guy being a good, if extreme, example of this). I don't know what you are or aren't "trusting" about me, but my words in the context of whatever was/is being discussed are still the same, regardless of the name attached or the motives behind it. a joke is a joke, a truthful comment is a truthful comment, a good point is a good point, sarcasm is sarcasm, and I don't see how the name attached has much relevance. NOW...I'm not saying that there's nothing of the person in their writing. I actually agree with Kieth's disagreement, in a wierd paradoxical way, in saying that you can actually know a person more by their writings. and of course you can get to know a person's writing style and get to understand how something is being said after you've read them enough. I would suggest that "alteregos" could be seen as aspects to one's personality. or maybe they're playing "devil's advocate" (a rather useful device in a debate - arguing the other side's viewpoint, whether you personally hold that view or not. perhaps you think that too is lying. and to a degree you're right. but it's also a method of understanding another viewpoint).


I think I already mentioned in my previous post that I have had much experience, not only with being exposed, but also discovering others who were writing pseudonymously. and it was all good.

How do you feel about pseudonyms in the world of literature? I don't mean the fiction the writer actually writes, but the writer him/herself putting a fake name in the author spot. Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman. that sort of thing. what if it's done in the world of non-fiction? does it change what is written somehow? If I, writing as John Jacobs, tell you that George Washington was the first president, and later you find out John Jacobs doesn't exist, do you then not trust what I said?

anyway, I gotta go for now. thanks for the responses. no harm ever intended. sorry if you take some of those comments personally, but I still stand by them (I generally use "you" in the general sense when debating. if the shoe fits, well then... but I don't know you personally, so certainly any such comments could be way off in specific circumstances)

peace,
Brook

and luke.

i have a poetry psuedonymn. you can click on the link below in my signature. i hope you are not creeped out.

the problem is that this here Orchard, really, is not viewed as a "Board" but many many of the folks. It is viewed as a communication vehicle for a real live community. So you are messing around, in many ways, at a deeper level than you would if you posted as an alt on most other types of INTERNET ONLY boards.

This example WALNUT is innouculous enough, unless it's intentions were malicious towards the partner mentioned (if it truly is an alt.) it does not bother me. I would prefer if they would say if they were or were not an alt though, just so we knew and didn't continue to make this assumption (which at the basest level is unfair)

I also think that people are aroused in many ways by mystery and it inspires activity, such as the direction this whole thread has taken.



Brook - John - Whatever or whoever you are... ...My true opinion about alt post or psuedonymns of any sort is that is means you are being a pussy and have something that you are trying to hide or ashamed of and don't want to deal with as your true self, or you are just invigorated by fecking with peoples heads. It calls into question your constitution as a human being. I.E. if he is hiding this he is hiding that.

The reason i (also a pussy) write under a psyuedonymn relates to the thread you started about how you are starting to hate this fluffy orchard: i don't want to censor myself, but i don't want to offend anybody who may be offended. plus on a professional level, i don't want an important business contact (mostly engineer types) to google my name and find randy and otherwise 'offending' writing all over the place.

I mean, if they searched hard enough i am sure they could find it anyways.

I do not correspond with people under this alt psuedonym though, or bring FICTION into their lives for my own adrenal and self serving purposes.

well, from one pussy to another...
I was actually just about to mention the "creative" thread as another reason to post pseudonymously. perhaps I'm very insecure in my creative abilities, but would like to put some of my creative work out there for comment or whatnot. but I don't feel ready to attach my name to this work of dubious talent.

same sort of thing: someone from this board PM's me this morning to say they were one of the people who were more comfortable with the "fluff" posts because they didn't think they were smart enough to add anything of value to such conversations (I'm paraphrasing and extrapolating). now, call this person a pussy if you want, but I can fully appreciate the fact that someone wouldn't want to put themselves on the line in a conversation they consider "out of their league". but with a pseudonym, these personal insecurities vanish. no one knows it's you, and so you can jump into the conversation and "practice swimming" without being branded, perhaps, as someone who doesn't have much of anything to say.

now, whether you agree with feeling like that or not, you certainly have to admit that there are many people on these boards who aren't participating in certain discussions because of their "inadequit to participate" self-image. I think this is only natural, and some do a better job of getting over it than others. and maybe part of getting over it is to dip your feet in the water with an anonymous name.

and boy howdy, are you a suspicious bunch of people! I've never seen so many people worried about others messing with their heads and fucking with their lives than I have here! chill out, lighten up, and have a little fun with the message boards! (I realize that this opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the board moderator or overseers)

Don't try to deny what you know is true, Bruce.

I'm crying now, as I write this. And I just threw up a little, in my mouth.

I hope you're happy. You bastard.

Also, the Orchard Guidelines state that users may have one and only one login here. We don't play those "alt" games on this forum.

Sometimes, I think you're right. And sometimes, I think I think that because they want me to think that.

Again, i think that most here view this as MORE the just a message board.

Also, Drew™, I have had the opportunity to look under the dashboard of this application / service that is employed for The Orchard (Invision Power Board) and it does track IPs, so there is a chance he could see the alt. posters.

Alt Posters beware! Make sure you are wireless or at the library before you start a new persona!

*sigh*

i wasn't going to tell. but luke asked nicely.

some of you already know (and some guessed even before i found out myself)...

i was dating a guy from here in town. he knew i liked otr and that i "hung out" here. so, he started a name and started posting. with which i was very uncomfortable...not only were his posts embarressing to me personally and in general, he wasn't a fan of the band, and i felt like he was making fun of me in my personal space.

so, he created the alt persona *walnut*, using a different e-maill addy as his confirmation address, and posted about the relationship. he felt that, because i didn't want him to post, that i didn't want this group of people to know about him.

that and he was mad cause i didn't invite him to CST. sorry...not quite first otr experience.

anyway, things are cleared up between us, he lied to me initially, but came clean that it was him two days later, and he promises not to do it again.

end of story.

so, yes, it was directed towards hurting me/manipulating me, which was bad. and some people (bill especially) knew of my problems with him, and knew immediately that it was directed towards me, so of course i was mollified. i'm over it now.

ok. mystery solved. i'm going back to the q&a matinee.

Wow.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave...

Well, hasn't this thread been fun! Creepy or not, it really has opened up a great discussion on the nature of online interactions.

Okay, a few comments on everyone else's comments before I retire for the evening:


All of this is completely the opposite of my personal experience the past five years as a member of four online music forums. I have made dozens of friends online, and since I'm able to travel to see my favorite artists perform and for other reasons, I've had the opportunity to meet quite a few of them. While the person I physically encounter is invariably somewhat different from my conceptualization in some of the details, in no event have I felt the real-life person differed in essential respects from the image I derived from their online representation. The fact of the matter is that many of the people I know in "meat space" are more guarded than my online friends, and I would make the argument I really don't know them as well as many people I've encountered here but have never physically met.

Bruce in particular was exactly what I expected from the way he posts online! (namely brash, playful and hilarious) Do you actually read his posts?

Of course the reason my experience has been like this is the people who allowed me to befriend them online were open and genuine in their writings. Anna and I were close friends by any meaningful criterion you'd care to apply (well okay, we couldn't hug each other) for almost a year before we actually met in Toronto in March 2003. Were there differences in each other's behavior vs. what we expected? Absolutely, but so what? There are also constant and sometimes dramatic adjustments in your image of your local friends too, based on what they reveal by their behavior.


Ah, so I guess waiting a few hours before asking to see that strawberry thong of yours at Kings' Island paid off!

You are indeed The Jess-Y-ka, online and off.


I think the whole **** thing is pretty silly myself (but then I'm a New Yorker & know lots of Italians), but I think most of the rules here were established for good reason. If you enjoyed the OtR discussion list in its latter days, then this forum probably feels very restrictive to you. If you feel (like I did) that it was a very cold and hostile place to be, the rules here may seem more justified.

As for our Benevolent Despot™, I think being a forum moderator is a pretty thankless gig, but on balance I think Drew does a real good job with it. I've complained to him about a few things I don't like, and sometimes he's been responsive (even when he disagreed), other times he hasn't. I recognize you can't make everyone happy. Based on what I've witnessed more than once, I just think unrestricted forums are bound to turn into inbred battlegrounds eventually (apparently this hasn't happened -- yet -- on Sarah Mansen's board, and I'm glad to hear that). If you're in it for the adrenaline and don't care about the feelings of newbies or the more sensitive fans, I guess that's fine. I just don't see that as K&L's vision of what a fan forum is all about myself, and I'm very supportive of what Drew is trying to do here.


But what are you really feeling, Belly?

(I love you!)


No, it's a function of both the writer and the reader. Won't you take responsibility for anything?

And I will insist you don't necessarily know someone after you have met them.


Thank you, Luke!

(I love you too!)





*sigh*

Jessyka, trouble just has a way of following you everywhere!

how about "Yes, AND it's a function of both". I don't disagree that I have a certain tone in my mind when writing, and sometimes I can even get that tone across to others, but more likely the person reading is inferring a tone that I didn't intend - usually upset or anger (as I said, justifiably so, given the way most people debate... or I should say confuse debate with argue).
me? responsible? pshaw...

I actually agree with most everything you said about people in real life compared to online. I think we're saying the same thing. I don't see how what you're saying is mutually exclusive to what I'm saying. I think they're both true. I don't deny the fact that you can get inside a persons thoughts (and therefore who a person is) better sometimes through their writings than IRL. but if you don't know that person IRL, let's admit that you can also be way off the mark (HappyScout). sometimes even if you know them IRL. I guess all I'm saying is that there are stalkers out there on the net, and people who like to fuck with other people's heads, and HappyScout types, and to think that everyone is genuine out here is just pure folly. that doesn't automatically make everyone a phony, but I'm sure as hell not going to trust my deep emotions to someone I only know of through online communication. There is the potential for a real live relationship in online communication, and certainly online communication can be a good way to start a deep friendship, but to believe that deep relationship is already there is the reason online stalkers are so successful at what they do. (I know, I know...now who's the paranoid one, you're saying)


well, ok, I disagree with this.

I do read Bruces posts, certainly. but, you know, he likes Duran Duran better than Over the Rhine! I mean, come on! I didnt' have any kind of negative image of him, certainly. I just didn't expect him to be so...extrememly nice. I thought he might wear chain earings and have a semi-mohawk too... (don't ask, I can't explain)


and I will insist this right along with you...

does anyone here remember Snoop Doug and the time he posted as Penny? can't help but think of that classic moment in the middle of this discussion. yet another argument for allowing pseudonym postings (and another good argument for never allowing them)

I keep getting named in this!

I'll try not to be nice in the future!

hehe.

Great! Thism thread may have accomplished bringing back the ol' headbutting, pants-losing Bruce. Good Job! If I get headbotted again, y'all are in trouble!
bruce loves juice.
~m

Brook,

You may have helped make your own point regarding tone, sorry if mine came across to you as confrontational.

Yes, there's always the danger of online predators and the need for caution and judgment (particularly for women), but as someone once said, you either lose your fear or spend your life with one foot in the grave. I'm not advocating anyone meet someone they only know from online alone in a dark alley. And despite what she said about spying on us upon her departure, I still believe Kim was harmless and just being petulant.

There's a guy on the CJMB who practically made a career of inventing alts, and had a recurring cast of characters: Captain Bob, Keeki, Tammy the Blonde Bombshell, Dr. Frank and a few others. The same reason you've given, it was a creative outlet for various aspects of his personality, and many of us found his posts entertaining (although others decidedly did not). Personally I don't have any problem with kind of role-playing when the fiction is obvious, although it can become tiresome. But I think pretending to be someone other than yourself makes it too easy to act in a manipulative and hurtful way without having to deal with any of the consequences. Certainly there's no good reason an online community can't indulge in all manner of semblance and role-playing if they're mostly into it, but to me it is game-playing and I have to do enough of that in the business world, thanks very much. I'm glad it's discouraged here.

maybe it's just because I don't know you, but I don't think I've ever read your posts as "confrontational". you always come across to me as having a good-natured time of it all.

Bruce was nice and all, but I for one don't want to see this "pants-losing" Bruce you speak of...


I still still still don't understand how an alt personality could possibly have the kind of power it takes to be "manipulative and hurtful" to anyone. Muzyklvr knew the person posting, and so that was a different situation (a real life situation). now, if ANYONE else was hurt or felt manipulated by walnut's post, I would just be flabbergasted. Why would you give that kind of power to someone you don't even know?!?
I use HappyScout as an example of someone who was being (apparantly) disingenuous about herself and her relationship to others here, but I certainly wasn't bothered by anything she said or did (found it all amusing at the end, really- even more amusing to see everyone freak out about it like she had just brought the walls down or something). I too thought she was harmless and still probably a pretty ok person.


(edited because I try to use big words but I don't know how to spell them)

*sigh*

Most of us are subject to some degree of hurt feelings and consequent emotional withdrawal when being attacked in a hostile fashion or ridiculed, whether it's someone we know or not. I'm sorry you can't grasp that, and I really don't know what I can say to try to make it understandable to you. I've seen alts engage in deliberately hurtful behavior plenty of times in other forums and thereby chase people away, and I've also seen them make posts and lob loaded remarks into discussions just to provoke people. You can say that persons who are so affected have a self-esteem problem, and maybe some of them do, but personally I don't think anyone deserves that kind of treatment. I don't much like it when forum members engage in such behavior using their normal identity either, but at least there's some accountability there.

Walnut was not an especially malevolent example, but why should a moderator have to worry about judging alts on a case by case basis? Say what you have to say using your own handle (whether you choose to reveal your real-life identity or not), or shut up. Personally I think it's a good policy.

You really need to spend some time with Bruce after midnight, by the way. (I guess he's checking in periodically to look for his name )