TROLL ALERT! - IF YOU ARE BORED HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO TROLL

-SWS wrote:Well, I would hope to see our regular members who have their secret second identities reserved specifically for HARSH comments enter this part of the discussion and describe to us WHY they think they need that secret identity for harsh posts. Of course, if you'd rather not come into this part of the discussion to rationally explain WHY your alter-ego harshness is necessary in your view.... Well, I suppose that would prove my earlier point that secret second identities reserved specifically for battle/attack mode really ARE... sneaky and cowardly pursuits.

So does that last bit of logic seem to hold up guys?

Perfectly. You want the cruel cowards who were too cowardly to post under their main identity to admit they are cruel cowards, and if they don't, that further proves they are cowards. Got it. If they do admit they are cowards, then by definition, they are somewhat less cowardly than originally thought. Then they are cruel and brave.... Right??

OK, all you cruel cowards, come out, come out, wherever you are!

-SWS wrote:Certainly, SleepingUgly...

Timeout for you, Who. Use you other identity for a while instead of Who.

Hey Wait!--But who's gonna moderate who gets to use their other identity??? And well heck, SWS, I thought you were wanting to discourage that???

-SWS wrote:Well, I would hope to see our regular members who have their secret second identities reserved specifically for HARSH comments enter this part of the discussion and describe to us WHY they think they need that secret identity for harsh posts.

OK, I confess.

NotDillon:



is really Dillon.

But you tell him he's a coward.

I confess that I am not Really_Ugly.

SleepingUgly wrote:I confess that I am not Really_Ugly.

OK, I'll bite.

How ugly are you?

NotMuffy wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:I confess that I am not Really_Ugly.

OK, I'll bite.

How ugly are you?

I guess that pretty much makes time-out parole out of the question.

SleepingUgly wrote:

-SWS wrote:Well, I would hope to see our regular members who have their secret second identities reserved specifically for HARSH comments enter this part of the discussion and describe to us WHY they think they need that secret identity for harsh posts. Of course, if you'd rather not come into this part of the discussion to rationally explain WHY your alter-ego harshness is necessary in your view.... Well, I suppose that would prove my earlier point that secret second identities reserved specifically for battle/attack mode really ARE... sneaky and cowardly pursuits.

So does that last bit of logic seem to hold up guys?

Perfectly. You want the cruel cowards who were too cowardly to post under the main identity to admit they are cruel cowards, and if they don't, that further proves they are cowards. Got it. If they do admit they are cowards, then by definition, they are somewhat less cowardly than originally thought. Then they are cruel and brave.... Right??

OK, all you cruel cowards, come out, come out, wherever you are!

Well, SleepingUgly, don't just miss the point... mock it too!

Here' my point paraphrased:
If they anonymously enter threads to attack, then they can just as anonymously enter THIS discussion to help the rest of us understand WHY they think that approach is necessary. If they can present us with rationale then their actions might be rational after all. For lack of rationale they are sneaks and cowards.

plr66 wrote:

-SWS wrote:Certainly, SleepingUgly...

Timeout for you, Who. Use you other identity for a while instead of Who.

Hey Wait!--But who's gonna moderate who gets to use their other identity??? And well heck, SWS, I thought you were wanting to discourage that???

I was only kidding about the timeout.... River Kwai is not easy to whistle...

But I WOULD like to discourage second secret identities reserved specifically for HARSH attacks. SO DOES ANYBODY HERE THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA? Maybe I'm wrong. Let's hear rationale for those secret second identities reserved for HARSH attacks from anybody who cares to defend them.

Anybody?

-SWS wrote:

-SWS wrote:So I REALLY don't understand WHY regular members want to have alternate identities that are reserved for covert, adversarial comments. It baffles me for these reasons:

1) It's inherently sneaky IMO
2) It disrespects our generous hosts' "also posted as" identifying text----that was originally put in place for the same problem of anonymous attacks
3) There's absolutely NO reason why people can't firmly debate while also being civil using their main identity

Anonymous attacks under the guise of alternate identities seem to almost always fall under one or both of these motivations in my opinion: CRUELTY and/or COWARDICE.

Well, I would hope to see our regular members who have their secret second identities reserved specifically for HARSH comments enter this part of the discussion and describe to us WHY they think they need that secret identity for harsh posts. Of course, if you'd rather not come into this part of the discussion to rationally explain WHY your alter-ego harshness is necessary in your view.... Well, I suppose that would prove my earlier point that secret second identities reserved specifically for battle/attack mode really ARE... sneaky and cowardly pursuits.

So does that last bit of logic seem to hold up guys?

Well, I barely have one identity, but a few stray thoughts:

I don't see the the battle identity need be covert in any interesting sense. One could make a public announcement to the effect that So-and-so is also So-and-so, Be It Known Throughout The Land. In any event, almost everyone here is anonymous, whatever the nature of their postings, save for those who use their real names. So Dumbo The Elephant is covert and anonymous when posting insults when the same individual also posts helpful comments as Ludvig von Drake, but when Baron Munchausen posts both helpful hints and insults, S/he is not covert and anonymous? If Dumbo/Ludvig is taking active steps to conceal that Dumbo=Ludvig, sneakiness enters I suppose, but otherwise it need not be so.

If Dumbo/Ludvig is afraid to post insults as Ludvig, your charge of cowardice may take hold. But that's an empirical question; I don't see that fear is the only possible motive for splitting oneself.

The notion that one insults only when one cannot rationally debate is about the most shopworn cliche imaginable, and fails to do any kind of justice to the complexities of human interaction.

With The Utmost of Esteem and Affection,

I Remain,

Your Humble Servant,

brain_cloud

I didn't mean to be mocking. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. What can I do to make it up to you? (See how it's done, Who?) I have a good role model for how to make Lego apologies. Would you like a picture of your face made out of Legos?

I agree that people should take responsibility for what they say, and not use facades to hide behind so that they can say things they don't want to be associated with lest they be found culpable of saying what they said.

-SWS wrote:If they anonymously enter threads to attack, then they can just as anonymously enter THIS discussion to help the rest of us understand WHY they think that approach is necessary. If they can present us with rationale then their actions might be rational after all. For lack of rationale they are sneaks and cowards.

Now, SleepingUgly, does that logic REALLY fall down in your view?

Well, all the alters are pretending to be primary identities. If they showed up to this thread and explained why they are choosing to be alters, everyone would know that they are an alters, and not primaries, even if they don't know which primary identity they are associated with. Furthermore, if they are as cowardly as we hypothesize, what are the odds they are going to show up for this (especially having already been deemed "cowardly")? I suppose they could post as Guests, although that whole IP thing is pretty confusing to me, so I'm not sure if they actually can post as a Guest.

So I guess I was trying to say that no one is going to show up. (But if they do, let's pat them on the back for showing up, because that's actually kind of brave. Don't you think?)

So, what will it be? Legos of your face or Legos of a Samurai robot?

brain_cloud wrote:The notion that one insults only when one cannot rationally debate is about the most shopworn cliche imaginable, and fails to do any kind of justice to the complexities of human interaction.

Well, there are ordinary spur-of-the-moment insults that we all wish we hadn't said (or so I would hope). But I'm talking about those insults under the cloak of anonymity. Those last insults are highly premeditated. All the cognitive effort that went into arranging cloak-and-dagger style assaults could have been redirected toward using the primary identity to openly and honestly argue a point. That verbal attack in secrecy is nothing more than premeditated assault committed by the second identity---so that the first identity can get away Scott free with the well-planned assault. No excuse for that IMO.

SleepingUgly wrote: What can I do to make it up to you? (See how it's done, Who?) I have a good role model for how to make Lego apologies. Would you like a picture of your face made out of Legos?

So, what will it be? Legos of your face or Legos of a Samurai robot?

Ooooh! I'll like the portrait in Legos option!

SleepingUgly wrote:Well, all the alters are pretending to be primary identities. If they showed up to this thread and explained why they are choosing to be alters, everyone would know that they are an alters, and not primaries, even if they don't know which primary identity they are associated with. Furthermore, if they are as cowardly as we hypothesize, what are the odds they are going to show up for this (especially having already been deemed "cowardly")?

Well, the cowardly part is certainly open for argumentation---meaning if they weren't cowardly, they should be able to defend their method. I honestly don't care about alter-identities that are for the sake of humor or a purpose OTHER than attacking.

SleepingUgly wrote: But if they do, let's pat them on the back for showing up, because that's actually kind of brave. Don't you think?

Absolutely. That would be a first important step toward dispelling what just MIGHT be a misconception that many of us have about their motives. Further explanation might tell us even more about WHY they view that second identity as necessary for harsh attacks.

NotMuffy wrote:
OK, I confess.

NotDillon:

is really Dillon.

But you tell him he's a coward.

Dillon is hereby granted diplomatic immunity.

I am a coward in that sometimes I post as myself.

Isn't calling cowardly people "cowardly" just another form of name-calling?

Is it somehow MORE cowardly to be insulting as an alter than to be insulting as a non-alter? Or less? Or equal?

Is it assumed someone is "lying" when they choose to use the board a way that others do not? What if all the posters with "N/A" for gender actually do have a gender? Is that "dishonest"? Many online interactions involve identities that are "assumed" for privacy reasons unless true identity is needed for professional reasons. Do we all need to post our real names and addresses for purposes of social accountability?

And if "cowardly" is the question, wouldn't it be the thing now to do to be brave enough ourselves to list by name the suspected cowardly/cruel alters so that we can choose who casts the first stone? Or would that be hurtful? And who's to judge which it would be?

I would assume anyone being cruel as an alter with a name that makes it clear he/she is an alter must be doing it for an attempt at humor. Or else they need as much professional help as I do.

So the question is, perhaps, 'Is it OK to be cruel if someone thinks it is funny, whether that involves an alter or not?' And the answer to that would require some perception into where the lines are drawn between good-natured ribbing, out-and-out direct teasing, feigned attack in the spirit of combative discourse, and vicious attack. Is there any chance in Hades we would all draw the same lines in the same places? I doubt it. Some people don't seem to know what they are doing, let alone anyone else. And things seem to mostly work around here anyway.

I am not attempting to defend anyone (except maybe "who"--he may not be too bright, but he seems mostly harmless when he isn't playing the megalomaniacal pseudo-moderator). But humor can be tasteless and hurtful and damaging, either on purpose or by accident. And the rules of discourse in the boxing ring are different from the rules on the tennis court, even for McEnroe, and different people view this forum arena differently and judge their own communication styles accordingly, seems to me.

Are there any psychs out there who specialize in sociological questions about what to do when assumed identities assume identities of their own? Is it sort of like holding a mirror up against a mirror so that false reflections continue out into infinity? Or is that strictly a philosophical discussion about the reality/nonreality of cyberspace interactions in general?

This was fun to write whether anyone reads it or not. I know I certainly won't read it. I hate posts like this one.

NotMuffy wrote:How ugly are you?

Are you by any chance near-sighted?

xyz wrote:ozij:
> Abolutlely no need for you to hang about here. No need at all.

That's a rude remark. (Behavior, again.)
Are you able to discuss an issue without insulting someone?

That's the kind of question you can find an answer to if you read my responses in discussions.
Or the kind of question meant to be insulting.

Having read your other responses, e.g. in tattooyuo' s poll viewtopic/t54375/FORUM-CATEGORIES--Just ... e-out.html I have a clear opinion of your question.

I am just as impressed with your glossing over the fact the the OP, whose opinion you happen to support, blatantly ignored the results of the above mentioned poll, and less than 2 weeks later created a thread called "Forum CATEGORIES NEEDED!" in which he pseudo referred to the poll, and pronounced that:

This is a very DATED format, I can't think of not even one other webite that has only ONE Category, not one and there is a very good reason for that, because its just plain terrible.

. YELLING at us, in both the thread heading, and in the text. And then started a discussion of "which categories" as though the poll had not existed.

In my opinion,trollish, rude patronizing and controlling behavior by the OP, from the very first step.

Which is why I told him he had no need to hang around a forum that was so badly run, in which the majority of people were too foolish, idiotic and old fashioned to see how plaint terrible a format it was using.

Eventually, his spitting in our faces became far more blatant.

Behavior has meaning in context. You seem to think you can give valid descriptions to behaviors while ignoring their context. I disagree.

O.