[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dual ID's



Well, Keith, now I am REALLY confused:  there were two Keith Krebs, now only
one, and Thor is not Keith or should be Cactus Cowboy (who, btw, has in fact
told us his name--did i remember correctly it is Wayne?)(sorry, but Cactus
Cowboy seems real to me...)  My mind is totally spinning.  However that may
be, you give a wonderful defense of your professionalism and mea culpa mea
culpa mea maxima culpa if I have wrongfully insinuated anything.  I will not
retract the fact that I smell a rat here. But where that is coming from,
wow, I no longer have a clue.  Next time *I* will keep my mouth shut instead
of warning the list, as obviously I overstepped my bounds.  I apologize to
the list, too for starting this particular brouhaha.
Chris
>
> I didn't respond to it because it was ridiculous in the extreme..
> The allegation stems from Christina remembering part of the history of
this
> whole Thor thing and not the other...
> If you go back to the archives and search for posts by Thor you will find
that
> I am not the only person whom he attacked, although I am the only recent
> target. He attacked among others, in the past, Judy...
> I am probably the only recent target because both he and I were censored
for
> going over the top the last time he attacked me repeatedly.. Which was
tied
> into the whole mess in May of Viruses being posted onlist..
> As for the dual IDs, I was not going to even dignify it with an answer..
BUT
> since Christina obviously remembers only part of the story...
> When I was being attacked last time in May..
> Someone, possibly Thor, maybe not, set up an account "Keith_Krebs at
> Hotmail.com" and began posting under that pseudonym.  So, postings were
coming
> from me, at this address, AND that one..  In a lack of attention to the
digital
> end of things, I was suddenly accused by some, of posting from the Hotmail
> account too.. People were confusing posts from this account and the
Hotmail
> account, exactly as Thor, or whomever,  intended..
>> I have e-mail and phone conversation with Hotmail staff who began the
process
> of trying to track down who had opened the account in my name (as Gordon
is
> aware - and he did his own investigation of sorts too, I believe).
However,
> whoever opened the Keith_Krebs account suddenly unsubscribed it from this
list
> and closed the Hotmail account, that mooted the issue of who had it.. So,
> Christina,  there was never any proof that Thor was a pseudonym for
anyone, the
> only pseudonym we were aware of was for me at Hotmail.  If someone can
prove
> where Thor's and my e-mail originate from (since he uses Hotmail his may
not be
> easy, if he uses a webpage interface), I would welcome that to put this to
> rest...
> I have my own website, my own full-time business, run my own digital list
of,
> over 560 members at e-groups, and am now writing for some digital oriented
> publications,  not to mention the fact that I had been handling up to 150
> e-mail requests daily involving the EPSON printer problems.. I don't have
the
> time to start playing "ghost name" games, I have enough trouble keeping
which
> list I am responding to in mind...
> Beyond which, I have always believed, that every professional signs with
their
> own name on a list like this, not under some pseudonym - I could go by
"P.O.V."
> since that is my e-mail address, but I choose to be honest, forthright,
> direct, ann adult  by signing my own name - It's just too easy to take
cheap
> shots you don't have to take responsibility for when you write under a
> pseudonym (right Cowboy? - and if anyone is accused of being "Thor", maybe
it
> should be "Cactus", since they agree so much on both substance and the
proper
> style for critique, and are both pseudonyms - but I digress)...
> When I have professional disagreements, or want a critique I handle them
> professionally..  In the former case I was booted from Jack Reznicki's
photo
> lists for discussing the EPSON problem there (Jack is a PPA officer and
PPA
> endorsed the product I was questioning) - I made clear publicly my
feelings on
> that kind of censorship, but I did not return to those lists - not under
my own
> name, nor like some coward, under a pseudonym.  In the latter case, if I
want
> critique I ask for it as I did here..
> Now however, I want to thank those on the list who took time to critique
the
> work I posted, both positively and negatively.  However, it seems that
Thor has
> accomplished his desired effect without having to make a second post.  As
Judy
> said, I opened myself up for critique..  Some chose to give that..  Thor
felt
> nastiness and personal attack were more appropriate, and today I find
myself
> responding to vague and pointless accusations, defending myself in a
missive
> that could not be more useless as this has spun onwards in a manner
reminiscent
> of the kind of vague insinuations and rumor mongering the Tabloids are so
good
> at encouraging..
> Given the turn this has taken, I am SURE others will be loathe to open
> themselves up to ANY criticism on this list or present any opinion... It's
> sadly rapidly reducing itself to a "coffee klatch" amongst those who share
the
> same opinions, with a bunch of vicarious observers subscribing to hear the
> opinions of the self-proclaimed experts.. If that is the purpose of this
list,
> Gordon, it might be time to change the name from alt-photo-list to
> alt-photo-answer-list and change the description from that of an open
> discussion and exchange of ideas to one in which us "little people" write
in
> with questions for the "experts" to answer..
> I cannot prove I am not Thor, if someone else can, or can at least prove
the
> mail is not coming from the same place, PLEASE DO...  It won't change how
I
> feel about being pilloried here, but MAYBE it will prevent this kind of
> campaign of rumor in future against another member on this list.  For
> "artists," who supposedly prize individuality and tolerance of diversity
of
> opinion, some of the members of this list have proven themselves to be
exactly
> the opposite.. to those of you, all I can say is "it must be nice to have
all
> the RIGHT answers."
> To Judy, thanks for being an  e-friend from when I first joined this list
some
> years back...  I will still see you on the 4th and will bring what I can
on the
> water recycling systems..  To the rest of you, it is clear I have little
place
> on this list and much less usefulness to it yet...
> So, as I said Thor wins..  I leave...
> Adios...
> Keith Krebs