From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 06/23/01-08:25:00 AM Z
Judy and all,
There are obviously a lot of undercurrents going down that most of us are
not privy to. However, with regard to the male/female issues you have
spoken at length on over recent years, I can't say that I have noticed any
specifics. I'm not asking you to cite chapter and verse as I'm sure you are
quite able, it's just that I am/try to be fairly sensitive to the issue and
I just haven't seen it. Could it be that in part, you are more sensitive
than necessary?
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:34 PM
Subject: The implication(s)
>
> PS: I know for SURE two other people on this list who write under assumed
> names. Not obviously fake like Callie Type, but real SOUNDING, which makes
> them actually more devious, wouldn't you say?
Pardon my rambling, but, some thoughts on assumed names.
We have had a number of participants on this list who have used "real
SOUNDING" names and who it seems also had echo aliases - Jewelia Cameroon
comes to mind (Jewelia are you still with us).
One would have great difficulty discerning whether the name "Robert Davis"
(please excuse the choice of names - it just came to mind) was real or not.
If however, I chose to use the name "Peter Palladium", it would be kind of
obvious that I have chosen an alias. If I identify "Peter Palladium" as
Nick, no problem. The real problem is the intent of the individual using a
real name alias - you don't have a clue as to when you were blind sided. In
other words, why would one need one except to play both sides against the
middle?
I recall when Dave Rose, aka "Cactus Cowboy", introduced himself to the
list - both names were provided up front and from that point on, either was
synonymous with the other and both were acceptable. End of conversation.
The use of an alias is not/should not be a problem in itself. If an
individual chooses to use an alias instead of their real name, that's their
business - as long as I'm not mislead by what they say.
If when asked who they really are, they deny you that info you naturally
become more curious and perhaps even untrusting - it's as though they have
something to hide.
The real problem stems from the "echo factor" - something that is clearly
occuring on most lists. If a participant on a list using his/her real name
and another seemingly real name participant (but realy an alias for the
other) chimes in to confirm a point, who is the loser?
It seems that the problem is the potential is for disinformation or skewed
data or just generally bad scoop. After all, most of us are participating
in this list to learn something meaningful.
Just be aware,
Nick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST