Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:46:57 -0600 (CST) From: "vze8mu2q at verizon.net" <herrimank at verizon.net> Subject: [WSFA] Re: Why I dislike LiveJournal To: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>, WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Mike: Awesome essay!!! Two thumbs up from the Herriman's Karey and Bill >From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> >Date: Wed Mar 23 13:35:24 CST 2005 >To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> >Subject: [WSFA] Re: Why I dislike LiveJournal >At 12:27 PM 3/23/05 -0500, Ted White wrote: >> >>So I repeat: why *should* people "spend a second to connect the names. >>Just like with any other alias."? Most aliases are used by criminals or >>people trying to hide their identity for dishonest reasons. > >So, what did Hal Clement do time for? > >I can think of lots of reasons for using aliases on-line that have nothing >to do with criminal or dishonest reasons. Wanna see? If not, hit delete >now... > > >The following is an old response I made to someone in a newsgroup who had a >real problem with folks using "handles". At the time I was using >"Stormbringer" as my handle. It's not exactly germane to the current >issue, but seems to overlap enough to be worth including. I've edited it >to remove the flammables... > >A few reasons why people might want to use a pseudonym...some of which I've >used myself, some of which I've only seen or can imagine happening at some >time: > > 1. To stand out in a crowd and make ID easier. For instance, my > name is "Mike". Every third person seems to be named "Mike", and it > can get confusing real fast when there are a half dozen "Mikes" in a > thread. If some use other names this is not a problem. > > 2. To convey something about their personality, appearance, temperament > or other information that isn't as obvious in cyberspace as it > would be in person. Names like "Big Bob", "Cutie Pie", "Biker Dude", > "The Listener", or "The Mage" are a lot more descriptive than > "Mary Joe", "Betty Sue", or "Leonard Bogg", which may serve as good > enough labels, but tell you nothing else. > > 3. To avoid unwanted attention. Many women use male names to avoid > every over-hyped teenager with a modem from pestering them to death. > Don't think this will happen? Try posting to a group frequented by > teens using a name like "Candy", "Susan", "Mary Ellen" or "Heather" > and see for yourself. Try the same group using "Sam", "Ben" or > "Donald" and compare results (this, of course, adds another reason > for using a pseudonym: education). > > 4. Because their "real" name is not something they like, or it tends > to attract jokes that they are sick and tired of hearing. Some folks > just use a relatively common pseudonym when this happens, and > "William" becomes "Will" or "Bill", and sometimes it's more extreme > and "Richard Face" (didn't make this one up...parents can be > cruel...) becomes "Randal Johnson" or "Bob Connor" (see? Not all > Pseudonyms in use are ones you would recognize as such...see why > it's so pointless to worry about it?). > > 5. Because they are famous and just want to be normal folks for a > change and talk to people without all the "Oh! I read your book! > Can you tell me how you came up with...", and "You bastard! My wife > heard your damn show on the radio and now we're getting divorced! > I'll kill you!" stuff. > > 6. For fun. Some people get very bored just being "Bob" or "Jane" or > "Frank", and they want to think of themselves as a "Witherspoon" or > a "Hawk" or "Galadriel" for a while and see what happens. > >There are lots of other reasons why someone might use a pseudonym (did you >know that "Mark Twain", "John Wayne" and "Hal Clement" are all pseudonyms? >Mark Twain's real name was "Samuel Clemmens", Mr. Wayne was born "Marion >Michael Morrison", and Hal Clement was known outside of SF publishing >circles as "Harry Stubbs"), but I hope you get the idea. You can decide for >yourself whether you approve or not, but criminals aren't the only ones >with good reasons to use aliases. > >In my opinion I don't care what name people use, so long as they are >consistent in its use, so I can associate a particular set of posts with a >single individual and not be misled into thinking it's a crowd of folks. I >prefer one I can pronounce, but that's not a requirement. There's one NG I >read where there's a person named "/*"...I tend to pronounce this >"Slashterisk", and it works fine. It's pretty certain I'll never confuse >him with anyone else! > >If you really think about it, someone who calls him/herself "Stormbringer" >is hiding a lot less than someone who uses "Bill Roberts", since you will be >reasonably sure that "Stormbringer" is an assumed name, while you will most >likely be fooled by "Bill Roberts", thinking it's "real", when it really >isn't. > >You can also run into trouble when your imagination fails and you jump on >someone for using a pseudonym when they are, in fact, using their own name. > I know of at least one guy named "Freff" (no other parts, that's his >entire name...legally changed in court), and a woman named "Tree" (another >name change). These are *not* pseudonyms, those are their legal >names...they're just not all that common, and folks who hate aliases are >likely to assume that they are not, but that's their problem and limitation. > >What I find hard to fathom is why you care. I can think of a number of >half-baked reasons, but none that stand up to any logical analysis or >factual input. The only one that would bug me too, someone who keeps >switching names to avoid prosecution or to appear to be several people, is >not one that we an do anything about since they can always pick names that >sound perfectly normal and therefore are not remarked upon, so why worry >about it? > >-- Mike B. >-- >"Press to test." <Click>. "Release to detonate...."