Then perhaps you could explain for me why it is that those people often use "alias" as though it were a different person rather than a different name??
Being of the "real" school, myself, I am ill equipped to explain the "un-real" position. However, I think I might be able to offer some insight on the alias thing. I think it is a red herring, one of those things that got pounced on and distorted.
When people have different ways of looking at things, they have a choice of using the standard word in different ways or using a different word to distinguish between the two approaches. Recently Neo and I were having an extended discussion about duty. When he says "you ought to apologize" he means you have a duty, a moral obligation, to apologize. When I say "ought," I mean that I think it would be smart for you to do something, that it would be in your best interests. During that conversation I learned that Neo sees moral duty in all sorts of things that I consider to be a matter of wisdom or best practice. But I use the word, ought, just as he does because it's the best available word. I don't want to get sidetracked back into that subject. My point is that sharing a word can be a problem in communication. And making up a new word can also be a problem.
Back to the matter at hand. I think that X would have been better off to have used the word, person. Or perhaps "poster" than "alias." And to have put it in quotes. E does that sometimes when she is using a common word in a special way. Using "alias" made the whole thing sound otherworldly. For a while, "persona" was being used. But I think that by then the red-herring effect was already in place. Anyway, I think the usage led people off on the wrong track and that the talk about "alias" isn't as outrageous as it may appear to be. |
