Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (57062)	9/6/2002 4:49:01 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Someone could post as CH and not be him. It doesn't make Ch's posts, the real CH, even if they are posted by the real CH. IMO The posts may not even be a shadow of the man. It is impossible to know. That is all I am saying.

To: Neocon who wrote (57062)	9/6/2002 4:54:37 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I agreed with your post, except that I think that this is problematic, at best: "There should, of course, be caution, as you suggest, since we do not have many cues or validators that are present in real life. In real life, we are in a better position to find out how true someone's account of himself is, or to use non- verbal cues, like expression, to augment our "reading" of him." This is real life and can be prove to be so within reasonable premises. As to whether face-to-face assists a better apprehension of a person--that depends on myriad factors. People often tend to be less genuine and more misleading in person (for obvious reasons), so in the absence of scientific studies, we must reserve final judgement. What is not controversial is the question of whether or not people lose their existence (or their ability to impact) by changing their name or by avoiding face-to-face encounters. We use telephones because of an a priori acceptance that we are people and not merely names. It is so obvious...

To: Neocon who wrote (57062)	9/6/2002 4:55:35 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Let us use an example that is purely fiction. Say someone named "Sally Jane Braddock" posts on SI- and uses that name as her alias. She claims it is her real name. We do not know this, only SI knows this. Say that SJB really is the real name of the person posting under that name. Does that make SJB's posts "real"? If someone has there alias say "I love you" to SJB's alias, does she have a reasonable expectation that the person behind the alias loves the real person behind the SJB alias? Although many people here seem to be saying that she could have such a reasonable expectation, I think the whole thing is such a fantasy, so much made up in our minds, that none of it is very reasonable. I do not think you can take very seriously what aliases say or do to each other- even if the Alias is a "real" name. Because a name is just a word, if you don't know the person. CH is every bit as unreal as Neocon, to me. I don't know either one of you as people. Your aliases are clusters of ideas, posted by real people.