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: Solon who wrote (65425)	11/3/2002 10:04:22 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I should answer that, since it is mostly my idea. Alias is all we know here. Even people using their real names, might as well be using an alias. People do not talk the way here that they do in 3d. I've not met a single person that is like their posts. Not one. And I've met 40 plus SI people (I'm being conservative). Now you might meet a person and think their internal "essence" was the same even though their posts aren't. That's your business. I don't go around looking for the internal essence of people since that strikes me as akin to a religious quest. I'm interested in what you post, or what you say, or what you do. And people on SI say different things from people off SI. Period. This way of communicating is very different from speaking, and it clearly accesses a different part of the brain. I think I remember that typists are using both left and right brain, while speakers use only one side. Not sure if that is true; I'm remembering it from a lecture, but even if it isn't, I'm sure we are using different neural pathways on line than we are in other types of communication. You may think it is the same, but neurologically I think that would be an impossible position to defend. Different stimuli, different mode of communication, equal different pathways. I think that this explains the variance I see in the 3d (real) person, versus their online incarnation. You illogically decided that the division between those ways of being, meant I was saying there were no people- anywhere. That was silly and an intentional misstatement of what I actually said. But of course that type of distortion is to be expected on SI. I doubt you do that when you attempt to communicate in 3d.

To: Solon who wrote (65425)	11/3/2002 1:49:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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.