Reveal Your False Names
Dec 14, 2000 | 9:32 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,149
Reveal Your False Names
This is a call to EVERYONE who has posted using a secondary or tertiary ID to reveal which false monikers they have used. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE to state that you have no false names. That's the vast majority of us.
Everyone here has a right to have all false names unmasked, so we know with whom we are dealing. I submit that Randy should allow those who come clean here to apologize, be embarassed, and be set free, and that those who are conclusively uncovered via the IP logging be banned for a period of time.
Come clean. Everyone who has posted under another name.
Please!!! Maybe we can end this sorry episode.
Everyone here has a right to have all false names unmasked, so we know with whom we are dealing. I submit that Randy should allow those who come clean here to apologize, be embarassed, and be set free, and that those who are conclusively uncovered via the IP logging be banned for a period of time.
Come clean. Everyone who has posted under another name.
Please!!! Maybe we can end this sorry episode.
Dec 14, 2000 | 10:07 am
#2
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CH-3823 Wengen Switzerland
Programs: miles&more, MileagePlus
Posts: 27,043
Dec 14, 2000 | 10:09 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,149
Rudi, I saw that, but I noticed that noone was coming clean. The only people who were psoting were pure innocents, and people who had done so for innocent amusement such as IDUR, etc.
The list got lengthy, and I didn't really care to wade through a list of "I'm just me", etc. This is supposed to be a clear reference point for those who have used multiple aliases to come clean. That's how it differs.
Edited for stupid spelling mistakes
[This message has been edited by BoSoxFan45 (edited 12-14-2000).]
The list got lengthy, and I didn't really care to wade through a list of "I'm just me", etc. This is supposed to be a clear reference point for those who have used multiple aliases to come clean. That's how it differs.
Edited for stupid spelling mistakes
[This message has been edited by BoSoxFan45 (edited 12-14-2000).]
Dec 14, 2000 | 4:53 pm
#4
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Between SNA and ONT
Posts: 1,486
Ozstamps is beginning to not look so bad, after all. Notsonewhere still hasn't revealed his/her true identity, nor have the PfPs, and then onefreeman, ozstamps' chief accuser, has admitted a fake ID, as well.
I agree, BoSoxFan45, that we need a thread for just the guilty. So far it seems that no one with any of the more controversial IDs want to admit it.
I still would like to see ozstamps list his aliases, but I think he should wait until after others go, lest more oz-bashing serve as cover for those hypocrites who are guilty of ozstamps' crime (ripping on him but not owning up to their transgression).
I agree, BoSoxFan45, that we need a thread for just the guilty. So far it seems that no one with any of the more controversial IDs want to admit it.
I still would like to see ozstamps list his aliases, but I think he should wait until after others go, lest more oz-bashing serve as cover for those hypocrites who are guilty of ozstamps' crime (ripping on him but not owning up to their transgression).
Dec 14, 2000 | 5:42 pm
#7
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Manhattan, NY
Programs: USAir AA Hilton
Posts: 3,567
As I have "confessed" in at least four places (and I resent the characterization as one of the "guilty"):
I am also ( or was also) lurker FF - used only during my self-imposed banishment when I just HAD to say something!
Happy Holidays, all!
I am also ( or was also) lurker FF - used only during my self-imposed banishment when I just HAD to say something!
Happy Holidays, all!
Dec 14, 2000 | 5:57 pm
#8
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: This year we're going to the BAFTAs!
Posts: 5,518
Originally posted by motnot:
Ozstamps is beginning to not look so bad, after all. Notsonewhere still hasn't revealed his/her true identity, nor have the PfPs, and then onefreeman, ozstamps' chief accuser, has admitted a fake ID, as well.
Ozstamps is beginning to not look so bad, after all. Notsonewhere still hasn't revealed his/her true identity, nor have the PfPs, and then onefreeman, ozstamps' chief accuser, has admitted a fake ID, as well.
Dec 14, 2000 | 6:42 pm
#9
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Between SNA and ONT
Posts: 1,486
It seems everyone is interested in semantics to keep their own games going, rather than making FT whole again ("ozstamps did it for this reason, I did it for a different one"; "I didn't create a fake history, ozstamps did").
Read BoSoxFan45's post at the top of this thread. He asked people to reveal their aliases, no matter what their purpose was. Fake IDs created to out someone else's fake ID are still fake IDs. And if you're a respected regular contributor on these boards, there's just no reason for it.
And svpii, if you had a fake ID, you are guilty of having a fake ID. You may not be guilty of what ozstamps did, but no one said you were.
As I've said before, I have no problem with fake IDs for humorous purposes (though it is questionable whether the PfPs fall into this category). However, I believe when such aliases are transparent (e.g., Cmdr. Catcop), it is even better.
Again, you all are obscuring the true point of this thread, and I believe it is intentional so that others don't feel that they are accountable to all of FT -- as long as we rip on ozstamps, then we don't have to admit our own fake IDs.
This thread is not about discussing ozstamps' crime or anyone else's. It is about admitting aliases for the record. We'll save the judgments for another thread.
Read BoSoxFan45's post at the top of this thread. He asked people to reveal their aliases, no matter what their purpose was. Fake IDs created to out someone else's fake ID are still fake IDs. And if you're a respected regular contributor on these boards, there's just no reason for it.
And svpii, if you had a fake ID, you are guilty of having a fake ID. You may not be guilty of what ozstamps did, but no one said you were.
As I've said before, I have no problem with fake IDs for humorous purposes (though it is questionable whether the PfPs fall into this category). However, I believe when such aliases are transparent (e.g., Cmdr. Catcop), it is even better.
Again, you all are obscuring the true point of this thread, and I believe it is intentional so that others don't feel that they are accountable to all of FT -- as long as we rip on ozstamps, then we don't have to admit our own fake IDs.
This thread is not about discussing ozstamps' crime or anyone else's. It is about admitting aliases for the record. We'll save the judgments for another thread.
Dec 14, 2000 | 7:42 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 19,523
I guess I don't quite get it then. 95% of FlyerTalk handles are aliases. Aliases are mainly used when someone doesn't want to reveal his/her own real name or if someone wants a handle that has a special meaning.
Kokonutz, PremEx, even motnot is an alias!
Aliases are not the problem here. It's the intent that matters. If the intent was to just disguise, or if it was to create a second false person giving the impression that that person was not a second name, and was created to deceive and/or support ones own point of view by "stuffing the ballot box."
I like fun aliases like Arturo, Santa, etc.
I don't like (but tolerate) "Mask" aliases like Notsomeone, etc.
I'm disgusted by "pseudo-personality" aliases that are created to give the impression they are a real distinct and separate person. And when that "person" starts wasting my time asking questions to which I gratuitously answer, or starts giving advise that has no foundation... well, if that person gets caught, then I think they should have their membership revoked.
And if that caught person also made posts accusing others (including innocents) of the same practice and calling anyone who would do such a thing a coward and they should be banned and "I" would never stoop so low and do such a thing...well...I think that person should be run out on a tarmac.
[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 12-14-2000).]
Kokonutz, PremEx, even motnot is an alias!
Aliases are not the problem here. It's the intent that matters. If the intent was to just disguise, or if it was to create a second false person giving the impression that that person was not a second name, and was created to deceive and/or support ones own point of view by "stuffing the ballot box."
I like fun aliases like Arturo, Santa, etc.
I don't like (but tolerate) "Mask" aliases like Notsomeone, etc.
I'm disgusted by "pseudo-personality" aliases that are created to give the impression they are a real distinct and separate person. And when that "person" starts wasting my time asking questions to which I gratuitously answer, or starts giving advise that has no foundation... well, if that person gets caught, then I think they should have their membership revoked.
And if that caught person also made posts accusing others (including innocents) of the same practice and calling anyone who would do such a thing a coward and they should be banned and "I" would never stoop so low and do such a thing...well...I think that person should be run out on a tarmac.
[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 12-14-2000).]
Dec 14, 2000 | 8:22 pm
#11
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
Premex
Thanks for finally pointing this out.
This is a great summary of the situation, and I hope it won't be over the head of most FTers. I trust they are able to make the distinctions you have made.
The aliases are not the problem here.
Thanks for finally pointing this out.
This is a great summary of the situation, and I hope it won't be over the head of most FTers. I trust they are able to make the distinctions you have made.
The aliases are not the problem here.
Dec 14, 2000 | 8:53 pm
#12
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Between SNA and ONT
Posts: 1,486
Semantics, semantics.
First of all, I resent your remarks about aliases. You know full well what I was talking about. You attempt to make me look stupid (as if I don't know that "motnot" is an alias) because you have no valid counterargument to my position.
What you and others are doing is arguing about shades of gray -- "my gray is lighter than his, so it's OK."
I've never defended what ozstamps did, but that's not the point of this thread. Maybe I should make a comment about reading comprehension and attention spans.
Yes, it is about intent. The only intent for fake IDs that I condone is humor (Cmdr. Catcop, arturo, Santa Claus, etc.).
Despite what PremEx says, I find it insidious that someone, especially a regular FT contributor, would attack someone else, for whatever reason, without using their own handle. I don't care if it's QuietLion, Rudi, cigarman or even motnot. I just don't buy it that a regular FTer doesn't feel comfortable making a serious statement in his or her own voice. If you don't, then maybe it is a statement you shouldn't make.
I work at a newspaper, and we heavily scrutinize stories that use anonymous sources because if you don't know who's saying it, you don't know how accurate or credible that person is. That's the point, man.
And, PremEx, the thing you accuse ozstamps of doing were being done often enough recently by other established FTers in witch hunt mode.
It's clear to me that the semantics-phalanx will not come clean and only wish to talk shades of gray, so I'm done with this topic on these boards. If I get tempted to comment again, I'll just go talk to my wall. It'll have the same effect.
SMessier at least agreed with me in an e-mail that we need to make FT whole again. The semantics-phalanx is less concerned about that than assigning blame.
Just for fun, I'll open another can of worms as my parting words. The semantics-phalanx seems to me to at least partly made up of the clique of old-time FTers, and their focus on semantics seems to me like an unspoken insistance on a double standard.
See you in my usual forums.
[Edited to fix bold. -- motnot]
[This message has been edited by motnot (edited 12-14-2000).]
First of all, I resent your remarks about aliases. You know full well what I was talking about. You attempt to make me look stupid (as if I don't know that "motnot" is an alias) because you have no valid counterargument to my position.
What you and others are doing is arguing about shades of gray -- "my gray is lighter than his, so it's OK."
I've never defended what ozstamps did, but that's not the point of this thread. Maybe I should make a comment about reading comprehension and attention spans.
Yes, it is about intent. The only intent for fake IDs that I condone is humor (Cmdr. Catcop, arturo, Santa Claus, etc.).
Despite what PremEx says, I find it insidious that someone, especially a regular FT contributor, would attack someone else, for whatever reason, without using their own handle. I don't care if it's QuietLion, Rudi, cigarman or even motnot. I just don't buy it that a regular FTer doesn't feel comfortable making a serious statement in his or her own voice. If you don't, then maybe it is a statement you shouldn't make.
I work at a newspaper, and we heavily scrutinize stories that use anonymous sources because if you don't know who's saying it, you don't know how accurate or credible that person is. That's the point, man.
And, PremEx, the thing you accuse ozstamps of doing were being done often enough recently by other established FTers in witch hunt mode.
It's clear to me that the semantics-phalanx will not come clean and only wish to talk shades of gray, so I'm done with this topic on these boards. If I get tempted to comment again, I'll just go talk to my wall. It'll have the same effect.
SMessier at least agreed with me in an e-mail that we need to make FT whole again. The semantics-phalanx is less concerned about that than assigning blame.
Just for fun, I'll open another can of worms as my parting words. The semantics-phalanx seems to me to at least partly made up of the clique of old-time FTers, and their focus on semantics seems to me like an unspoken insistance on a double standard.
See you in my usual forums.
[Edited to fix bold. -- motnot]
[This message has been edited by motnot (edited 12-14-2000).]
Dec 14, 2000 | 9:36 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 46,817
"...It's clear to me that the <B>semantics-phalanx</B> will not come clean and only wish to talk shades of gray, so I'm done with this topic on these boards. If I get tempted to comment again, I'll just go talk to my wall. It'll have the same effect...
...Just for fun, I'll open another can of worms as my parting words. The <B>semantics-phalanx</B> seems to me to at least partly made up of the clique of old-time FTers, and their focus on semantics seems to me like an unspoken insistance on a double standard..."
Sadly, this appears awfully tough to dispute, IMHO!
I'm literally compelled to agree. This seemingly just goes on, and on, and on, ad naseum...
As the likely most frequently flamed individual on FT ever, I certainly agree with motnot- except perhaps for the humor issue, since it is manifestly in the eye of the beholder. Some may actually well find secondary and tertiary "handles" useful for "humor," yet it is a fact that many a true word is spoken in jest and that the "humor" at the expense of others should ideally have no true place in any real caring "community!"
Are these handles and their posts examples of "humor?"
cod
quack
Dr Pfp
Doctor PfP
Rev PfP
Miss PfP
Karl Stevens
And on, and on, and on...
I think not!
But then I've never attacked anyone or ridiculed anyone to the best of my knowledge at anytime, anyplace or anywhere of FT - kind of like in my "real" life!
Yet, it is surely an eclectic group and we should ALL be accepted and tolerated, in my view, even if we can not genuinely celebrate enjoying our repective individual differences!
Is it really that hard to think for oneself?
Is it really so hard to respectfully express an independent thought or opinion? Or to profoundly disagree while showing some actual concern for other individuals feelings?
Is it really so impossible to be logical?
Is it really so difficult to be practical?
Is it truly so impossible to be somwhat forgiving? Or at least to forget or yo just put aside and move ahead?
For the sake of all of us, I sure hope not!
-Mark
A never to be member of any clique on FT or anywhere else
...Just for fun, I'll open another can of worms as my parting words. The <B>semantics-phalanx</B> seems to me to at least partly made up of the clique of old-time FTers, and their focus on semantics seems to me like an unspoken insistance on a double standard..."
Sadly, this appears awfully tough to dispute, IMHO!
I'm literally compelled to agree. This seemingly just goes on, and on, and on, ad naseum...As the likely most frequently flamed individual on FT ever, I certainly agree with motnot- except perhaps for the humor issue, since it is manifestly in the eye of the beholder. Some may actually well find secondary and tertiary "handles" useful for "humor," yet it is a fact that many a true word is spoken in jest and that the "humor" at the expense of others should ideally have no true place in any real caring "community!"
Are these handles and their posts examples of "humor?"
cod
quack
Dr Pfp
Doctor PfP
Rev PfP
Miss PfP
Karl Stevens
And on, and on, and on...
I think not!
But then I've never attacked anyone or ridiculed anyone to the best of my knowledge at anytime, anyplace or anywhere of FT - kind of like in my "real" life!
Yet, it is surely an eclectic group and we should ALL be accepted and tolerated, in my view, even if we can not genuinely celebrate enjoying our repective individual differences!
Is it really that hard to think for oneself?
Is it really so hard to respectfully express an independent thought or opinion? Or to profoundly disagree while showing some actual concern for other individuals feelings?
Is it really so impossible to be logical?
Is it really so difficult to be practical?
Is it truly so impossible to be somwhat forgiving? Or at least to forget or yo just put aside and move ahead?
For the sake of all of us, I sure hope not!
-Mark
A never to be member of any clique on FT or anywhere else
Dec 14, 2000 | 11:19 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 19,523
motnot, it was not my intent to make you look stupid and I'm sorry that you resent my remarks. I apologize if my comments made you feel that way.
For what it's worth, I too don't like any second personas except those used for fun, humor and satire, and to which the true owner can be attributed.
I have re-read my post however, and I strongly and proudly stand by what I say there. As one of the victims of a "pseudo-personality" alias that specifically accused me wrongly of having a "Mask" alias, I believe I'm entitled to say what I have.
For what it's worth, I too don't like any second personas except those used for fun, humor and satire, and to which the true owner can be attributed.
I have re-read my post however, and I strongly and proudly stand by what I say there. As one of the victims of a "pseudo-personality" alias that specifically accused me wrongly of having a "Mask" alias, I believe I'm entitled to say what I have.
Dec 15, 2000 | 5:19 am
#15
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Manhattan, NY
Programs: USAir AA Hilton
Posts: 3,567
motnot: I did not read premex's post as attempting to cast aspersions on your intelligence. The point premex makes is one I continue to make. Namely, it is not whether someone has multiple handles here. And I frankly don't understand why everyone is all in a lather over that issue. The real issue in my view is what is done under the guise of that handle, regardless of whether it's your one and only or one of many.
You chose these words: "those hypocrites who are guilty of ozstamps' crime..."
I am not guilty of a crime and I am most certainly not a hypocrite. It is not against a single rule to have multiple handles here. I have not knowingly made false statements, nor engaged in any of the dastardly behaviors that are prohibited. I made one mean-spirited post under my original handle that I apologized for and deleted. My reason for temporarily banishing myself for a while from FT was explained and honorably motivated. Maybe it was unnecessary to craft a temporary handle but it wasn't illegal, hateful, or intended to deceive. The two posts I made under that handle were news items only that I wanted to make sure you guys were aware of. Given that I said I would be lurking, I think the handle lurker wasn't much of an attempt to hide. The very moment I became aware it was an issue to anyone here, I fessed up and have continued to do so. I have no reason to hide it. If I were inspired to hide it, the reason would be the issue - not the handle.
My point motnot is that using language such as "guilty" and "hypocrite" is at least as inflammatory as an innocent second handle. I think it's important we not dilute nor distract ourselves from the real issues in these discussions by casting an accusatory net such as you cast.
[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 12-15-2000).]
You chose these words: "those hypocrites who are guilty of ozstamps' crime..."
I am not guilty of a crime and I am most certainly not a hypocrite. It is not against a single rule to have multiple handles here. I have not knowingly made false statements, nor engaged in any of the dastardly behaviors that are prohibited. I made one mean-spirited post under my original handle that I apologized for and deleted. My reason for temporarily banishing myself for a while from FT was explained and honorably motivated. Maybe it was unnecessary to craft a temporary handle but it wasn't illegal, hateful, or intended to deceive. The two posts I made under that handle were news items only that I wanted to make sure you guys were aware of. Given that I said I would be lurking, I think the handle lurker wasn't much of an attempt to hide. The very moment I became aware it was an issue to anyone here, I fessed up and have continued to do so. I have no reason to hide it. If I were inspired to hide it, the reason would be the issue - not the handle.
My point motnot is that using language such as "guilty" and "hypocrite" is at least as inflammatory as an innocent second handle. I think it's important we not dilute nor distract ourselves from the real issues in these discussions by casting an accusatory net such as you cast.
[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 12-15-2000).]