|
Post by chrlz on Jul 19, 2011 7:08:44 GMT -4
Yes, I realise that over-speculation on motives/medical conditions is not appropriate, but... I think they are gutter slime. Deceptive, callous, preying on the gullible. It is also a strong indication of some form of diagnosable personality disorder or even psychosis, in that they genuinely believe they are justified in using deception to try to convince others that their opinions are more worthy and highly regarded than they actually are. You must think an awful lot more people are psychotic than really are. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion...? I did say that sockpuppetry (of the sort being displayed by 'fattydash') was a strong indication of a diagnosable personality disorder. I stand by that observation. I then stated that it could 'even' be an indication of psychosis - and then explained what I meant. I did not use the term psychotic - that may seem a nitpick, but hereabouts people often use the term 'psychoses' as a lighthearted reference to personality quirks, fears or obsessions. It is a word that doesn't hold the same connotations as calling someone a psychotic. Nevertheless I accept that may just be local usage and is no excuse! Anyway, I have a few psychoses myself, but ... I am ChrLz or ChrLzs wherever I go and I do not wear sockpuppets. I certainly haven't seen many folks sockpuppeting like fattydash has here, so whatever the reason, I don't think it's common....
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 19, 2011 10:31:11 GMT -4
I am ChrLz or ChrLzs wherever I go and I do not wear sockpuppets. I certainly haven't seen many folks sockpuppeting like fattydash has here, so whatever the reason, I don't think it's common.... On unmoderated and badly moderated boards sockpuppets are a dime a dozen. Far to common to draw any conclusions. Some people just like to play games. I'm nuts, and I've never sockpuppeted. Too proud, or too arrogant, to not have my own nick under my words. It says more about character then sanity, I think.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 19, 2011 11:22:15 GMT -4
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion...? I did say that sockpuppetry (of the sort being displayed by 'fattydash') was a strong indication of a diagnosable personality disorder. I stand by that observation. I don't. There are a lot of possible reasons for sock puppetry, not least being a lot of basic human behaviours. Honestly, I wouldn't even consider sock puppetry a symptom of anything at all unless I were tying it in to a lot of other known behaviours. At absolute best, I would consider it a mild indicator. It's more likely an indicator of being an obnoxious teenager, in my opinion, though there are those who stand by the idea that being an obnoxious teenager qualifies you to be diagnosed with a personality disorder all by itself. They also believe that it's a natural aspect of being a teenager and you'll grow out of it. It's a technical definition. A person with a psychosis is psychotic. I, for one, never use the term in a lighthearted way--though my high school psychology teacher did. To me, an indicator of psychosis is something very serious indeed. I have seen one or two people here who had what I considered indicators of psychosis, and sock puppetry didn't even make the list. If anything, claiming a profession you don't have does. It's delusions of grandeur. However, it's well established that behaviour on the internet follows different patterns, and a lot of people would do things online that they would never do in the real world. I doubt you have any actual psychoses. They're more rare than sock puppets.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 19, 2011 11:29:26 GMT -4
... and a lot of people would do things online that they would never do in the real world. I argue that being online IS the real world. What ones does in cyberspace has real consequences. Is it not a fantasy game.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 19, 2011 11:42:05 GMT -4
... and a lot of people would do things online that they would never do in the real world. I argue that being online IS the real world. What ones does in cyberspace has real consequences. Is it not a fantasy game. I agree with you Bob ... sadly, I think there are far too many people who are willing, and able, to separate the two in their own minds and behave online in ways they would never behave in person. I may always use a nickname on boards like this (and a total of four different ones across the web as a whole) but my profile always contains a link to my website which has my real name in the very first paragraph of the home page. If only everyone had to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 19, 2011 11:47:41 GMT -4
Silly, really; he gets banned permanently either way. Can't one of the moderators find what IP(s) he's posting from and just block them? That way it doesn't matter what account he's trying to use. That has two potentially negative consequences. My home broadband connection has a dynamic IP address assigned by my ISP, and it is changed every 24 hours. So, if I were to do something warranting an immediate ban and LO blocked the IP address I was using when I did it, I could return 24 hours later and re-register under a different name without any problems. If LO blocks a whole series of IPs to make sure that doesn't happen, he risks blocking out every user connected by that same ISP which would be massively unfair and somewhat draconian (if indeed it is possible to be somewhat draconian). Better all round for LO to act on each user as they commit an offence, or each sockpuppet as they appear.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 19, 2011 12:01:12 GMT -4
I argue that being online IS the real world. What ones does in cyberspace has real consequences. Is it not a fantasy game. Not everything people say and do online can be traced back to them in the amount of time it would take an employer to do a quick Google search, but I do see your point.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 19, 2011 14:06:52 GMT -4
John Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory:
Normal Person + Anonimity + Audience = Total ****wad
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 20, 2011 0:34:35 GMT -4
Earthshine is completely swamped by sunlight during the lunar daytime but it can be quite significant during the lunar night (on the near side, of course). When the moon is very old or very new to us, the earth appears nearly full to the moon, so earthshine is then at its brightest. I've always thought it remarkable how easily I can make out the entire outline of the new moon by earthshine, even when it's not yet completely dark at my viewing location. I think of the random bouncing all those photons had to do to reach my retinas, yet they still made it.
The moon was typically half full during an Apollo mission so earthshine wasn't as bright as during new or old moon. Yet many Apollo astronauts remarked at how easily they could pick out features on the earthlit portions of the dark moon.
|
|