I've had my doubts about "Gus" for a while but after a lot of agonizing yesterday, decided to keep my mouth pretty much shut (except privately to a few close friends whom I knew would listen to my reasoning dispassionately). I'd come to the conclusion that if 'Gus' were a pseud, he was one of the benign ones who adds to a community, and it would only add to the community emotion at this point if I spoke up.

Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut if the Emperor has no clothes, if it doesn't matter in the long run.

Now I'm in the uncomfortable position of wishing that a nice guy is actually dead so that my friends will be OK. That's damn sad, really.

Now I'm in the uncomfortable position of wishing that a nice guy is actually dead so that my friends will be OK.

God, you put your finger on it. What a horrible feeling. Overall, I'm not that troubled about having been misled (if I was) by storytelling. But having grieved about a possibly nonexistent death outrages me. So here I am hoping the death was real. That sucks.

I too tried to google Gus after the news of his death was posted, not because I doubted the story, but because I wanted to know more about the man. I thought it was strange that I couldn't find anything, but I was hoping that it was my google skills or that there was another reasonable explaination. This is a sad discussion to have to have, but I do think it is necessary.

Oh, and Cindy, I'm pretty sure that if you're the Webmaster of a Wiki, you can edit any piece of data in it you want. It's not designed for bullet-proof security, nor should it be. It's designed for easy setup and maintenance, and the assumption is that the sysadmin owns the system and is in charge of keeping it accurate and running.

It seems to me that there are several different issues here. I'm trying to put things in order in my mind, so I'm sorry if I'm stating-the-obvious and repeating other people's posts.

First of all, I think it's pretty clear that there was a poster, a Buffista, named Gus. He had a personality, a connection with other people, a history with them. He contributed to the community, asked nothing in return, was liked and respected by people who posted with him. We know for sure that this is true, because we were part of that. We were the ones who interacted with his posts, who used his codes, right?

Then, there were the facts he told about himself. They may be true or may be entirely (or partly) false, I have no idea. But their level of truthfulness has nothing to do with the emotions and conversations that the person behind the name and the stories had with other people on this board, right? I mean, if you laugh at somebody's remark, argue with them on a philosophical point or flirt with them, it's with their font on the screen, not the "biography" facts. So, yeah, it would probably sting to think that a person invented a whole bunch of stories and fooled at least some of us, but that person didn't invent the things we were present for, the personality we got to know, right? So, for me, the truthfulness of all these stories is less important, at the moment.

From catching up here, it seems to me that we know that a person by that name, in Wisconsin, was there. We also know he was a Weremonkey, because that's how we named him. Was he actually bitten by a monkey? I have no idea. And at the moment, it doesn't matter that much to me.

The one thing which I feel is important for me to know whether it's true or not is the report on his death. Regardless of other stories, taking this one at face value may hurt people. Telling a story about that is involving the online personality with the "outside" facts. And that's what makes it different, IMHO, than any other coming-up with stories about a person's life events.

Regardless of all the other questions which came up (PhD or not, for example), but definitely because of the accumulation of them, it seems to me that finding out whether the poster who named himself Gus actually died is the one question which is worth seeking an answer to, at this state of events. At least, that's the one question whose answer would change how I feel personally about things.

[Edit: of course, x-posted with lots of people who said it better and faster while I was typing this.]

The one thing I can't get past is that he knew so much about the particle accelerator program at UW. It's one thing to know they have one, it's another thing to know the director of the original program who is no longer in charge. Since it was a real time convo on the board, not something over a matter of days, it seems like he had to know that, not just google it and get back to me. It makes all the rest very confusing.

May I suggest that one of us (just one) call the phone number listed in the whois info, and talk to kimi (or whoever else picks up the phone)? It may clear this all up.

Thank you, Nilly, for posting that, and thank you Cindy for starting this very necessary discussion. I agree with a lot of people in that I don't mind so much if Gus told the truth about his real life or not, but the veracity of his death is one I'm invested in.

It may seem callous to some that we are investigating this, but I think it's necessary, a part of a community self-defense mechanism. Many online communities have been burned in some way or another in a like fashion.

tommyrot mentioned that he's called that number a number of times with no luck.

tommyrot mentioned that he's called that number a number of times with no luck.

The last time I called was over a month ago.

eta: OK, it was about six weeks ago.