To all: if you can't prove b), back off of b).

It's not fair otherwise.

All right, that's fair.

If Hec says the same thing, and i'd go postal.

Note to self: don't mention Allyson's toenails

This has been a very interesting discussion since I last posted. And I feel some relief that I wasn't directly involved (as with my Diet-talk-derailment, or pushing for the music thread / thread proliferation / Natter's Overwhleming talks).

Until this discussion started to crystalize the notion, I haven't really thought in terms of Newbies vs. Old timers. Because as far as I'm concerned, you're all fucking newbies to me! t /fake snarl

Actually, I vividly remember active recruitment drives to bring more people into the fold. I like the recent additions, you know? I love Cindy and cashmere and Deena and Paul and Am-Chau and Wolfram and Gleebo and...shit, it's dangerous to start naming names because then somebody feels excluded. But I like all these new people a lot and I'm glad they've come aboard.

During the diet-derailment discussion, Kat noted that I seemed like I was annoyed with Natter lately. I had to think about it and I think it's itchiness over the changes that have happened. I had to accept those changes, which included higher volume, and also occasionally feeling like I couldn't find an on-ramp into the traffic.

I don't think this discussion has been about nothing. People are vocalizing their anxiety about the fact that something has changed. I don't think things have changed the way MM has characterized it - but I do think we're seeing friction because we used to be able bring peoplee around to our wavelength and tone. And it hasn't been possible to really brainwash, uh...orient people as we once did because it was such a large influx.

Because as far as I'm concerned, you're all fucking newbies to me!

Hey! It was just one date, and it was all above board, ok?

To all: if you can't prove b), back off of b).

It's not fair otherwise.

I mentioned it out loud because a few people had already posted it here, and I'd done the backchannel thing making the same assertion.

I don't know that I feel it's unfair, because if it's true (and many people came to that suspicion independently) then it's a clear violation.

I don't mind asking Schmoker point blank if it's true because I'd want the answer recorded. For what it's worth, I don't think Schmoker has done anything to warrant suspension. But if he's mieskie in disguise - then that is in violation.

How exactly do we prove it, ita? Joe Klein got outed as the author of Primary Colors by a program that analyzed his writing style vs. that of Anonymous. I'm not a program, but I'm sure as hell sensitive to somebody's writing style: their syntax, their pet phrases, their tone, their humor. I think it's a match.

But I'm asking honestly - how do we prove it? What's the point of suspending or banning somebody if we can't enforce it against anybody who could come back immediately under a pseud?

I agree that the pseud accusations, unless they can be proven, can only create tension.

I agree that the pseud accusations, unless they can be proven, can only create tension.

Plus, since Schmoker's decided to go back to lurking, kind of moot.

Well, I have to say that forensic analysis aside, the evidence against it is that S registered before M started posting. M only posted in the Firefly thread, whereas S has been in several threads throughout the board. S has said nothing to indicate knowledge of what went on with M, which I expect would be an easy mistake to make.

I'm aware of the evidence for: similarity in posting/discussion styles, uses the same ISP & lives in the same city.

I tend to go with ita on this. I've been through the ringer in the past on the whole IP address/sock-puppet issue. I've been unfairly charged of sock-puppetry and banned from a mailing list for association with people accused of sock-puppetry. And yes, the accusations were based on claims that the bad person used the same ISP as my listmember: there was no proof, and what there was was manufactured, misunderstood, and blown out of proportion. It was an unholy mess, it went on for months, and it's still out there, unresolved. Once such an accusation is made public there's no way to disprove it.

So, yeah. We got no proof and S has done nothing worthy of suspension. Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt and move on.

I agree that the pseud accusations, unless they can be proven, can only create tension.

I don't doubt this - I'm just wondering what, if anything, we do about it. But it sounds like the answer is, not much.

How exactly do we prove it, ita? .... I think it's a match.

There's too much room between "prove" and "think" for me, personally.

Ask Cindy -- IIRC she's been on the receiving end of "similarities" with another poster at another board.

Frankly, I do think the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and maintain that treating poster A like poster B without any such backup is unfair. And treating poster A in a hostile manner counts as a pretty personal attack, in my book.