And if he says he's not mieskie, how do you know he's telling the truth? Where the f*** does it end?
Willow: Were there dolphins? Tara: Yes. Many dolphins at the pound. Willow: Was there a camel? Tara: There was the front of a camel. A half-camel.
'Selfless'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Connie Neil - Jan 27, 2003 2:16:16 pm PST #3637 of 10001
brillig
Kristen - Jan 27, 2003 2:17:03 pm PST #3638 of 10001
I'm with connie on this one. I, personally, have never thought they were the same poster.
But what if he says no or prevaricates? Is this going to be dropped or merely go into the 97th round of "I can't prove it but I know it's the same person"?
Laura - Jan 27, 2003 2:17:12 pm PST #3639 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
The suspension was for 2 months, right? I don't think that was an unreasonable amount of time for him to rethink his behavior and decide if this was an appropriate playgound for him.
I am a very tolerant person, but I also think that there is not much sense in having rules if they aren't enforced. If he has violated the suspension then ban him and inactivate the new name. If he really had come back under a new name with the intention of playing nice the fake moustache would have worked and we wouldn't have guessed his identity.
John H - Jan 27, 2003 2:18:39 pm PST #3640 of 10001
I'm not mieksie.
Me neither. But if anyone asks, I am Spartacus.
until he does something actionable in his new incarnation--and you can't prove the guy in the moustache is the same guy--you don't have a legal leg to stand on
OK my question right now is exactly that -- what if we could prove it? And what if he admitted it? Surely you would agree with banning him if he came here and posted "yeah, I am mieskie"?
Connie Neil - Jan 27, 2003 2:19:53 pm PST #3641 of 10001
brillig
Yes, I would. And if he said he wasn't, would you say, "Oh, sorry for the accusation"?
John H - Jan 27, 2003 2:20:17 pm PST #3642 of 10001
Sorry don't want to go back and edit that in the thick of it, but what I should have said is:
until he does something actionable in his new incarnation--and you can't prove the guy in the moustache is the same guy--you don't have a legal leg to stand on
I think that's ambiguous.
Until he does something actionable in the new incarnation, or we prove he's the same guy, we can't do anything.
One or the other is enough.
John H - Jan 27, 2003 2:21:50 pm PST #3643 of 10001
if he said he wasn't, would you say, "Oh, sorry for the accusation"?
First I would say "there are so many coincidental similarities between the two of you, you know that's going to be hard for a lot of people to believe, right?".
Laura - Jan 27, 2003 2:22:22 pm PST #3644 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
One or the other is enough.
Yes.
Kristen - Jan 27, 2003 2:22:44 pm PST #3645 of 10001
What Connie said. And, also, how do you prove it unless he admits it?
Connie Neil - Jan 27, 2003 2:23:30 pm PST #3646 of 10001
brillig
I think that's ambiguous.
I was going on your premise of calling the cops on some guy in a moustache. If you did call the cops and accused an innocent man of being a harrasser, you've got the grounds for a lawsuit.
Our current situation is unprovable either way. We have only our individual words that we any of us are who we are--except for those cabals of people who *say* they've met each other. Oh, and some pictures. I may be mieskie, for all you know, running a clever split personality. We're going to have to trust each other eventually.