Except that there can be hundreds of posts if people haven't been in for a few days, and the Press posts allow them to jump to the start of the current day.

And hitting recent allows them to skip to where they can start participating. Dude, you're away from any thread, there can be hundreds of posts. The showthreads get Nilly, but F, C, or M doesn't. This, this is somewhere in between.

Inconvenience? Because people have to skim past a post that doesn't interest/apply to them?

If your bandwidth, personal, is 5 minutes a week, it's a pain in the ass to have to scroll through however many stop and start posts there are in there, and eats into that bandwidth.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this last part... To hell with who for what?

To make this perfectly clear, it feels like you read the discussion, saw some posts in support, and said to hell with the concerns of the people who wondered if that's really why we have Press.

To make this perfectly clear, it feels like you read the discussion, saw some posts in support, and said to hell with the concerns of the people who wondered if that's really why we have Press.

That does make it clearer, thank you. And I didn't say 'to hell with' anyone or their concerns. I looked at those who complained, those who found the posts beneficial, and those who were indifferent, weighed the numbers and came to the conclusion that the benfit for those who used the posts was greater than the annoyance/inconvenience for those who disliked them.

I'm glad that I had a chance to clarify my reasoning - far too often people have ascribed motives to posters without giving them a chance to explain.

If it is the case that the harm to the board is greater than the benefit, then I will stop posting in Press. But that's not what I saw when I read Sartre when I returned from my trip. You, obviously, read it the opposite way.

The only way to settle this will probably be with a vote, and if you want to propose it, I will second you.

If it is the case that the harm to the board is greater than the benefit, then I will stop posting in Press. But that's not what I saw when I read Sartre when I returned from my trip. You, obviously, read it the opposite way.

It felt like you didn't want to discuss it, frankly, which is what got the dander up. And no, I don't want to propose a vote for this.

I'm glad that I had a chance to clarify my reasoning - far too often people have ascribed motives to posters without giving them a chance to explain.

Then please, give us the same consideration.

In weighing, it seems like qualitative was left off, and this doesn't feel like something that can be properly decided with just quantitative.

PMM, honestly, I don't know what to do about this.

It's like we're not even reading the same posts.

Cindy, I didn't say you called people petty. I said you called people discussing what does or does not make them uncomfortable petty. For accuracy's sake -- that's very important.

The other important part of my post ... I don't think the discussion was about you.

When I say b.org's un-pseudish -- I mean that many of the people you named exist IRL for other people on the board. So when I talk to meara, I know exactly who I'm talking to, because I've met her (well, not enough times, but it's a start). Her name isn't the issue. Her identity is. And there's nothing pseudo about it.

Cindy, I apologize for mistyping. I don't have an issue with pseuds. I have an issue with multiple logins for a single user when that login isn't manifesting it's own "character." Clovis? Definitely posts in a flavor that is Clovisy.

I guess I don't feel comfortable with multiple logins because it smacks of sockpuppetry even if it isn't.

So I guess my discomfort is less one of you not posting as a pseud. Rather it's of you posting as Xanderella and then another login as well as me thinking of you as Cindy (and for the record, this has to do with any secondary login not used for another "personality" not particularly with you). As ita mentioned, I find it difficult to pin the identity down and it makes me feel like I don't know who is in the conversation. In other words, I feel played which I'm not into.

Cindy, I apologize for mistyping. I don't have an issue with pseuds. I have an issue with multiple logins for a single user

This is really what I meant too

Of course, CAROMA. Well, jeez, I am very sorry, Cindy, for mistaking you. You guys are not a bit alike. I won't edit my post so my massive dopiness will remain on record.

That's okay, scrappy. It's a consequence of my name-shifting, and again, I'm sorry about that. Thanks for being so gracious.

(I think that the wearing corsets final shot person you are thinking of was Caroma, though I agree with the rest of your post.)

Oh c'mon Elena. I have such a wealth of pain in the ass qualities that it's unnecessary to tailor Caroma's to fit me. My overriding problems here are wordiness, a self-righteous conviction that I am correct, and my tendency to stay and hash it out--even when it's not worth it or wanted. A little morally outraged flouncing would probably do me good. That I stay and argue is certainly part of our problem, isn't it?

I'm really sorry. I guess I forgot it was backchannel, and thought it was something you had posted here in press. My memory must be failing me. My intention was to leap to your defense.

No, Sophia. I am really sorry. I posted to you purely out of emotion, without giving reason a moment's notice. Thank you. Your intent should have been evident to me. It's my fault it wasn't. Thanks to Teppy, Jess, JohnSweden, Hec, Consuela, Betsy, Jon, and everyone else who tried to help, too.

...

Kat, and ita, I get what you're saying and again, I'm sorry for the discomfort I've caused. I didn't want anyone to feel played, but see why they did, which is why I came forward, right away. I'm trying to fit in a limited way. This lurker thing was only supposed to be a limited joke. When I wanted to enter the conversation, I was too lazy to log off and log on under the other name (which I didn't like using here, anyhow).

Once I wanted to participate, I should have just said, "This is Cindy and I'm too lazy to change names again" in my tag, or whatever post where I was no longer doing the lurker-support gig. I'm sorry I didn't think of it. I could have avoided all this.

I'd mentioned my "lurkers support" idea a few days back, and figured since I mentioned it ahead of time, there would be no "we're being played" issue. I must have mentioned it in Spoilers. If I mentioned it in Minearverse or Angel (which is where I thought I mentioned it), more people would have been in on it from the start.

After I came here and said 'sorry it's me and I won't do it again,' the continuing discussion (to be clear: NOT the initial question) felt like so much piling. That's my issue, not the board's.

I just wanted to talk about Angel and Wonderfalls (which, whoa, blew me away last night--and is so not JoA, * it's Northern Exposure's cousin with talking tchotchkes and very real, yet beautiful and sexy people *). I never intended to set font in the right hand threads again, or Bitches, Natter (or other threads, for that matter). My positive participation seems limited to my pet show threads. When I venture outside them, I tend to cause qwerty face all around. Whatever. This little net-identity crisis is also my issue, not the board's.

If I choose another name, I'll mention it here. Will that alleviate the "we're being played" problem?

edited to cut length--substance is the same

I won't edit my post so my massive dopiness will remain on record.

Go ahead, crush my illusion that you're always right.

It's all good Cindy. The shows rock mightily and I look forward to seeing you in the threads, not Spoiler threads though because I fear cooties, or addiction, or something.

I think Hil is me for this. It's not about pseudonyms, it's about identity. Posts like the ferrets, the robots and Clovis clearly come from posters whom we can identify, by context and not just by previous notice. Their posts, and the lurkers initial posts, were jokey-rhyme fun. It's when regular posts come under an unknown name that the squirming seems to start. It's that loss of a sense of identity.

We could have a conversation about anonymity on the net and how we don't really know each other and blah, blah. But while that may be true for the majority of us or for the rest of the net, we really don't have anonymity here. We do know each other. We go to each others' parties. We hang out together. We know about our family lives, our pets, our intimate personal struggles, our geographical origins. It's a far cry from the net where it was dangerous to reveal your gender.

Suppose lurkers wasn't Cindy, but some honest-to-goodness lurker, who knew the culture, and thought it would be a funny name to have. We'd laugh at the joke initially, and then if it became a regular poster, we'd give weight to the content and tone of the posts, and eventually develop a relationship with the poster, just like we do with anyone else. It's not the name that's at issue, it's the sense of identity and relationship.