Udhay wrote:
Am I making sense?
Yes, but perhaps not the *same* sense to all of us.
I may have a somewhat different perspective on this, being an relatively
untraveled American. My meatspace experience has never introduced me to
a Udhay, a Madhu, or a Bonobashi. From here, I can't tell if a
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 10:23, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>> Another word: disinhibition [2] [3]
>
> But disinhibition is a very strong argument against such a
> reputation-less world. A world filled with YouTube/4Chan commenters
> is a scary proposition.
Talking of 4chan, and wishing to aid in threa
Just to be clear: I wasn't talking about tight-knit online communities
where people know each other well in meatspace. In such communities
usually anonymity is not desired, and even if it is (for instance, a
gay person is not yet comfortable letting everyone know that, but
wants to advance argumen
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, ss wrote:
> My view on this is that while I do not care about the identity of a person
or
> what name that person uses, I would prefer tie an identity down with a
> distinctive name+email id
My view too, except that I care about the identity of the person.
johnson
On Wednesday 03 Jun 2009 2:48:40 pm Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> I had an offlist conversation with a silklist member that got me
> thinking. Following the contretemps last year about multiple people
> ostensibly using a single email account, and what this does to the
> notion of identity online
My vi
>> Isn't it then a desirable thing to have consistent anonymity
>> (by people posting from a random e-mail addresses each time), even if
>> it causes discomfort?
Another way of answering this, with apologies to Denis Leary:
One word: reputation [1]
Another word: disinhibition [2] [3]
Udhay
[1]
Pranesh Prakash wrote, [on 6/4/2009 7:56 PM]:
> Isn't it then a desirable thing to have consistent anonymity
> (by people posting from a random e-mail addresses each time), even if
> it causes discomfort?
Not to me, as one of the best parts of online communication on silk is
the community aspect
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:22, Lahar Appaiah wrote:
> There's a Japanese online forum where people aren't allowed to use a name or
> a handle (I think it's called 4chan). The deal is that a person's identity
> may lend undue weight to any posts of his or hers- and similarly, a new
> person may not
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Lahar Appaiah wrote:
> Digressing slightly, a lot of people seem to have been on Wodehouse India. I
> was Bat Jarvis there, for what it's worth. I suspect I'm still on the group,
> on Read-Only.
Brinkley/Bingley the Revolutionary Butler was my Nom de Plum in
alt.f
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> Oh well. Life would be different if everyone used serial numbers.
I presume you mean *metric* serial numbers. :-)
Thaths
--
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." -- Homer J. Simpson
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Madhu Menon wrote:
> I attach more value to somebody posting under his or her proper name. It
> says you stand behind what you say. And it makes me believe I'm talking to a
> real person.
Umm, as opposed to?
In fact, if anonymity reduces the likelihood of an 'app
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>
> Aside: "." should classify with lawnun and bonobashi, but it bothers me
> because I can't read or write it as a word. It's a syntactical problem,
> though, not one of identity: "va" was better, but so would "qx" be. I'm
> just not comfor
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>
> Ahem, that bit about the address, that would be me, and I think I've
> apologized a few times to all parties concerned. It was at least to me
> an intellectual exercise in proving a point that went wrong.
[.]
btw, bringing it up w
Digressing slightly, a lot of people seem to have been on Wodehouse India. I
was Bat Jarvis there, for what it's worth. I suspect I'm still on the group,
on Read-Only.
There's a Japanese online forum where people aren't allowed to use a name or
a handle (I think it's called 4chan). The deal is that
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
>
>
> Data point: I think of you as 'crab'. I mean, I know what your "real"
> name is, it's just that I first knew you as crab, and crab has stuck in
> my head. Similarly, but conversely (if you know what I mean) I first
> knew "Kiran" and n
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote, [on 6/4/2009 9:26 AM]:
> In general, I don't react negatively to pseudonyms at all, even when I
> don't know who the people behind them are. But I find myself becoming
> more and more uncomfortable as I approach the "hardcore anonymity" end
> of the scale. I've felt guilty
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2009-06-03 14:48:40 +0530, ud...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> I've thought about this question often, but my feelings are complicated
> and may be somewhat contradictory. (I've never tried to write them down
> before, and I'm not sure I can
At 2009-06-03 14:48:40 +0530, ud...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> this member was of the opinion that pseudonyms such as "." or even
> "lawnun" should be discouraged on the list.
I've thought about this question often, but my feelings are complicated
and may be somewhat contradictory. (I've never tried to
--- On Wed, 3/6/09, Deepa Mohan wrote:
> From: Deepa Mohan
> Subject: Re: [silk] Introductions and Identity
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Wednesday, 3 June, 2009, 11:47 PM
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM,
> Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>
> > On W
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:00 AM, . wrote:
>
> Ahem, that bit about the address, that would be me, and I think I've
> apologized a few times to all parties concerned. It was at least to me
> an intellectual exercise in proving a point th
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:00 AM, . wrote:
[...]
> After I joined, I was astonished when someone linked a photograph and
> also listed Hassath's address on the list in all their friendliness to
> welcome her. I dont know about her but I would have been upset if it
> happened to me, "proper name"
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Indrajit Gupta wrote:
>
>
> Almost everybody knows everybody.
No, Wood Dweller, I don't, at least. Remember, I did email you and got to
know you a little more as a person.
> If a new person appears, we can always look that person up in the
> introduction. As far
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
>
>
> Am I making sense?
>
> Udhay
On this list, that's really leading with your chin, Vod ka Raja!
While talking about members posting under pseudonyms, I would also like to
raise the issue of how many members ARE on this list. It's jus
--- On Wed, 3/6/09, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> From: Udhay Shankar N
> Subject: Re: [silk] Introductions and Identity
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Wednesday, 3 June, 2009, 8:29 PM
> Thaths wrote, [on 6/3/2009 7:02 PM]:
>
> >> I had an offlist conversati
Thaths wrote, [on 6/3/2009 7:02 PM]:
>> I had an offlist conversation with a silklist member that got me
>> thinking.
>
> Ah, the sweet irony of the complainant remaining anonymous to the rest
> of the list!
Well, I made the call to not reveal the name of the member.
And it wasn't a "complaint"
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Madhu Menon wrote:
> Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
>> Lots more can be said about identity and anonymity, and no doubt will
>> be said. One thing, however, struck me (given the core silklist
>> principle of assuming goodwill). Might it not be a good idea to ask
>
> I att
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> I had an offlist conversation with a silklist member that got me
> thinking. Following the contretemps last year about multiple people
> ostensibly using a single email account, and what this does to the
> notion of identity online [1], this
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> I had an offlist conversation with a silklist member that got me
> thinking.
Ah, the sweet irony of the complainant remaining anonymous to the rest
of the list!
Thaths
--
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." -- Homer J. Simp
Udhay Shankar N wrote:
Lots more can be said about identity and anonymity, and no doubt will
be said. One thing, however, struck me (given the core silklist
principle of assuming goodwill). Might it not be a good idea to ask
I attach more value to somebody posting under his or her proper name.
I had an offlist conversation with a silklist member that got me
thinking. Following the contretemps last year about multiple people
ostensibly using a single email account, and what this does to the
notion of identity online [1], this member was of the opinion that
pseudonyms such as "." or even "
30 matches
Mail list logo
