Creek Running North

I’m sorry, Chris, but I’ve read all these posts and all the comments and still can’t figure out the melodrama from Zuzu and Ann.  So Zuzu’s mad at you for what?  It’s just silly.  Let her read it here from me, I guess, but she needs to hear it.  You said nothing wrong and nothing that insulted her directly.  What you did say was enough to provoke thought and—uh-oh!—consideration, which I even think you mentioned as being your point ("All I’m suggesting is that people consider the issue.").

The fact is you stated you knew there were plenty of reasons (not all of which you could even identify) for pseudonymity, yet she came out swinging immediately as though you’d named her specifically and made her the enemy combatant you were writing about (although, again, you’d already said that was in reference to yourself).  Honestly, these blog war things are trite and immature and very pretentious, and I’ve lost a lot of respect for her just based on that incident.  I think it was unwarranted to explode at you and to really call out your brother in the comments; I think it was significantly overblown to feel what you said was a direct challenge to her personally; and I really think this Ann Bartow business is beyond a tempest in a teapot being perpetrated by people who made the beds they now don’t want to sleep in.  Ridiculous is what it is.  I’m sorry it’s happening and has somehow caught you in the middle, especially because it’s unjustified.

As for Ann’s defamation claim, there is none.  Even per se defamation is hard to prove, but that’s far from what she’s pointing at.  The comments in question are in no way defamatory and instead are First Amendment exercises she’s suddenly claiming to be enforcing via attorney (apparently only important when it’s for her and no one else, I guess).  That’s a big “Whatever!” if ever there was one.

Let me say this: they’ve both lost me as a reader and respecter of what they do.  Both are wearing their sensibilities on their shoulders and lashing out at anyone who even offers a contrary thought.  That’s so First Amendment of them, isn’t it?  This is so childish as to be laughable; in fact, it’s just that: laughable!  Uproarious laughter all around, please, for no other response could be more appropriate for this entire affair.  You shouldn’t have been dragged into such mire even if only indirectly.

Let me say this: they’ve both lost me as a reader and respecter of what they do.  Both are wearing their sensibilities on their shoulders and lashing out at anyone who even offers a contrary thought.

Agreed, good sir.  It is most undignified when one’s privacy is threatened and it is equally undignified to display strong feelings about the matter.  One must strive for placidity in all reactions and responses, lest one give the appearance of ill breeding.

There being little I could add that could be in any way considered positive, I bid you good day.

Jason, I appreciate your support.

Still, even if we grant your positions for the sake of argument, there is an issue of scale here between the two. Zuzu got mad at what I said, and she said so, and then somehow she did not then go on to email Kat to ask for an apology from me while mentioning the involvement of attorneys.

Fartles von Biscuitbrain: Snark aside, you missed my point entirely while proving it.  If by inference you think I’m advocating placidity, you’re far from wrong--and my response should be ample proof of that.  What I’m advocating is common sense.  Chris’ post never mentioned Zuzu; it never said pseudonymity was always wrong; and between two online friends, it certainly was in no way a battle cry.  What it did say was there were reasons one might go that route but that he thought it at least worth considering the alternative.  I’ve read his posts and comments multiple times and still can’t find a single thing about which one might respond the way she did.  It’s one thing to say the fact is debatable and to say so with conviction; it’s quite another to arbitrarily—yes, arbitrarily—embattle someone because they said something generic with which you take offense.  Say why you disagree; say why you think otherwise; just leave the silliness and oversensitivity elsewhere if you want anyone to listen, and that includes underhanded insults.  Perhaps I just expect more maturity and deliberation than most.  Does that make me an idealist?  Probably, and to a fault I’m sure.  So point taken.

And yes, there’s a degree of scale that vastly separates the two.  Threats are quite different from childish melodrama and being touchy.  Maybe I failed entirely to differentiate my feelings on the two, but I couldn’t agree more.  Ann’s actions are abhorrent.  I’d even say they’re uncivilized.  Zuzu’s behavior, on the other hand, comes across as prickly and quick-tempered.  I think that maybe I found that as offensive simply because I felt your comments on the subject offered a bit of careful thought as it applied to my own online activities (usually done via pseudonymity); her reaction so caught me off guard that it seemed unnecessarily vitriolic rather than enlightened.  Again, my idealism leaves me open to being blindsided.  That’ll teach me!  Luckily, I’m not overly sensitive and rather enjoy contrary ideas.  It’s a great way to learn.

If we could harness this raging anger and energy into something that could stop the Military Commissions Act of 2006 so much would be so much better.  As of yesterday, Bushco began notifying Federal courts throughout the US that they were no longer allowed to hear any cases regarding any person detained as an enemy combatant.  This borders on the juvenile na na nana naaaaaaa.

Blogs are wonderful things, but as forums for passionate exchanges (or exchanges that become passionate), they have their drawbacks. There is an illusion of conversation which is maintainable as long as passions are not aroused too much, but when they are, watch out. The mechanisms we have for dealing with personal contention are simply not there - eye contact, tone of voice, body language. One’s words are much more permanent, and re-visitable for anger reinforcement. So we need different strategies for dealing with contention, especially between putative allies. My own is fourfold; look for content before emotion; never invest too much emotionally in a online relationship; if angry, wait as long as it takes to respond rationally; most importantly - benefit of the doubt; and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Fivefold…

In case you’re wondering, yes, I got my Master of the Fucking Obvious degree several years ago. But sometimes the obvious bears repeating.

And Fartles, drop the snide act or I’ll let everyone know that you’re really Auguste P. Z. Bérubé-Marcotte

Most excellent response, Rob G!  Most excellent indeed.  Well, aside from that papal business, but to each their own as my pappy once said.  Or did that come from the voices . . .

Chris, thanks for reminding me that the exception to rule #3 is when responding to evil French bastards (ooh, double redundancy!), or evil bastards with French names.

In keeping with the “be nice” theme, I will (I hope unnecessarily) point out that

Je plaisante parce que j’aime

Nous vous entendons, Rob G. La plupart des personnes sont malheureusement trop sérieuses. Je suis coupable.

And pardon my French (literally).  I’ve not used it in almost 15 years.  Did I just tell you to piss off or do unspeakable things with farm animals?

Pretty sure there was something in there about mustard.

Farm animals and mustard. Enough to get an old fart like me positively frisky.

I’ve been following the battle all day, as it wound itself through various blogs.  It does suck.  I don’t think there is a better way to say it.

ourselves, though do step out of your elves as well if necessary

Especially if we’re Otherkin.

It may seem obvious, Rob G, but each successive on-line generation (every two years or so, I reckon) winds up learning the same lessons—some of them the hard way, and others by helplessly watching on. It’s a singularly pitiless medium, and only seems to get more so with time.

On the subject at hand, there is a curious thing about posting using ones own name: if it’s a common one things can get pretty confusing, since people can assume they know who you are and be flat-out wrong. There are two other people I know of just in the SF Bay Area alone with the same first and last name and email (sans domain) as me and who have fairly extensive net-presence (one of them even has his own blog). I get confused emails and even phone calls fairly frequently, which is probably just a tiny fraction of the potential confusion attached to what my namesakes and I write out here. So I post with a pseudonym but with a live (and trivially traceable) email address, and apply various technical means to control the resulting spam-storm. That’s my compromise.

Pseudonymity is a continuum. Few people, I’ve noticed, attach a phone number or even a mailing address to their posts, as was common practice in earlier days. And I rather suspect that things will move, of necessity, further and further in that direction. I find that sad, but I can’t deny that there are good reasons for it.

If someone wants to be pseudonymous, that’s fine (though anonymity is much more problematic), but using your real name is not necessarily that bad.  I’ve been posting under my real name since, like, sometime in the 1980s.  Basically, since I was involved in local toxics activism, the corporates would already attempt minor harassment at meetings anyway.  And it was lame, and there’s no real reason to be concerned about it.  That’s not the same as having a horde of right-wing bloggers after you, though; corps have money, but they also generally don’t do illegal things lightly.

Chris, I really can’t argue with you.  Being a lawyer and an academic combined with my already idiosyncratic brain really has made me see these issues very differently than a lot of other people. I always think its better to know than to not know. I tend to assume everyone else feels that way, and I’m obviously wrong in this case.

One favor to ask, thuogh you certainly down’t owe me anything: Could we not call this an “outing” or at least modify “outing” somehow? An outing is when someone’s name is publicly revealed.  That didn’t happen and will never happen by my hand.

I use a nom de plume that is an English translation of one of my middle names.  It is simple and works for me, mostly in my summer work, in that i am usually in company of other people who have the same given first name.  The pseudnym becomes efficacious, and has been so, for at least 30 years.  Does it matter?? Not really, in that my personal email is usually accessible, and i have no problem revealing who i am when asked.  I have been through enough FBI background checks in my life, and am more than confident that my file burgeons with my adding to it regularly through comments and actions.

I have no wish to enter into the debate that began this fuss, but I will say that I like blogging under a pseudonym, myself.  MindSpinner is the only name I ever had the privilege of choosing for myself :-).

Y cntbrtd t Zz lvng hr blg, y sck. Y thnk t’ss s grt t blg ndr yr rl nm, hw bt f cm b Pnl nd ct yr dg’s fckng thrt? Hw wld y fl? t’s s ngh t fnd y.

[Disemvoweled by Zk’s wnr. Let’s all just move on.]

Y cntbrtd t Zz lvng hr blg, y sck. Y thnk t’ss s grt t blg ndr yr rl nm, hw bt f cm b Pnl nd ct yr dg’s fckng thrt? Hw wld y fl? t’s s ngh t fnd y.
Posted by Feministe reader on 10/21 at 04:50 PM

I found this through trackbacks.  Jesus Christ, that’s sick, inappropriate, and over the fucking line.  Not in my name, pal.

I haven’t been following things completely, but it’s unfortunate that a direct conversation between the two parties involved couldn’t have happened before all of this blew up, as there seem to be a number of misunderstandings.

Not in my name, pal

Hear, hear.  But that’s no “Feministe reader.” A Feministe reader would (1) understand that it wasn’t Chris who inspired your hiatus and (2) never threaten a dog on your behalf particularly, considering that you are yourself a dog owner.

I’m betting it’s by the same lunatic who threatened Zeke the last time, just mentioning you as a blind.  All snideness and snarkery aside, that person needs serious help.