I must admit, I'm a Tom Davidson fan. Tom, you do a great job of keeping your cool while arguing and always paying attention to the meat of the issue. This forum would be far, far worse without you.
Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
John Hansen is one of those responsible for using up all the good discussion topics long before most of us started posting here. Hence the fluff.
Posts: 5758 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
(Having paid my respects, I will now derail the thread.)
quote:He's one of the far too few of you who actually uses his real name (to the best of my knowledge).
What's wrong with not using our real names? I can see why some users might want to use their real names for professional reasons, but I'm not sure how it necessarily benefits the other users, unless they're compiling some sort of mailing list. Using an assumed name on web boards is conventional enough that I wouldn't consider it deceptive. And, though giving out your real name may let others know, say, your gender, ethnicity, or generation, arguably one of the advantages of web-based communities are that they allow you to have an identity based on what you have to say rather than what you are.
If you think that my use of a psuedonym means that who i display is similarly artificial, you would be incorrect. Dismissal on the grounds that fictional names mean that people are hiding or that there is some sort of mystery is not indicative of someones pov.
What someone grows into calling me is unimportant, so long as they remember that i am a person (perhaps a thought that is sometimes forgotten with net handles, but who's fault is that?) on the other side of this internet.
I am me. My name is unimportant.
As for your points on longevity, i've had this nick for nigh 4 years, and dont intend on ever leaving it behind, that makes it real enough to me. And what of the people who have refered to me as such in real life (as the nick was not only an internet handle)? Or the fact that Ted, the name by which most people in real life refer to me as, is nothing more than a nick name?
As you can see i am a sort of living conundrum of nomenclature. I certainly hope the truth of who i am is not obfuscated in way by which three letter word that is used to refer to me.
Pod's real name is James Edward Han. Let's all start calling him Jim!
Although I would also prefer people using their real names, I know that this is just a psychological thing: knowing Slash's real name helps me focus on him as a person, but it doesn't give me any more info on him (except what his parents chose to call him when he was a newborn).
So, while there is some merit in Mr. Hansen's complaint, I think that overall his tacit attributing the problems on Hatrack to a pervasive desire for anonymity is flawed.
Wow, and I thought I could be an incredible prick sometimes. However, not only did this thread begin on a rather bitter note, but you decide to step in and play the "I've been here for years, and none of you measure up to how it used to be" bit with people.
It's things like that which make me glad I stuck to my Dune newsgroups "back in the day". It's things like that which slap me in the face and show me how pretentious one can sound, while still trying to sound like a nice fellow. It's things like that which show me that when you've had enough of something, it's best to let it go, than to let it get more sour to you. It's things like that which remind me how unreasonable the judgemental "I've been here longer" mentality is.
Thanks for reminding me. I had been thinking about many of them anyway, but it's best to not forget.
I don't know if Patrick meant it, but I agree-- if you have such a problem with the way Hatrack is now, or has been over the last year that I've seen it, then go away. I don't care that you've been here almost longer than the Cards... you add absolutely nothing, and you attempt to take away from some things that are great here, in the name of what was. Yes, whether you realize it or not, you're trying to take away from what Hatrack is, which is exactly what you blame all of us for.
For that, you can kindly go suck eggs.
You mention using one's full names, instead of nicknames. Hello, John... my name is John Lieske. I use a different name here, because I don't just bandy my name about over the internet, and also to make a point to differentiate myself. Almost everyone here at Hatrack knows my name, though. Many here know each other's name just fine, as well. It's something that comes with comeraderie, and not something I think needs to be forced. Also, for the younger people here, I'm glad they don't give out their full names, as it helps keep them safer from predators. Perhaps, in your long years on internet forums, you've been oblivious to the fact that the internet is not what it once was. Giving out personal information is discouraged, unless you know who you're giving it to (or don't care). So, frankly, Mr. Hansen, your reasoning for even bringing up the "issue" is either terribly faulty, or is dubious, at best.
I'm not asking you to leave, Mr. Hansen. I am, however, saying that if you plan on trying to judge Hatrack by your "old-timer" standards, you can, quite frankly, go to hell.
Regards, John F. Lieske, Jr (a.k.a.- Leto II)
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Why not, Tom? I mean, you did sort of start it by mentioning the following:
quote:I don't know why so many of the others drifted away. I know some just got too busy. Others felt like they had run out of things to say, or had seen all the arguments and discussions too many times to maintain interest. Some didn't like the new format, or thought the tone of the forum changed in ways they didn't appreciate (especially compared to our idealized memories of the ones that had gone before).
Granted, Mr. Lieske was a tad bit rough on Mr. Hansen (for some reason I giggle every time I type that), but his objections to Hansen's bashing are legitimate.
Besides, your time on Hatrack should have taught you one important lesson: you can't police a thread...
Hey, don't hold me responsible for this one.
If John wants to play the old curmudgeon, that's not my fault. And if the OTHER John wants to play the young curmudgeon, that's not my fault either.
I'm sorry if people interpreted my brief nod to the past -- and to the many wonderful posters who've now faded into the woodwork -- as an excuse to start up a bunch of "then vs. now" arguments. That's not even remotely what I intended, and I had sincerely hoped that people would take the hint and let the whole thing kind of die out.
So here's the deal. I don't intend to allow this thread -- which was started with the best of intentions, and which has some personal meaning for me -- to turn into yet another pointless Hatrack argument. If discussion on this topic continues on this thread, therefore, I will delete the thread rather than permit it. As much as I appreciate what people here have said, compliments themselves are too easily polluted by this kind of thing.
I really appreciated this thread, but it's lived out its purpose. And if you're all going to dig your heels in and argue like little children, I'd rather take it away than let you vomit on it.
You're inhibiting our right to free speech, Tom.
Despite our differences, I like Tom quite a bit. He's only rarely rude (oddly enough, the number of times he's been thoroughly rude corresponds EXACTLY to the number of times he's been thoroughly correct. . . ); he's meticulously honest; and he writes wonderfully.
What's more important is the feeling that whether or not Tom agrees with you, he generally welcomes your comments on his ideas.
I would like to point out that I did not react to John's post with negativity, but rather with shock. I remember John from way back when *I* was a newbie, and I always had deep respect for him. I was just surprised to see him slip in a subtle bash. I am very sorry now that I pointed it out. Sorry John. Didn't intend to expose you to such attack. Love the lego bots by the way.
As to the other topic, I am going to start a thread.
quote:I must say that Tom is about the only reason I occasionally browse here still [implication: no one else is worth the effort... this is where you alienate the whole community]. He's one of the far too few of you who actually uses his real name (to the best of my knowledge) [this somehow makes him more... something to you]. He's open-minded a lot of the time [implying, since you see him as so unique, that the majority of us aren't]. He appears to actually read what other people write before responding, more often than not showing signs of intelligent thought [ditto: since you've singled him out as one of the only reasons you check in, by implication you subtract from the rest of us these qualities]. He stays quiet when it makes sense to remain so. He tries to help the helpless. And he expresses gratitude appropriately [three qualities which the rest of us don't quite share, you seem to imply].
None of the bracketed implications may have been your intent, but that's how many of us read your post. Perhaps if you were to review what you've written from an outside point of view before posting it, you could save us the mistaken impression that we're being dissed.
Actually, John, the bit I read as a bash was the part in which you explained that you were grateful that you knew a bunch of people in the real world who talked about meaningful things and didn't waste any of their time starting at a computer screen.
quote:As much as I appreciate what people here have said, compliments themselves are too easily polluted by this kind of thing.
Tom, I've edited my post to you. I came to the thread wanting to say something nice, got ticked off by the famous post above, and it came out all wrong. I honestly hadn't meant to snub John (frankly -- and I hope this doesn't come out wrong too -- I didn't expect him to come back and read replies). But it did reflect my huffiness, and it was snarky, and you deserve much better on your 8000th post. [And John deserves my apology, which he has in spades.]
Tom, you do pull no punches. The words are succinct, clear, and to the point, and you leave the rest of us wishing we'd only had the brains to say the same thing, exactly the same way. But despite your directness, you are never malicious. You debate the point but not the person, and I can't tell you how much I admire this.
You're a wit and a half, two on your best days, and the all-time snort-inducing champion of this place.
I'd trust you with my money, and I'd trust you with my children if I had my own. I'd turn down breaking open a new book from OSC to spend a night at dinner with you and your lovely wife.
Here's to hoping that you stay around for all the years to come. You are a blessing to Hatrack.
[This message has been edited by ClaudiaTherese (edited October 23, 2002).]
quote:I really, really regret saying that John's post was a bash. If I hadn't, probably none of the rest of this would have appeared.
Come on, Slash. Does your ego know no bounds? You are, in fact, merely a tiny cog in this great machine we call Hatrack, so insignificant you could not possibly be responsible for the mess this has become.
Sorry, Tom. I meant to start a digression, not a gang war.
John H., I appreciated your response to my question, despite some of the negative reactions it (unfairly) provoked. I thought a lot about the issue of user names when I first joined Hatrack (not long ago), and Iíve been wanting to talk about it with those of you who know the BB game better than I do. But Iíll do it on the other thread.
[edit for cosmetic flaws]
[This message has been edited by Deirdre (edited October 23, 2002).]
Whenever you set your thoughts into writing repeatedly in the same medium (as in, say, poetry or Hatrack) you'll almost inevitably drift into a persona. I don't expect any Hatrackers to be the same people off the board. I know I'm not.
Oh yeah, well done, Tom. And thanks for totally twisting my feeble mind into an inextricable knot in the Mafia game.
[This message has been edited by jehovoid (edited October 23, 2002).]
Tom, I look forward to reading your posts on any subject here. You are always interesting, succint, and thought-provoking in a non-judgemental way. In fact, if an issue comes up the first thing I want to know is whether you have posted your opinion yet. Here's to another 8000 excellent posts!
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |