This is a very thoughtful post, Emma. "Huh? I am a fool for wanting to connect with another human being...? That is to deny basic human nature to be social whatever the context. " I think these words of yours sum it up for me.

I enter into transactions here based on the idea that others want something (at least) similar to what I want. Naive, perhaps, but based on human nature. We all want validation in the form of readership and comments.

You've said it well.

Not using your own name is way different to allowing people to think you're something you're not, and creating relationships based on that.

I too find the attitude that friendships created over the internet are any less real for the distance between the people involved. I've made some wonderful connections with people I trust, and I hate having to doubt that. Assumptions of naivety for trusting people anywhere are condescending and patronising.

Excellent post, Emma.

It appears that the old adage: "Buyer beware!" applies in the virtual world as well as the real world.

First & Rated

Okay third.

As I indicated in my own post, I don't take issue with someone posting under a pseudonym, unless they choose to use it as a weapon against others. I don't see that you've done that. This was well said, well written, and I especially liked this part: "I am a fool for wanting to connect with another human being through their writing or personality just because I am "meeting" them virtually? That is to deny basic human nature to be social whatever the context.

I find that attitude insulting to the people to whom it is directed, but mostly I find it horribly, mind-numbingly cynical about the potential of the internet to build connections and effect social change. In essence, it reduces all the time that people spend online on sites such as OS to mere posturing and pretending to be something we're not. All relationships formed in such an environment are rendered false and meaningless because nobody really knows who anyone is. It's all a big joke."

It just so happens that I agree with you.

I'm old enough to discern reality from fiction. This virtual community called Open Salon is reality in such that I allow it to be so. I have connected in reality with some on OS. I'm involved in a business venture with some. But just as in life, one must be careful with reality... that's life. And as always, you Emma[ I do know your real name], always make me think with your posts. I thank you for that.

I am never disappointed by your writing and often, as I am now, impressed with your ability to distill my own thoughts in feelings into logical and artfully crafted prose. Thank you, for once again, expressing my own thoughts better than I myself could have.

No one knows that I'm really a super-hottie 17 year old.

I confess to having played the "other" game here once in the past, but I excuse that behavior because it was strictly for laughs and to make the point that anyone can make the cover -- provided they're willing to work their ass off and play the game. But what's the point of covers and EP's if you aren't saying what you really want to say?

That may seem off the subject, but it's not -- because what we're discussing is illusion and delusion. Keeping illusions to a minimum also cuts way down on delusion.

I operate with what has now become a cliche -- trust but verify. But when you're dealing with anyone but an intimate circle of friends and family (and I'm sometimes surprised there, too), that cliche really ought to be -- trust because you verify. Or as Dad use to say, trust everybody, but cut the cards anyway.

My advice to one and all is to enjoy the entertainment that's offered here for what it is, and absorb the information but make sure to check it out for yourself. Otherwise, stick with Fox News and be content with a lobotimized existence filled with false absolutes rather than one filled with interesting and limitless possibilities.

But you, my dear Lady Em, know all this already -- and I mean that sincerely.

So it's technically plagiarism if I cut-and-paste your entire post into one of my own...right?

Translated: I agree.

mypsyche: Thank you.

Natalie: I too have made some very good friends online, many on OS whom I have met in real life. That is not "unreal."

Trudge164: Yes, buyer beware as in all things, but I do try to give people a benefit of a doubt most of the time.

Stellaa: I think this is the crux of it. Universal standards are rare on the web, but they do need to be established eventually. There must be a discussion and it's entirely possible, that my position might shift a little.

Kathy: Thanks.

Cindy Ross: This wasn't about cartouche in particular. We have communicated and although I don't agree with what she did, it was her choice and I now understand her reasons. I met my husband online too and he is the same in person as he was "virtually."

Torman: I am going to go comment on your post. I read it earlier, but didn't feel like I was going to get a good reaction there. Thanks for commenting here.

Chuck: I appreciate your take on things. And yes, you do know my real name!

Padraig: That is fascinating stuff. I'm not familiar with Williams and will check him out.

Ablonde: Thanks. I try. :)

You have said this very well. Thank you for saying it. My mind is confused today and I am not sure why this all has bothered so many, including me. Reading what you write helps sort these things out.

"Misanthropes have some admirable if paradoxical virtues. It is no exaggeration to say that we are among the nicest people you are likely to meet. Because good manners build sturdy walls, our distaste for intimacy makes us exceedingly cordial 'ships that pass in the night'. As long as you remain a stranger we will be your friend forever." Florence King That is to me a profound quote and summarizes much that goes on here.

Trust can rightly be called naive. That is not that big of price to pay for me. The opposite of trust?

"It is more shameful to distrust our friends than to be deceived by them." Confucius

Sure I can be fooled; but I will not be fooled into giving up love for protection. Dr.Spudman--

Sorry Emma, I am into quotations these days.

duz this mean i must out myself (question mark) o very well, gorlockness of Sirius is a pseudonym and i am o-reely khartoosh from uranus

pleez forgive the deception

pee-ess, i am also several other aliens posting on this site

oldnewlefty: So who's the old geezer in the picture?:)

Tom: I know what you're saying, and the journalist in me also believes in "trust but verify." I tend to be a little more trusting in personal relationships, but I am learning. Would it surprise you to learn that I am a very slow learner? And again, this post is not about any one person in particular. I want to be clear on that.

WalkAwayHappy: You're welcome

Outside Myself: :) Steal away. Just give me credit.

Dr. Spudman 44: Those quotes represent exactly how I feel. I may even borrow one or two of them.

I share your opinions, about human nature and the potential(s) of the Internet. Thanks for this well-reasoned post!

Well presented and thoughtful post. Fine writing. I believe that intent is the issue and the key.

Rated.

Lunchlady2: I was pretty confused too. I still am, but writing this helped.

Bonnie: I think it is about intent to some extent. As for asking writers to work, I usually don't mind but I have been preoccupied with other things today.

gorlockness: Thanks for coming by whoever you are.

Eva: You're welcome.

Scylla the rock: Intent is important and so is transparency to some extent. Thanks for commenting.

My life has been greatly enriched by the "real" people that I'm met online. I must be an old fashioned reject too but I think I'm in good company. Thanks.

Well said, and the commenters have pretty much expressed my thoughts - esp. Nat, Stella, Chuck and Tom. Thanks.

Very idealistic. The internet is "real life" to the nth power. Already I see every shape, color and smell of humanity in OS.

I'm mostly pissed off at the lack of manpower on the editorial end, but hey, I'm new here. It remains to be seen if I have the patience for the torrent of humanity I will have to hazard should I hang around here for any length of time.

I think Freaky Troll has the game down.

Wow, I wonder who Freaky Troll really is!

Well said.

This is a terrific post Emma, very thought-provoking. Rated.

Sharon: Nice to meet another "old-fashioned reject!"

grif: Thanks.

Joy MARS: I've always been too much of an idealist. I used to think it was a failing, but now I know I'll never change and I've come to accept it. Freaky figured OS out a long time ago.

Steve Blevins: Thanks for stopping by.

It would be a sad world if we all lived under a veil of mistrust. Thanks for this, Emma.

>>Whatever I have written in the year or so that I've been here has been an honest reflection of myself. I haven't made up things, or embellished my life, or even thought about doing so. I choose what I reveal, that is my right as a person, but what is out there is me.

Oh, balls. How do we know this? How do we know that anything of what you say is true? You don't even give us a name to work with. You're a pseudonym, an Internet ghost.

I am a real person, with a real name, who posts under his own name and his own image. I have a history on the Internet and in print, which you may trace if you wish. I contributed to Slate, to Salon Table Talk, to the Chicago Reader, all under my own name. Who are you? I have no idea.

I have said, repeatedly and often, in my blog, that I am not a journalist, that I'm just a guy that makes shit up, and so I am. I won't tell you the truth about my life, and if you expect the truth about my life, you are a moron. But you're not even that honest. You put a bunch of unverifiable shit out and expect us to swallow it, saying all the while, this is ambrosia. You are a liar, and an Internet ghost.

As already stated in the other comments, this is a really thought provoking post. Thanks for writing it.

Am I off your favorites list now?

LuluandPhoebe: Trust your instincts. Good advice, and I try to live by it. I do think the internet can be what we want it to be. I just don't know what that will look like.

Lisa Kern: Thanks, Lisa.

Floyd Eliott: I'm a moron and a lia?. I'd like you to verify that, please. Name calling is easy, and a bit beneath you, don't you think?

You are so concerned about my real identity, yet you haven't taken me up on my offer to PM me. I have nothing to hide here or elsewhere. Just ask any of the several dozen people here who know my real name. But you'll have to PM for that information too.

Floyd: I don't play the game that way. Sorry.

I don't get why it's a problem if someone wants to post under multiple identities. If they're a jerk on some of them, ignore, rebut or insult. As for connecting with others, well, there is someone behind every ID. So what if they have others. It's the internet. How is anyone being harmed?

Personally, I have enough trouble keeping my thoughts straight with one identity.

I didn't call you names; you'll note, as a (presumptive) teacher of writing, that there's an "if" in that sentence. "If you expect the truth about my life," you are indeed a moron, since I've declared on numerous occasions that I am just a guy that makes shit up. Given that I can't get the truth about your pseudonymous life, I think that's fair.

You are a liar because nothing you say can be verified. Tell me who you are--and not in a PM, because I have no personal relationship with you--and I might change that judgment. Until then, I presume you are lying to me, and possibly trying to sell me a bill of goods, about which I could not possibly care less. If you don't dare come out into the light of day, I will assume you are, like so many Internet vermin, a creature that hides under rocks.

Interesting post. Since I'm new to the blog forum, I have yet to consider this particular point. I also haven't developed close relationships here, though I have favorite writers. So far, I've found blogs to be valuable sources of ideas. Perhaps under the protection of a pseudonym, some writers feel more free to express those ideas. If that's the case, I'm all for it. But my objectives may change in the future and thus my opinion. Either way, good thoughts here.

As in 'live' life (I am using that instead of real life, as this is real, its just not face to face), you invite certain people in closer than you would others. The whole rooms of the house analogy. Sometimes you get burned, but invariably you learn or you keep getting hurt - the failure would be not to try (as Padraig said more eloquently). This is the nature of an online community as I've come to know it. I choose who I invite in, others will do the same, and to what degree.

A pseudonym here, for me, is no more than a nickname. I understand people have many reasons for using them - the most general being privacy (from employers, etc.) I, like you, choose to trust people in their sincerity, until such time they prove otherwise. If others choose to view this site and community differently, well, good for them, but to use their view as the only measuring stick is short-sighted in my estimation. As applied to 'live life', when I meet someone and they tell me their nickname is PJ and they grew up in California and graduated from Harvard, I will believe them. I don't go home and Google them. I will trust them until I have suspicion to believe otherwise.

Trust is indeed beautiful and I won't let others tell me what reality is for me. They can have their own view, jaded as it may be, but to proclaim what it is for others is an outstanding act of arrogance. I know many people who have online communities which help them through 12-step programs. A dear friend who had MS relied on that heavily until her last days when she passed at 46.

I am dearly grateful for the friends I have made here. I actually would prefer not to be anonymous, but I don't have that luxury. I am also grateful for open-ended conversations like this where we can look at the reality of this medium from incredible posts like this Emma. Thank you for allowing so much freedom to express what I needed to say. And, YES, thank you for TAGS, they help clarify a lot.

P.S. Hooray for old-fashioned. ;)

Emma, I'm rating this because it is certainly a post worthy of some thoughtful consideration.

I don't necessarily agree with everything you've put forth in it, but that isn't to say you're wrong; my agreement, or lack of it, doesn't prove anything.

I've been online for a pretty fair number of years now, and the majority of that time I've used a single identifier. Now, there are certainly a lot of Bill's out there, so I might have to point out specific ones as definitely being me or definitely not being me. But I'm there.

I take everyone at face value - I am more than willing to believe that you (not you specifically, this is the general "you") are who you say you are until there is evidence to the contrary.

I try to live by the same credo that Tom does: trust but verify. When it's possible to verify. Otherwise, I just cut the cards anyway and keep my eyes open. :-D

I've seen photos of many people that post here. So I know many of you are real people. Whether you have more than one account or not, G-d (and each person) only knows. I'm willing to believe that most people that I "know" here do not. But if some do, and it comes to light, I don't feel like I've been fooled and I don't feel insulted by it.

Robin Williams once said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time and jerk the rest off." I guess it all comes down to motivation.

Thumbed.

a name is just a handle, call yourself what you want, I'm sure we all have mental images of each other, not necessarily images of physical appearance, but presence, and we relate to those images

wearing masks is an ancient and honorable art, undertaken for many reasons, but speaking for myself, if I sense that the intent behind the mask is to sow confusion I'm likely to lose trust

Well Spoken!! People can be anything or anyone online, playing different games with people. I often thought "Do these people realize that there is another human being on the other side of this online world." People are deceived, hurt, betrayed, by many of the games people have played online. Does anyone ever think about that.
I use screen name instead of my real name, because of safety reasons. I know I have told you the reasons as to why I CAN NOT use my real name. The photo you see as my avatar is a real photo of myself. The photos of my grandchildren, daughters, and son-in-laws, are really "real pictures of my family.
The person I am on OS is the same person I am in person, "What you see is what you get." I don't pretend to be anyone but myself here on OS.
Thank you for this post..

>>Despite what you might think of me, I am not going to out my personal information on my blog simply because you want me to do so.

I don't want you to do anything; in fact, I honestly don't give the slightest of shits what you do. I merely note that you do not, for whatever reasons. I too have many reasons for not posting under my own name, and yet I do. If you don't have sufficient courage to stand behind your words, I suggest you confine your various musings about identity and the Internets to your group of PM-able friends. I don't care about your reasons: either you stand behind what you write or you do not. Unless you speak for yourself, as I do, you have no standing to call anyone a liar or a loser, and you are pulling a fast one with every word you write.

Lacey: Welcome to OS, and thanks for commenting.

Sparking: You have been through an awful lot here and elsewhere and you more than anyone know what can happen when you use your real name. I appreciate your comment greatly. I agree that it is preferable to use real names, but I need to feel a bit more confident about my pursuers before I can do that again. And who knows, I might just decide to say the hell with them and go for it anyway. But it will be MY choice.

Stellaa: You rock. I looked it up and Floyd joined in July, not long enough perhaps to have read anything I've written.

Bill S.: I appreciate your candour. I like that you don't agree with everything I wrote, and still made a thoughtful and polite comment on my blog. I love the Robin Williams' quote.

roy: I agree. Thanks for stopping by.

calm down, Floyd

and by the way, you did call emma a liar and an internet ghost, the "if" modified a completely different set of accusations and wasn't even in the same sentence as your name-calling

you're too dishonest to own up to your own words when they're a matter of public record, so stop throwing accusations around

I just love this. Thank you.

I'm quite calm, Jimenez. Sadly, you can't read:

I won't tell you the truth about my life, and if you expect the truth about my life, you are a moron.

Note the "if." Nor did I deny calling her an "Internet ghost." Again, do try reading; it'll change your life. As for calling her a liar, I did, and reiterated that accusation, and as long as she hides behind a pseudonym, continue to do so.

As for your accusation of dishonesty, kindly go fuck yourself. Honest enough for you?

I do believe that people can forge real connections on the internet, but I believe that they have to be a bit more aware of the possibilities of deception. I know that meeting someone in a bar can be deceptive, but we all know that the internet does allow someone the freedom and time to leisurely build the person they want to project to the world.
I do believe that writing under a pseudonym can be honest. I haven't thought this out enough, I'll admit, but what if a person writes under two different pseudonyms here but has different friends for each one and, instead of lying, just reveals a different side of themselves to each set? Is that much different than how a person acts with the people at work versus your old college roommate?

I appreciate this post and your position; it is very close to mine. I don't need your real name because in all you've written, you have seemed authentic and consistent. That is more important to me than your name and private details.

I also write without revealing my name. I choose to remain very private, but what I do reveal is the real thing. The thought of doing anything else feels wrong.

What's Floyd's problem?

Shoot, I just deleted a whole bunch of comment responses.

fireeyes24: We are on the same page, and I know that you understand. Words hurled here can hurt, deeply, I've learned to be more careful myself with what I say.

Floyd: I wasn't calling anyone here a liar or a loser or accusing them of pulling a fast one. I was speaking in general internet terms. Anyone who has read me for the past year knows that I stand behind what I say, sometimes to the point of foolishness. We'll have to agree to disagree. I still like your writing though.

Ah, stellaa, you too should try reading the words I actually wrote, rather than the ones in your head.

What's real is a name and a picture, and a voice.
Whether the name is yours, or the picture, the voice is yours.
You have one third of my interest, always.
Shallow as ever, your servant,

Floyd: This just occurred to me. If you blog under your real name despite all the risk involved, yet you do not tell the truth about your life, then what is the point of blogging under your real name? You are standing for deception in that case, which is your choice, but all the same it's kind of odd.

>>I can't change what other people choose to think or do, but I am free to express my opinion on what I don't agree with, which is being labelled a dreamer or an idiot for wanting social media sites and sites like OS to become more than just a collection of liars and losers who get off on pulling a fast one on anyone unfortunate enough to believe them.

Unlike your defenders, Emma, I can read plain English. You implication is that OS is "just a collection of liars and losers who get off on pulling a fast one on anyone unfortunate enough to believe them." These are your own words, in your own blog.

I'm happy to agree to disagree. And glad you like my writing, though in all honesty I'm uncertain why, given our fundamental disagreement about the nature of writing.

I write fiction, Emma. I make no claim to truth. The point is accountability; I stand behind my fictions, no matter whom they might piss off. You don't stand behind your so-called "truths."

You may find fiction "kind of odd," but it has been rather mainstream in Western literature for several hundred years now.

Delia: Oh, I agree. I'm skeptical at best, I was born that way. But I still do try to suspend total disbelief until I have reason to. I've learned the hard way many times about being too trusting yet I'd still rather err on that side of the equation. But as you know, I don't believe every sob story that comes my way at OS or elsewhere. :)

SuznMaree: I think most readers can sense authenticity. When I write from my heart as you do, that is always when I get the most response. I'm a journalist and I can write in all kinds of styles and voices, but it's never as powerful.

kim gamble: Well put.

TokenTarheel: You made me laugh and I take your point. I don't work that way, but I can understand why some people do.

I wonder if it's an age thing. A certain generation is still coming to terms with the virtual world, whereas a younger generation doesn't think twice about it--it is the extension of their real world.

Personally, I've met more cads and frauds and ne'er-do-wells in my real life than online. I don't think that physical presence gives any more of a real indication of who is genuine and who is not. In both cases, that takes time and experience. There are many things that can be determined by a person's written voice. That's why we fall in love with certain writers. Because we know they're telling the truth.

Also, anyone whose real name is in print in whatever venue is at risk of harassment. I learned this the hard way in the first days of my publishing career when my name and phone number and address(!) was still in the phone book. There were all sorts of people who thought it was ok to contact me with propositions and even threats after something I'd written appeared in the paper. I too am anonymous here, for my own pleasure and freedom. I fully support your anonymity, EP.

And as far as alter egos, as long as no one is getting hurt or harassed or deceived in nefarious ways, I have no problem with it. I haven't been here very long as a contributor but, like a good novel, I would find it interesting to go back an look for the clues I missed. Of course, I don't have time for that kind of hunt, but it could be interesting, no?

Floyd: Condescension doesn't become you. Nit pick it all you want but that was NOT my implication. I had forgotten that you write only fiction. Many of us write all kinds of things about our real lives, I know that I do, so perhaps we have even more reason to be careful about our identities. And yes, I do know what fiction is. Sheesh.

Floyd, I'd just like to throw my own two cents in regarding anonymity:

I have absolutely no problem with it. And I'll gladly tell you why:
If what the person has to say is valid, and they can provide a decent supporting argument (with citations when necessary) then it doesn't matter who they are.
If what they have to say is bullshit, and they can't support it anyway, it doesn't matter who they are.

Yes, I agree, we should be accountable for what we say. But if someone is consistently the same identity, for me that's enough accountability. If it should come down to legal status, any of us can be nailed. There are ways to make it difficult, sure - but in the end we all have an identifying signature in a packet whizzing through the ether.

Ah, Emma, as usual, the fact that you post anything brings out the stinger in others... You are quite provocative, my dear! Yet, what you have said is your opinion and in your tag, you state clearly that it is indeed your opinion. I appreciate your clarity of thought as written.

You called what I write "deception," Emma. I corrected you; it is fiction, even when I write autobiographical essays, even when I write political opinion. If you feel stupid about that, you probably shouldn't have attempted the point. I see no need to use strong language like "sheesh."

Bill, I have no problem with anonymity either. Unless the pseudonym in question thinks to lecture me about honesty.

I read you because you write very well. If you write well under six other different pen names I will continue to read you. If you lie about a fact in a post I will call you on it; a post never lies. It is either a well written post or not; I don't care who wrote it.

I have made so many friends on OS, most know my real identity and I know theirs. Not knowing the real identity of the rest has no bearing on their honesty as writers.

The losers and the liars are those who not only write crap but also intentionally refuse to acknowledge some of the great talents we have on OS. Yet talent always wins.

Well written as usual.
Rated.

Yes I do totally understand, and yes we are on the same page.
The hurtfulness, vicious and cruel personal attacks on people, not to mention the games that have been played on OS. It leaves a lot of us thinking twice about what we say, or write about to avoid being attacked and hurt.
So we are basically "Self Censoring" ourselves. What happened to freedom of speech and the right to have your own opinions and point of views. There is a difference between attacking someone and debating a subject. Isn't that giving someone else the control over what we think, feel, say and write about?
Then there are the games people have played with peoples hearts,and lives, leaving behind lots of destruction, devastation and deep hurt. Do they ever stop and think that there is a "real" life person on the other end, right smack in the middle of the game, and they didn't even know that they were in the middle of it.
It is all disgusting and disturbing to me.
What has OS turned into? Tabloids and Soap Opera? Sure looks like both of them now.. It wasn't like this when I join up a year ago. Back then it was about the writing, and the talent we all showed each other and the encouragement, inspiration and caring that we show one another. Is that all gone now?
Okay I have been rambling. And OMG! I might have said too much, or the wrong things, so now I have to shake in my desk chair being afraid that someone will attack me..

SMILES!!!

reluctantmuse: I think you have a point about the generations. I've met a lot of phonies and con artists in real life too. In the 30 years I worked as a journalist, it was hard not to. Thanks for commenting, it is much appreciated.

TheBarkingLot4: I knew that some people would try to interpret it as a personal attack and it isn't. It really isn't.

Thoth: I tend to agree with you. I am more than happy to be called on any inaccuracies on my posts, just as I am wide open to any disagreements. I don't get off on the personal mudslinging, but after 25 years writing in media under my REAL NAME, there isn't much I haven't heard.

Floyd: You know, I always say what I think and damn the consequences for the most part. I operate almost purely on principle. It has cost me jobs, friends, men and you know what? I don't regret any of it. I did what I thought was right. If you honestly think that I am a liar because I don't use me real name here, I can't change that. But it richly ironic to anyone who knows me personally, or has ever read anything that I have written here or under my real name. There is NO difference. None.

Correction: 30 years I worked as a journalist.

"That's why we fall in love with certain writers. Because we know they're telling the truth." -Reluctant Muse

Thank you new friend, I have been fighting for these words. This is important because this is a writer's site. For me, I know when someone isn't writing the truth. You can feel it. Even in fiction. I don't mean to say they are not allowed to conjure up whatever reality they want, but you can feel whether they are truthfully invested. There is something to that.

One of my favorite pieces of literature is Chapter 34 out of East of Eden. It is 3 pages and can be read as a stand-alone piece. The truths are universal, profound, and gorgeous. You can feel the investment of the writer and the authenticity of the soul who expressed it.

Yes, there is something to that. Truth vibrates at its own frequency, it needs no introduction. I believe love is the only thing which vibrates higher.

Well, as a journalist, you might want to note the easily verified fact that I started here in May (actually joined in February 2009, but didn't put up a real post for several months), not, as you stated, July. I mean, facts are important to journalists, right? Or am I just being condescending again?

I agree... just as in unvirual land, you have to sense who you can trust and who you can't, the same is true here. Early on I took down original posts because I sensed this was an unsafe place. Today (of all days it turns out) I reposted my first because I came to trust a few people. I believe it is possible to become friends in this place. But I will always prefere to be in the same room, look into their eyes and "feel" whether they are for real.

Karin: I usually rely on my gut too. You are one of the most honest people I know and when your internal lie detector is pinging, I take heed.

fireeyes24: You are very brave and I say don't let anyone censor you. Then they win and that would be a shame. I've felt that way too at times and it's hard, but don't give in. hugs

Sparking: Beautiful comment. I will read that East of Eden chapter. That book had a big influence on me as a young girl. And I agree with you and muse about authentic voice. It's real. Yes, people can be fooled, but not forever.

Floyd: I stand corrected. I didn't scroll down the page far enough. Please accept my apologies.

Lady Dove: I hope that you will continue to feel safe enough to post here.

That argument consists of denying that there are real people behind computer screens who have real feelings about the writer and what they read, and real reactions to finding out that they have been fooled.

I know you didn't write this about any one thing, but speaking on the cartouche thing - that's what really got to me. People were saying it bothered them and it just flat out didn't matter. Oh, the praise was fine and dandy, mind you. But, not a single actual response to the ones that it hurt. Those people who actually invested. Yuck. Well, they know they weren't invested in now and that sucks.

I've been here for almost a year and a half and in that time I'm not going to make a connection with someone? We learn about people's lives, their passions, their art and we should react in no way, shape or form to it? Nice try on that spin. Sure, people are going to let us down when we do let them in - but I'M NOT A FUCKING ROBOT. What you see is what you get with me and I guess I'm "stupid" for expecting the same. But, the ones calling me stupid aren't really all that intelligent anyway, so I'm okay with it.

Oh, and if it was "just about the writing", then that second account wouldn't need to comment or rate or cultivate other relationships with anyone. Right? They'd just write.

AndNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent: Thank you. Sorry I didn't respond to you earlier.

Indeed I do, Karin. I believe I can honestly say I've seen Taco Bell commercials about which I've cared more than your declaration, and I haven't been to a Taco Bell in 10 years. I'm so sorry that you can't deal with anyone disagreeing with your goddess.

I see blogs the same way I continue to see books, articles, diaries, confessionals, fictions. Unless I have a real-world relationship with the writer, I have no idea what is truth, what is fiction, what is delusion. Regardless, I can still glean from the writing things that resonate, things that are beautiful, things that make me think, things that make me laugh, things that have a universal meaning.

I appreciate truth, honesty and good will from blogs, but I don't expect it from anyone with whom I have not first established trust - the trust of a real-world friendship.

A real friendship is something one creates face-to-face, not online. In face-to-face, real-world intimacy, one can read cues in behavior, tone, expression. Over time we manage to establish trust, let down the guard, find warmth, expose vulnerabilities. We are not just told what is true, we can see what is true - for ourselves. We get to know someone.

Only a fool would look to a perfect stranger's blog to find the whole truth; an anonymous reader has not earned that kind of intimacy. The greatest truths of literature are filtered through the medium. We do not imagine that love or perfect trust has been established between ourselves and the author. Blogging or Open Salon are not the proper arena for the fulfillment of that kind of need. Persons desperate to establish intimacy and perfect trust are deluded to think that they can do it through a blog. They'd be better off on a psychiatrist's couch.

Julie: I am not going to go down this road, but I thank you for your passion, your principles and your honesty. You know we are sisters under the skin that way.

Monsieur Chariot: Thank you for your eloquent comment. I agree with much of what you say about establishing friendships in "real" time with all the nuances of body language and behavior but I have been interacting on OS for more than a year. I have met several people here, several more than once. I have spent entirely too much time on this site and have interacted with several people many, many times a day in that period. I have talked to them on the phone, on Skype and in chat.

I don't think there can be perfect trust online just as I think it is also difficult in the real world. That said, I trust my husband perfectly -- and that has been quite a leap for me. I am not simplistic enough to suggest that everyone here should believe everything that anyone says or does and trust them implicitly. I don't expect that from the real world, much less the blogging world. But I can honestly say that I have made real friendships here based on mutual respect, even when we disagree. I don't think that makes me deluded.

My point was that to approach OS without any consideration at all for the people behind the computers is not the kind of place I want to frequent.

I meant to say that I have met several bloggers here in person, some more than once.

I completely agree with that last statement of yours, emma, about not wanting to frequent a place that has no regard for the people behind the computers. Well said.

Whether people blog under a psuedonym or not doesn't strike me as very important. I don't base whether I believe or trust or like a blogger based on whether their avatar is a 'real' name or picture. It's up to each of us to decide who to trust, and when, and why. How we choose to do so is unique to each of us, and it's up to us to question if we're being reasonable in our decision to trust or not.

Emma,
I really appreciated your post. After purchasing my first internet computer it took me a while to understand that the anonymity of the internet was no excuse for a lack of integrity.

There is a convenient, and I believe false, distinction made for the online experience.

We describe everyday living as “real” and online life as something else.

And yet real people are behind avatars online. Real people who interact with other real people. Other than “bots’ everyone is real. And real people are always subject to real feelings, responses and reactions.

To assume that because we are online another set of rules apply, I believe is not only hurtful to others but hurtful to ourselves. It creates a duplicity in our living. And that is never healthy.

This aspect of human interaction has nothing to do with writing fiction or non fiction. It has to do with assuming responsibility for the fact that the people we interact with are real.

Rated and appreciated.

I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what I want to say because it's hard to type with my eyes rolling around.

Bottom line, if you're writing a construct of fiction, then fine. Clue in the reader to that fact. If you're in the camp that all writing on this site is to some level fiction, then fine. Perhaps a good dose of skepticism would do everyone a bit of good. My rub with this whole thing is based when the explanation of the current controversy is that it was done to give voice to another side of a writer. Then we get schooled on what is and is not reality. Give me a friggin' break. The writer didn't need to construct a entire false entity to write humor. And yes, the character was carefully constructed to have what appeared as a 24/7 life OUT THERE, you know, beyond OS. Remember that? The real world? Why is that? I don't pick up books of fiction that are marked as autobiographical with a asterisk pointing me to page 486 that reveal that it's all be a ruse and huge portions of the story are fiction with bits and bobs of reality.

I've stayed away from this whole episode because I do have the Freaky Troll account. Of course it's always been clear who that is, and I would hope that no one is really invested in "truths" revealed on her account. Of course, who is to say if it exists in our minds that Freaky is the reason for the breakup of Jen and Brad that it's not the collective reality? pfffftttt

And I know that some of you are going to point out that my dialog in my mom posts aren't transcripts and for that I say that's damn straight. If I posted that the blog entries would rival that of our own dear, and horribly missed, Marguerite Arnold (come back Marguerite, all is forgiven). I would qualify that the editing and tweaking I do doesn't push my posts into the realm of fiction, you could probably argue differently. And you can if you want to and I'll say pfffftttt to you too.

This whole thing has made me mad because you get to pick ONE SIDE in this. Either you really hate what happened and wish for full disclosure, or you think that the people that engage in this are clever little fuckers that should have their egos stroked and feelings soothed - but if you give that pass, then back off with all the pushing around about pseudonyms or non-picture avatars. If fiction that passes for reality is fine for one writer in your approved list, then it damn well should be fine for everyone in the god damn place.

What Dennis said! Every single word.

::sigh:: He's so dreamy.

If the internet were a party, it would be a dangerous masquerade, with a wild mix of society's most brilliant minds, its deathless bores, its clowns, madmen and murderers. Because of the masks, the costumes, one has no idea who is who - ID is not required at the gates. Perhaps that is part of the fun? When I think of it this way, I find it a little easier to navigate.

tad: Word.

I must be getting tired. I keep accidentally deleting responses to comments.

Dennis: You said exactly what I wish I had said, especially this: To assume that because we are online another set of rules apply, I believe is not only hurtful to others but hurtful to ourselves. It creates a duplicity in our living. And that is never healthy.

Sandra: As always, a pithy insight.

Kathy: Thanks.

Monsieur Chariot: I like your metaphor. I may use it myself.

tequilaanddonuts: You make many good points. I appreciate your candour and your wit.

On the contrary, my dear Stellaa - they are put to the test!

First...Dennis, are you married? (Sorry Julie, I'm fickle, or something else...)

The singular thing which has bothered me about this last episode is that people are attacked for doing the one thing of which the post in question invited us to do (although in a passive-aggressive way), "comment". I did. I was honest. I know there were people who felt differently than they posted because they were PMing me - too afraid to say what they wanted to for fear of retaliation? When did this happen on OS?

Then, there is all this general commentary which isn't conversant, but baiting, defending, and attacking, toward other commenters. This is supposed to be about one person's "trip" - and somehow it turns into a few people's codependent rush to share how their opinion is more right than others. I don't understand that especially when direct questions were not being answered and the issue was about deception, not pseudonyms and avatars and "humor voice" to which I also say...pfftt. It simply didn't add up for me - it was right in the comments as Julie clearly pointed out.

One of the most important things I try to do, when I share an opinion, is to ensure I say "for me". It allows people room to breathe and for a conversation to be had. This is how I've been able to discuss politics successfully for so many years.

This spirit of conversation didn't happen today and I have to say, I believe much of that was by design. It sucks and it tears down the foundations of community building, something that person, or excuse me, "persona," has made a pastime of here. Yucky.

is deception typical of the internet? when there was no internet and people met people, did fraud not happen? impersonations can happen anytime, anywhere bec it is in humanimal nature to want to use acting and camouflage when they feel threatened or are in the 'hunting' or 'preying' mode. why malign or underestimate or undermine the power and reach of the internet? it is only a tool to use the way - ALL possible ways it can be used.

and no "trust" takes courage to submit oneself, to another person, it is never naive; being credulous is naive, credulity and trust are different. Trust is a decision one takes, a choice one makes, it can be misguided, misplaced but never naive. Naivette is when one does something without knowing enough. When one decides to trust, one will have considered some things, the decision is based on thought. However, if the premise of those thoughts be 'not good', then the 'misplaced trust' thing happens.

Emma, this is topical and I continue to enjoy reading you, I cdnt go away today without taking a peek when I saw the new post at JME's sidebar.

ooops, sorry, correction: "and no, "trust" takes courage to submit oneself,..."

I'll be honest. I just stayed away because i am not really a writer. I just want to post some writing and get feedback. That being said. I PM'd O'Really that I was dealing with a cancer scare too. She admonished me for not sharing it with the OS group although she was not really sharing herself. Why do I care? I was a lonely women reaching out to someone who I thought could relate to me. Of course I was not "Cartouche" or " O'Really" I was just a women who had cancer. So I guess the experiment worked for her.

Sparking: I really don't want this post to turn into a bash of anyone. I hear what you are saying and I agree with some of your points, especially about some people being afraid to express themselves for fear of what might happen. Adding "for me" is a a very wise piece of advice.

rolling: You're right, deception happens everywhere. Thanks for reading and commenting.

rita shibr: I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm even more sorry that you have cancer. I've had two cancer scares myself, but it was before I was at OS. I'm not sure how I would handle it, but I suspect I would tell a few people and not blog about it. But I can't really know.

Thank you for this, Emma. I believe the internet is a renaissance for the arts and culture. I think we can choose that as individuals, or not. I choose the freedom of expression I am afforded here, and I have learned a lot about how I want to pursue that, and some hard lessons by going down the wrong road. I have especially learned the truth of the old saying: If I don't stand for something, I'll fall for anything. So, I keep standing. xox

Thanks Emma for the appreciation about being real. Just fucking. real. When I write to someone about having cancer it is real. It is the internet but guess what, I think humanity is the ticket.

Floyd makes me contemplate the difference between a rodent and a troll (NOT our Freaky Troll, of course).



Emma's post is rated. The less said about Floyd's comments, the better.

This is pretty much the way I felt when I found out Freaky was T and D. Just kidding. I do agree with you on this. I have made what I consider to be true connections and friends here on OS, and I cannot really imagine wanting to mislead them somehow. No one likes to be made to feel foolish or gullible for whatever reason. I also think it's more important to feel real trust for online friends than to be aware of their "true identity."

Love your tags Emma.

I responded on Cartouche's blog twice. At first, it seemed a bit clever to me. Then I went out to run errands and found myself thinking repeatedly about it. Here's what I posted there:

I just can't read all of the responses, but I have read enough to understand how folks feel about this and I have been thinking about it for a while. I guess I really wish you hadn't done it in this way because it has disturbed people I care about here.

Personally, I wasn't invested in, or really friends with either of your personas, so I have no standing to feel betrayed in any way. But, I like to think there is an opportunity to get to know folks here, like you did on that trip to Las Vegas, and even without actually physically meeting folks, I like to feel that it is safe to let my guard down here somewhat, even though there are trolls here who have come after me.

What suddenly occurs to me is that my native BS meter, aka intuition, probably warned me off, because you have a lot of characteristics of the women I have been closest to in my life and yet I wasn't drawn to follow your writing or to make friends. Your writing has been an occasional read for me and not something that I follow, like Stellaa, Emma Peel, Monte Canfield, Bill Beck or Dr. Spud. I share this because it may give you some insight into the consequences of what you did.
...

I feel much the way you do Emma and I appreciate what Padraig writes on the subject here very much. I use my own name. I started doing that at least 14 years ago because I didn't want anything I say on the internet to be different than what I would sign in a document or say face to face. I stand by that decision.

This week I have been called a liar by a troll, so I am hoping that such an event will handle that issue for a while. I feel that some of us draw some controversy because we are in as unguarded a way as we can find without opening ourselves to danger. There are scary and sometimes threatening people here sometimes and I have had trouble with a few, but I can't let that inhibit my participation. There is value to be had here if we don't play small and cynical.

PS - Padraig, you are one of my favorite writers here too. Such great insight you have!

Robin: I like that saying, I'd forgotten about it. I've learned a few lesson here the hard way myself, and I'm still learning.

Rita: Yes, humanity is what it's all about.

markinjapan: Thanks for the read and the rate.

latethink: You have summed it up well.

Dr. Susanne: I think you are right about why some of us attract more controversy than others. I appreciate that you follow me. I don't want this blog to become a bash of anyone though, because it isn't meant to be about anyone in particular. Padraig is a favourite of mine, too. I'm glad he's around more often again. I respect you for your strong opinions and your ability to stand by them under your real name. That takes courage.

Well that was so long I missed a typing error. The word "in" should have been preceded by "involved here" in the sentence in the second to the last paragraph:

"I feel that some of us draw some controversy because we are involved here in as unguarded a way as we can find without opening ourselves to danger."

Once again I wish the comment window were larger.

Back in early November, I wrote a blog about my own concerns with being who 'you' are with people you interact with and being aware or beware of people who are not who or what they say they are online or in life - actually, I wrote several blogs. I have been duped over the years and have made a fool of myself with men I have met online because I was foolish enough to take them at face value and their word but from those painful experiences, I did learn to often recognize the recurring signs in others through their words and actions. I felt betrayed and disoriented. One book that I found helpful in identifying these people in real life and online is "Emotional Vampires." I needed to read a book like that after tangling with a man I had met online and made the mistake of actually meeting and then dating briefly but long enough to be mentally wounded in a big way.

OS is full of very sensitive, kind and loving people who open their hearts easily. Artists, writers and creative people are like that but unfortunately we also look like a great potential feeding ground. The difference between two people genuinely relating and reciprocating and someone draining and using another person can be observed over time and interACTION. We all need to take CARE - be careful - while we are caring, writing and sharing here.

I am always looking for quotes for the wise. Words of the wise - wisdom - small reminders to keep in mind when interacting with others and minding my own conduct in those interactions. We are all going through tough times and challenges as humans and need to guard our own hearts so we can be strong and healthy for ourselves as we reach out to others. One of the quotes I try to keep in mind despite my foolish heart is:

"Above all else guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." -- Proverbs 4.23

The other one I recalled and used in November in writing:

"An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind." -- Buddha

I agree that the argument against being able to make true friends online is ridiculous and offensive, however, I come here to write, create and experiment with the craft that I enjoy. For that reason I am not offended if/when people fess up and say they are more than one person or that one of their blogs was fictional. It demonstrates a skill in their writing.

In many cases on this site, people with more than one blog are writing about true events in their lives and are genuine when responding to PM's and comments.

Great post though. You made me think about the other point of view and realize that other people blog for reasons different from my own motivation. Thanks. R.

Ah that's right, now I remember who sparking is. Sparking has what you all consider "good" reasons for having multiple alias'. It amazes me that sparking was so vehement about others who chose to do the same for their own reasons.

Consider this - I was going to comment that parts of your story Emma, sound exactly like an ex-poster here. Which is what finally helped me remember that that one is now sparking. Which also made me wonder what if .....

Initially I wondered if Emma might also be the other ex-poster, in a "just kidding - sort of" way. Please note that finally having made the sparking connection, I have purposely not named the ex I am thinking of.

Anyway, I would suggest that the conversation might be better served if we substituted the word "genuine" for "real".

@Kelly - with all due respect and as a person who uses the word, genuine - the word's definitions seems fitting to the topic at hand:

1 a : actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character b : actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author c : sincerely and honestly felt or experienced d : actual, true
2 : free from hypocrisy or pretense : sincere

synonyms see authentic

@Kelly - I think we are agreeing that the word, genuine is closer to what, maybe you and I might prefer to adhere to, at least for ourselves?

Although I may wish that others conduct themselves in a certain way when interacting, I do know I can not control what others do or say. I can only control myself and that takes a lot and enough effort for me at times - just minding myself.

I think this post is very right, Emma. We do have to keep putting ourselves forward to get to good things. Cynicism will get us if we don't watch out.

"It is more shameful to distrust our friends than to be deceived by them." Confucius

Ditto.

As always, yours is an excellent post, Emma. I met my husband over the Internet in September 1995; we were married in December 2001. At best we spent about three to four weeks together each year. So most of our relationship was the internet and phone calls. I have found the net a wonderful way to communicate with old friends and my extended family.

Long ago I realized I had to choose between love and fear, trust and mistrust. My belief in love and trust is absolute. Nothing that has happened on OS or in my 64 years can shake that choice.

In the present case, I never read one persona at all, so I wasn't affected. I live in the glass house of my manicy dual identities, e.g, Cassandra Woolf. Even Mary Wollstonecraft, a group blog of which I am basically the corresponding secretary, has caused some misunderstanding and resentment.

This is a very rough one for me. In real life I'm extremely committed to honesty. I never lie about my status or puff myself up in any way. I actually go in the opposite direction- if someone compliments me on 7 jeans or something I'll just constantly feel compelled to tell the complimenter that I got them at the goodwill. Hard to explain, but I just really hate pretense and try my best to avoid it in myself and others. But, when it comes to writing online or offline I have this what seems to be an artistic impulse to create characters and speak through them. I have two blogs where in one I'm a leftist anti plastic activist from Napa and one where I'm an idiotic gay man from West Hollywood. On stage, I've been an Iranian Hungarian comedian. So, my point, I think, is that we should differentiate between the liar who wants to decieve you and the writer who sometimes needs such a device.
Then you have to differentiate between the nutty liar who is just insecure and the liar who wants to gain something by his lies.

It's all a mess and we have no choice but to have trust and faith. Anybody who tries to make you out as a fool for possessing these things is either defensive(because they are bad and want to put the blame on your for trusting their kind) or they genuinely trust no one and that isn't something enviable, eh?

I made a mistake last night. I did not know what had happened, and my first reaction was to take things "lightly" - I left a comment on Torman´s blog about it- : someone wanted to explore the possibilities of her writing by opening a another blog; well, no problem with me... The problem is, I did not stop at that moment to consider. After leaving this opinion trivial opinion of mine I visited the blog in question and read the post, felt its tone, and then the saw the reaction of bloggers. And I understand why some people might feel used or fooled.
I think that art is free to "explore" different voices, different elements and textures, but the use of that freedom should always involve thinking of some consequences, because in those explorations, we are interacting with each other, we are creating connection with flesh and bones people, and people have a heart.
I am sorry for what happened, and it hurts that some people feel they can´t trust anyone anymore; Open Salon is a writing platform, yes, and is is also a community, both things at the same time: art and people, both dimmesions together.
So I am sorry I left a light comment about the topic before really knowing what was going on; word prevails and have an impact, I (also) should remember that at all times.
Kissees and thanks for this good post.
Marcela

Interesting, thought-provoking post, Emma.
I'm still not convinced you are real.
I kid, of course ;-) Kudos on handling the varied responses.

@JK: Sounds like a win-win situation. ;-)

This was an interesting way to express yourself.
No it wasn't.
Yes it was.
I'm mean it wasn't you.
No you didn't.
Stay out of it.
No you stay out of it.
I am, it isn't me.
Is so.
No it's not .
Yes you are.
You are.

I think Leonde had an interesting point when she mentioned emotional vampires. One of the tricky things in life is negotiating an over-all balance between the giving out and the taking of *energy*, which requires being both trusting and careful - and taking risks and knowing sometimes you'll be hurt (which few people will be sympathetic to, given that they're being careful with investing their *energy*).

Actually, my outlook generally is that people are very sensitive - to their own hurts. But for other people's hurts - not so much.

And that's legit - people sometimes get hurt by impaling themselves on some perfectly innocent and oblivious spike.

Eh, I could go on, but it would just be a tangle...

I think about a particular person I know who just Gives Out, overlooking things that would get the offenders on my *list*...and he gets back positivety in abundance. I see this...but yet I keep my *list* and tend to horde my *energy* ... oops, I guess hording energy is sort of the opposite of hoarding... owell.

This is a need-a-nap comment. And if I have any sense (and I do have a certain amount) I won't speak further.

I really appreciate this post, Emma, it's connected to so many things I've been thinking abut lately. The truthfulness of memoirs and personal writing has been the subject of hot debate for eons, even before blogs came along. We all create personas when we write. And there are plenty of good reasons for why people use avatars to disguise their identity—privacy, fear of reprisals, a desire to speak openly without family members or a larger reading public cottoning on.

What matters is one's intention in writing and, I hazard, one's desire to get at the truth, even if details are finessed or dialogue is edited. It's about creating some ethical standards for how we relate to others, whether online or off.

I don't think you're a fool at all.

I don't think the internet is less safer or more dangerous than the real world. You can meet people in real life and they can lie to you about who they are. They can create whole personas for one set of people and then be a different person elsewhere.

As far as the internet being a waste of potential, I suppose reading is a waste of potential as is watching tv, talking to your friends, looking at pictures in a gallery...

Brilliantly stated and very thoughtful. We can't change or control what others do, think, or feel and you have captured that here.

Emma, my apologies if some of my language was too strong in my last comment. My point was not to bash anyone, but to be clear in using the example which many of us had been stung by and what had bothered me the most about how it affected the overall security of this community (which I thought spoke to your post). I believe a few other people referenced that example, I was, at the moment, doing my best to do the same. I will do better in the future.

@Kellylark - this issue is not about me and coming after me for the second time is not a good use of your time. You may want to protect your friend, fine, that's on you. But, don't go running around making this about me. I had the temerity to ask my questions out in the open and have made my reasons perfectly clear for needing a pseudonym. I was HONEST with this community. Deception and pseudonyms are two different things. So, leave me alone Kelly Lark. You came after me once, I heard your point, although much of what you said was not true and you didn't take the time to ask me anything first, just made a bunch of assumptions, and then you told everyone you would PM people and you never PM'd me. So, my integrity is not in question here. Period.

And, I am not using multiple aliases. I closed the other blog and started a new one. I let everyone on OS know that I was associated with and let everyone who comments on my blog know. That is called full disclosure. I made a switch for reasons of harassment. That is the reason many of us have pseudonyms. So, I would be careful what you think you know Kelly Lark just because you weren't "kept in the loop." I never knew you before you came after me based on many assumptions before.

Emma, I completely appreciate how you feel but I look at the situation differently. I decided to use my own name simply because I wanted to be myself. I understand, though, that others need to feel less vulnerable in order to express their deepest emotions.

When I found this place, I was thrilled (and I still am) to be able to have an audience for my writing and to engage in dialogues with other writers. I do think you can get to know people via the internet, but I guess my expectations for OS were more about improving my writing and learning from others. The social aspect of this site was an unexpected bonus for me. I don't take that part of it too seriously and don't get hurt or surprised when people do things that may not be acceptable in the non-virtual world because to me, that's all part of the creativity of being a writer/poet/painter/artist. I feel there is a creative license that basically says people can write however they want here.

Being a sort of loner, maybe I just don't allow myself to get too invested in individuals here. But I also don't believe that anyone here would intentionally set out to hurt others or play with their emotions. People usually have reasons for what they do, whether consciously or not, and I think, for the most part, people on OS and in the outside creative world are all just trying to do their best and get by in their world. Of course there are some cruel, hateful people who intend to do harm but I don't think they are on OS.

This is a thoughtful post that has touched on interesting issues, many of which will never be definitively resolved.

Emma, what have you done to poor Floyd? The man(?) looks like a jilted lover, dragging his wounded balls behind him as he follows you around like a lapdog.

There's content for a blog post here, surely.

We live in an interesting culture emma... Understanding reality can be tough on the psyche, hardly the best food for the soul... I think I know your name, certain you mine... People have many reasons for concealing their identities, many practice to deceive, a few let us down... I'm cool with that, but perpetual fraud on the community is usually not well received...RRR

Thank you for this, Emma. The question is not one of names and avatars, but rather of integrity: are we really who we say we are, or are we trying to get over on someone? That I write my blog under a pseudonym does not preclude me from being honest.

OS is my third foray into a social aspect of the internet.

My first was wayyyyyyy back in 1994 on Prodigy - I had 2 relationships forged on-line, one with a friend who upon meeting irl for whatever reason pulled back, and one that seemed headed for romance and so the plug was pulled.

Older and wiser, I am now active in a community of fraternity and sorority members. We often have "perps" - people who pretend to belong to this or that group. They are found out fairly quickly for the most part, but "prunetaco", aka Bruce Ivins the suspected anthrax killer, posted for sometime before the pieces were put together and we realized just who had been going on about Kappa. Almost no one posts under their real names - and a good thing, too, because we've had several scary incidents of internet stalking that went into real life. I post there under two names - one with my sorority affiliation, and one without. I use the one without when I don't want what I am saying to be filtered through or seen as detrimental to my sorority. Is that dishonest? Maybe - it's not meant to be. The second name has "sock puppet" as part of it, so everyone knows what they are dealing with when they engage with that name.

I post here under an assumed name here to free myself from possible fall-out from my job(s). I am a newspaper columnist, and my name and picture appear with every column. I love getting e-mail comments from readers, but will not read the anonymous comments on the website. Eh, if you are really interested in the way I treat comments here and there you can read my post on the subject.

Here you can judge me only by my writing, which is fine. Were I to use my real name I could not, paradoxically , be as honest because of my teaching position and my husband's line of work. I am more honest because I can write without fear of being called on the carpet at school.

It is not necessary to know the individual making an argument to judge whether the argument is valid. In fact, the advantage to not knowing the personal particulars of a writer is that you will not fall as easily into the fallacy of argumentum ad homnium .

As to the dust-up here on OS - I haven't been here long enough, or haven't invested as heavily on a personal level as others, to understand why some have had such an intense reaction.

I love good comments and EPs as much as the next person, and I'm open to the idea that I might make a personal connection here, or not. I learned from a group #2 brouhaha that until you meet internet "friends" it's hard to judge how much of the person behind the name you really know - but that's true in real life, as well. Haven't we all been shocked by someone who turned out to not be who we thought he/she was? We all wear masks all the time - personas - and as has been stated I think a great deal depends on intent. Deception is the problem - and it is as possible to deceive under your real name as under a pseudonym.

Rated. Pretty much everything that can or needs to be said is already somewhere in the comments . . . carry on :~).

You're real, Emma; and I will vouch for your reality. I've made an effort to connect with some of our fellow OS'ers in meat space, and the results have been mostly rewarding; and thank you in particular for your hospitality. ;-) The media and the system thrives on spreading fear and distrust throughout society, and it is up to us to create our own reality. The internet is just another tool in our repertoire. I am saddened by the fear and loathing so evident in society today, and of course it spills over into cyberspace, because if you are suspicious and afraid on the ground, you are suspicious and afraid here. There's some reason, I acknowledge that; but fear get's in the way of all that is good and sweet in the world, and our own fear will deceive us more than anything else.

Write on.

Thank you, Emma, you articulated my thoughts exactly.

I've been away much of the day and was a little surprised everyone was still talking about this. I guess I shouldn't be.

The most important thing you emphasized here, emma, is that whatever the masks, there are always real people behind the keyboards. Real people. Well, except for bendan bendan. I continue to be amazed at what people will say to each other online that they would never say in person; the distance the technology provides seems to give people the idea they are not dealing with human beings at times. My concern in this situation is that people will pull back and invest less, particularly those who feel personally betrayed, or that it will make them more cynical.

BENDAN BENDAN NOT REAL? but his bargains seem so geniune!

I'm new here, confused, and bit unsure.
I am me only, one account, one person. That for me is more than enough to handle. ;-)

TY very much for this well written blog.

Well said.

Very well-said, Emma, and you been amazingly patient and gracious with your detractors in the comments. I admire your resolve not to be baited.
Rated.

I write fiction, so I'm a liar. I snark and I bore. But I don't intentionally try to hurt people, unless I feel I'm defending myself from an unjustified attack.

Floyd Elliott went out of his way to insult Emma. It was gratuitous and self-serving, altho I can't imagine that it won him any friends on OS. He is an arrogant, bullying, condescending ass.

Emma, thanks for posting this. I'm adding you to my favorites list so I can keep track of your writing. - Clark

Emma- You've put in your words, my own complex feelings over this new development.... Thanks.

I am not a writer so I see (and write) simply.

When I read Jocelyn Testes-Harder, I know I am reading fiction (and humor, and i GET it). When I read Emma's posts, I know she is sharing true events and emotions. And so on.

My first post on OS was the gut wrenching, worst moment of my life. I went anonymous (fortunately) because I knew there were dangers to using my real name. Still I put myself out there in every other respect.

So, I was shocked by the duplicity revealed recently. I assumed this was the second class of person who writes in OS, one of the people who wrote from the heart. I was open to justification as to why the need for two accounts, but I read "Gotcha!" between the lines...

I think there are several of us who are going to have a fistfight over Dennis....

The poster grif put it well in his initial comment on cartouches "coming out" post, in which he noted that cartouche struck him as self-centered and indifferent to most of the other posters here. I'd only been here about a week, but picked up on that seemingly condescending air, as well. O'Really? was amusing, but I never for a moment believed she was real. It didn't matter to me. as she was sort of a Johnny one note - quick with the sexual innuendos. Clever and often funny, but not engaging in any friendly way.

Then, watching the reaction from so many people after the revelation, I began to wonder if so many people would be feeling this way if cartouche had been more likeable.

I've been told by others here to expect a brouhaha on OS about every 10 days. When I first got here, there was a lot of buzzing about a post of cartouche's that complained about the appearance of favoritism, that some people got picked for the cover over others who were just as good if not better. My first reaction was, wow, this is certainly an active place. I read cartouche's post and some of the comments, and it came across as so much inside baseball that I didn't dip so much as a toenail into the water.

Then almost immediately afterward came the big misogyny dust-up with accusations flying hither and yon about what was going on behind the scenes, etc. This time, because I'd picked up enuf to understand that one has to toot ones horn in creative ways to get noticed, I used the misogyny "project" to try to get some attention, pissing a few people off in the process, but getting the attention I wanted and making a few friends, to boot. I then stuck a foot into a debate that sprang up about the "project," and quickly learned that it was still too inside baseball for a tyro like me, and backed out soon thereafter.

I've been a little more careful in this situation, which is much more of a shit storm than the other two I've witnessed.

If scanner was right, and there'll soon be more of the same on some other issue, I'll be better prepared - to do what, I don't know. Probly best to stay alert and keep one's options open as long as possible.

Hi, Emma, I did not know that there was an issue here until I read Cartouche's post tonight. After that I went back and tried to find posts of my friends that may have touched on the issue. Thus I found your post.

Nothing you say conflicts with my own views which I laid out as a comment on Cartouche's post tonight.

Well said, and well needing saying. Thank you for this post.

Monte

Wait...you're telling me Freaky Troll isn't real?

I have two blogs here at O.S. My main blog is written under the name on my birth certificate, with (usually) my real picture.

My second blog is written under a name I got out of the phone book, because "Leeandra Nolting" is an unusual name, I'm from a small town, and Google exists. I use it only for writing things that I have to get off my chest, but would not want linked with my name for all eternity on the internets. Merely changing other people's names and identifying details would not be enough to protect my friends' and family's privacy; thus, the alter ego. Some people on O.S. know that we're one and the same, most don't. I do say in my bio on the second blog that it's a nom de plume for an O.S. blog under a real, legal name.

Leeandra, I am shocked. Gasping for air...I...I...

Absolutely, though I may choose a nom de plume everything I have written is true unless it is deliberately fiction or as you say, creative non-fiction. To have a 'cover' or avatar identity allows me some freedom. I would not otherwise have this in terms of being truly honest with my feelings without them being by potential family or professional alliances and otherwise. There is a tradition of this in writing and anonymity provides some safe haven which works for me.

Highly rated.

I am so grateful for the real relationships and connections that I've made through OS. I've met several of these people and they've made an impact on my life.

I hope that I never lose the ability to trust, even after my trust is broken. We need to have that vulnerability. We need to connect.

Thanks for this honest post, Emma.

Your gift for remarkable insights and crisp writing is unmatched. Stunning. Beautifully worded. An important message that needed to be heard, from one of the most brilliant writers on this site.

I wasn't on OS much yesterday and didn't respond to comments. I am absolutely floored by the quality, honesty and thoughtfulness of so many of them. But I do want to be clear: I did not write this to attack anyone. It was spurred by what happened on Friday, an eon ago in internet time, but as I said in my introduction, I've been thinking about this subject for a long time.

I am slowly coming around to the idea that multiple identities are not inherently bad. My previous experience with them was intensely negative, but perhaps that said more about the people involved than the act itself. After reading many of the comments here, and reflecting more thoroughly on cartouche's reasons for doing what she did, I believe she did not intend to harm. I'm not going to say more because this post was not about that, but about a more general discussion of how people who blog want their "blogosphere" to reflect the communal experience.

@bartouche: cartouche, is that you? :)

This is a typically thoughtful piece which I want to have time to digest. Since much of my work life and (I guess) my social life is online, it's worth considering issues relating to not only honesty and transparency but also emotional investment.

interesting viewpoint

Emma

I write as myself. Sometimes I write "true" and sometimes I write "true enough" in the keywords, to keep myself relatively honest; that is, when I consciously altered facts or aspects, or made a writerly compression. As i write these words I realize: for some of my truest pieces, it doesn't occur to me to add "true" in any form.

One reason I track my words, check myself, is because I am, like everyone I ever met, read, or heard of, a liar. At times.

I share with you, in my most ecstatic and broken-hearted and hope-drenched moments, the conviction that we are real here behind the tappity-tap. That our words are transmissions from flesh and blood, and to forget that is too easy.

The internet is more than a means for that transmission. It is a superhighway of noise and flashing lights and pyrotechnics in a crowded box. We must pull over sometimes and get out of our capsules, remind each other that there is more than one speed, that some of us choose to peddle, not zoom.

But what an amazing place. If some choose to bling their packet, use tinted windows, drive in a second skin? It is what makes this place so extraordinary. It is both ancient and brand new, this sly human identity issue.

I think Spinoza is on to something when he writes of our conatus, the inescable me-ness that drives us. It drives you to write with passion, some pomposity and umbrage, and a much-needed clarion call for revealing our true selves, for never forgetting the trembling selves of others. But your "me-ness" is good for you. Not for everyone.

We drink deeply from the same well, of our shared humanity. But I do not despair of the internet or experiments with identity. i believe in everyday life we ossify in our Identities, lose sight of our choices to be who we are, just plod daily in our conatus coma. The net has given us freedom.

The more Identity work we do, the more aware we become. Consciously choosing our Identity, evolving our persona-- these are liberating acts. It is anti-statist, anti-nationalist. It is also the only way we can see ourselves as Identity-less, and one who shares a common Identity with all human beings.

Spinoza said the next step is to shed the Identity altogether. Shed is not the word (there is no paraphrasing of Spinoza that does not weaken his words); transcend or engulf might be better. But he also meant that Identity is a shackle to our humanity.

I love good writing. I can connect with anyone here solely through their writing, liar or not, avatarnished or not, constant and consistent or devilish and sly.
This OS in particular, is at once a brilliant cross-connectivity, a grand guignol theatre, a buffo opera, a quiet conversation at poolside, a dark whisper in a cheap hotel, a manifesto nailed to the church wall, a laugh at death, a rude gesture at eternity.

I allow everyone. I allow all identities. I am not sure about hierarchies, of enlightenment being a series of progressives steps. Am I "further along" than someone who writes under assumed names (what a perfect inherited phrase for us all)? Are they ahead of me, getting more out of the writing exercise that is all writing here on OS, by trying on Identities and Voices?

It is not about wrong or right, this Identity thing on OS. It is first about the writing. True Voice comes through, no matter what.

It is a choice we have, to bare ourselves, to be true and self-consistent. Who among us can do that, without fooling ourselves regularly? We can choose to try. I am drawn to this, the need to refute the smallness of my upbringing, to connect with humanity. The boy in me who felt so alone growing up, I guess; I feel a need to stand upright, and declaim. Usually. And bathe in the human voices who respond.

But we -- I-- can also try on as many Voices and Identities and Perspectives as email addresses allow. And in doing so, shed the ancient tyranny of our class, caste, means, introversion, arrogance, ethnicity, birthplace, fixed Identity. This is New. This is Good.

Our humanity is essential, and moronically predictable: a few simple shared needs and urges. Our humanity is also kaleidoscopic, colliding, nefarious, generous, costumed, sneaky, inventive, playful, wicked, and infinitely subtle.

Allow this, methinks.

My feelings are mixed on this because I think the author we're all speaking of was wrong, yet I don't believe what she did was SO wrong. It was an experiment. It was not created to take money or dupe or create emotional attachments she might profit from. She created a character that wrote humorously. And she did it for a few months and then revealed herself.

So I don't think this is a big deal. I think some of it was a mistake, my guess is borne of need. She needed to write this way, to explore this and this seemed to be the easiest way to do it without emotionally expending or having to explain anything, at least initially. She could get honest feedback AS a humor writer. That she was so successful is interesting to me but I won't go into that.

For me what Ms T and Donuts said was about the most serious of the objections in this debacle: that the writer created not only a character who wrote humorous fiction, but that this character detailed a (now we know) (probably) fictional life (maybe) (who knows?). So some people were duped, if - IF you were invested in the life this fictional character detailed. Otherwise, what kind of duping was this? That you thought an upper middle class woman was flying around, going on trips and falling in lust? This wasn't an emotionally charged blog. This was a blog about a well heeled woman musing about sex and relationships.

Like most of you my BS radar is on most if not all of the time. I don't like being lied to. BUT and I say this with deep respect for all of you, BUT I KNOW that I will be duped at some point. This isn't cynicism. This is reality. So my investments are careful and slow, WITH the (maybe cynical) expectation that things may not be what they seem or what I've assumed them to be. I create characters in my mind with the words I read here, but I know at any time it could be that someone or something turns out to be something I did not anticipate. And/or that they may be lying. I assume they're not, BUT I know there's a chance they are.

Why? Because the temptation to lie, the possibilities of anonymously creating a personna are just too easy on line. Think about it...if you fear revealing something about the yourself you've created here, you can create another "yourself" and reveal certain aspects of yourself. You can create a series of characters revealing various aspects of your personality, without revealing them all in one because that, THAT would be a BIG revelation.

This is nothing new. The words you use create you. This writer for some reason unknown did not trust to reveal certain aspects of herself. Maybe it made her feel too exposed. I daresay there are others here doing the same, revealing themselves in bits and pieces. But few are so vocal or well known or popular, at least that we know of. We just don't know.

I say give this woman the benefit of the doubt. She revealed herself. She explained why she did it, as flawed as this explanation was, it doesn't matter. People are flawed. WE are ALL flawed. She did not try to dupe anyone, suckerpunch anyone, laugh at anyone. She chastised. Okay. She does that. So what. Did you FEEL chastised? I didn't. I don't own someone else's shit. She's not perfect. She hasn't learned to walk on water. She's human. But she's a damn good writer. So give her that...that this was a dopey experiment and she gave it up pretty quickly, even though the character she created had taken on a life of it's own and she could have coasted on the popularity for a long time.

One last thing: I do respect that many of you would never create an alter ego to speak for you. I think I understand why: I have come to love my character that I am here. I KNOW I am a character that I am creating. And I am trying very hard to recreate myself here. My true self, my heart. And that requires me at my most fearless and courageous. The me that will tell you honestly and hopefully beautifully and if not beautifully then creatively who I am, what I dream and what makes me feel a certain way. I try very hard. And I have to admit, sometimes it's terrifying.

I posts here words I never dreamed I would or could. And I will continue, mixing how I say what I need to because it's not easy for me TO say it. So I keep trying every which way to find my language. Revealing so much of myself is not easy for me, someone who does not trust easily. So the temptation to create another name to say certain things HAS occurred to me. The only reason why I haven't and won't is because the endeavor requires entirely too much energy and organization and investment. I think, like the writer some of us are speaking of, in the end we are only one person, many personnas, but one person. And writing under another name would be as confusing to me as it is it would be to my readers, if they knew. So I haven't. But I understand the temptation.

Emma, thanks for the thoughtful post. This is an extremely provocative topic and interesting to me as all getout. It gets to the core of identity and creation and revealing the self and trust.

Obviously the mass posting of comments in response to your piece shows just how often we grapple with this subject. I too, use a nom de plume. I too, am an idealist. Keeping it simple since I'm late to the party and everyone else has already stated the many truths in what you wrote, let me just say WELL DONE and than you for bringing a different perspective to some of us. I'm sort of indifferent, but that doesn't mean I didn't identify with much of what you said. Rated!

What sometimes bothers me is how easy it is for people to create a whole new persona - and keep it going. I like to think my personality is so unique that it stamps itself in whatever space it's occupying, but obviously that's not true. If I took off my Madam Ruth hat and changed my avatar and name, no-one would identify it as me. The ease with which people can create new identities and have other people believe them says our identities (at least online) are nothing like as special as we like to think.

I'm with Stellaa. Fine, fine piece. Your opinions are getting so wonderfully pointed. Not that they weren't before, but I just see them becoming more fine-tuned.

As for you using a different name...hmm. Fine line there. I do understand the difference you postulate. I'm just not sure I totally agree. I 80% agree.

I've met some people online who have changed my life. That I've felt as bonded with as a close friend. But then I've also seen the flipside, as we all have, I'm guessing. People pointing the finger at me, asking "What did you expect? Come on. It wasn't REAL." And of course, that's always painful to hear.

But back to names...I don't know. I know if I used an pseudonym, I'd say entirely different things. In your case, I can hear "your voice." But with others, they hide behind their avatars too, sometimes. And that's frustrating.

As someone who is totally "outed", I feel frustrated that people think my pieces are 100% me and not me plus some creative embellishment. I've often played out real-life stories in a manner that pleased me more. Am I lying? No. It's MY creative choice. I just don't like my writing and my person to be entirely one in the same.

When my mom died, we found a journal of hers, where she raged on and on about this person and that (including a few of her children.) Everyone said, "God, we didn't know she was so unhappy." I said, "You can't judge a book by its cover...or contents. She was EXPRESSING herself. That wasn't the totality of her. She was getting it off her chest."

I'm rambling. Anyway, want to read the other comments. Thanks for this. Smart, sharp piece, Ms. "Emma Peel."

Whoa. Just finished the comments. Only took an hour or so. Holy shite. A girl leaves for a week or two and misses all the action!

It's interesting that there's not a lot of mention to Cartouche/O'Really. It felt like we were all avoiding the elephant in the middle of the virtual room. I mean, I'm guessing that's what this is all about?

As for Floyd, you know, I'd have to say, I hear a lot of his points. He just says it in such a profoundly dickish manner.

And frankly, I applaud the both of you for going there. Boxing in this ring. Why the hell not? If we can't argue and scream and debate and get angry, then what is it worth? We're not precious little porcelain dolls, are we? Throw down.

I agree that we all have our reasons for anonymity. Hell, I've had my share of ramifications. So one person's need for anonymity is no more precious than another's. It IS personal choice though - but once you make that personal choice, there are implications to anonymity too.

People using their real names are a little more "front line." That doesn't negate the output of others but it's true. It takes a little more balls. Or stupidity, I'm not sure.

I liked Monsieur's and Stellaas points. I like the charade analogy. Somehow that seemed like a bigger, broader look at this "game" we play, called life, fiction or non-fiction.

Monsieur, I hope you write a piece based on this mascarade party - its worth fleshing out and you'd do it brilliantly. Your comment is a work of art.

Lastly, I'd like to insert Floyd's response to me so I'm not caught by surprise later on (and Floyd, its one less thing to do.)

Floyd Elliot:

"Well, woopity fucking doo. Beth Mann "semi" agreed with me. Guess I can sleep tonite."

Eh. Let me work on this one.

Or...with all of the faces that we wear, do we even know who we really are all the time? Fooling others, we may end up fooling ourselves and then lose touch with everything that we are and may hope to be. Good post, by the way.

Or...with all of the faces that we wear, do we even know who we really are all the time? Fooling others, we may end up fooling ourselves and then lose touch with everything that we are and may hope to be. Good post, by the way.

Emma: You are the real deal and this was an intelligent thoughtful and very real post. So many things I agreed with wholeheartedly. Also appreciated the comments from Tom Cordle, Dennis Knight and Padraig. I do think there always needs to be a caution to "verify" as in any real life relationship. Ms. Chariot's comments I found to be the most spot on simply because he speaks of reality and not the stories we all create about one another because we want it to be that way. I see this as a wonderful community with a caution because it is on the Internet. I have met so many wonderful people in person, and like you emma, I'm just as "old-fasihoned"...and always naive. Great response to a needed and well done post.

I love my mask.
Expressing alone, in a room, with a pad and pen
Getting it all out with the clacking of the keys
Screaming into my pillow:
They all work – but not constantly.
Some days I need to scream and hear an echo,
even if it takes and hour…or two….or three
There are cold and rainy days when the space heater struggles to warm my knees
and I need to hear someone who sounds like me
Someone who knows this off-brand of pain
Someone who knows that they will taste it again and again
There is always someone
People are different, but pain,
pain is not unique; neither is joy.
Laughter and tears transcend language, location, experience, and history
and yes, even identity.
We do not put our love-crafted words online for other minds by accident
We intend to connect.
We beckon ourselves to imagine.
When we laugh and cry from words it is genuine
So, who cares if the author isn’t?
There are three identities for me on OS
I love this mask
It lets me express and connect
It has allowed me to be honest
When wearing a mask, one does see it in the mirror
I see my two overlapping OS masks when I brush my teeth
Writing here has let me be honest, with me.

Bravo for being, among other things, gifted and "naive." I think this definition of it fits your manner of naivety: "of or denoting art produced in a straightforward style that deliberately rejects sophisticated artistic techniques and has a bold directness...." Rated.

Thanks for all your wise words and support today, comrade!

Hi Emma,
I'm late to the game, but I enjoyed the candor of your piece. With me there is no avatar...what you see is what you get, so my kids and family can not be embarrassed to read it. Thanks for your thoughts!

Shew. I'd take a break after this post too. That's a buttload of comments! Ha...good for you. It was provocative.

(Just like to go back to the scene of the crime every once in a while. Check it out. See how you're doing. Be the last commenter for a few.)

Thanks Beth and all others who commented. This post is kind of like a drive by shooting. You never know when someone is going to hit it. :)

I enjoyed your post. I entered medicine with the hope that that field would at least be full of decent people with a common goal- to help others. I'm afraid to say that I have been very disappointed.

I only know that posting my stories here is one of my greatest joys 1st only to the comments from those that read them.
Thank you for a great post and fantastic read.

I agree with you completely. I haven't posted much lately, and have only dipped in as a reader, but these issues of identity and integrity have been very much on my mind. So have the kinds of problems raised in micahpeace's farewell post.

The internet is just a more extreme version of the "in person" world.

Thank you Emma. Unfortunately, I NEED the internet without the paper newspapers. So I really, really appreciate honesty and integrity online. What I hate most is how people hide behind anonymity to sling hate. I think if you are going to say something undercover -- it better be what you would be willing to say to someone's face -- otherwise it's useless and hurtful. That said, knowing that there are some wierdos online, I can appreciate why some people select anonymity. I wish it were not the case, but I suppose I can understand it. Also, some people may have a conflict of interest with writing and their careers. They may be fiction writers at journalists at heart but they may do public relations by day. And maybe their employer wouldn't appreciate them publishing everything here. So, I can respect certain reasons why people select pen names and identities. Still, let's keep it real here. This is a very, very thoughtful post and I do appreciate it! I am totally old fashioned.

Hello,
jealous of your location,and admiring your bio and your writing.
Have a nice day...or whatever nice you want to have..

Emma, you will know me as jonmagee.

Now, I do agree with what you are saying, so why am I using another name? the answer to that can be found at the following link:

. http://open.salon.com/blog/from_barren_rocks/2010/03/03/a_man_with_no_name_an_os_story

interesting ideas emma -- the internet allows for the easier assumption of different identities than ever before -- but I think ( i hope!) that only the same percentage of peeps who lie and "fake it" in real life will do the same online. thanks for putting it out there! r-