My favourite sockpuppet is Handy from "The Tick".

He was very literate and encouraged others to read more.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Awww....I was hoping this thread was about puppets. I just love them! My husband is a huge tick fan (no, not woodticks).

Spoon!!!!!!

Kwind

*yawn

I think we need to make a distinction between sockpuppets here. I propose that there are three basic types of sockpuppet.

First there is the sockpuppet due to technical glitch. I give you an example of when Serena was unable to log on with her regular username and so made another that was the same ssounding with just one or two letters different (sorry i don't remember the exact way you spelled it Serena). Now it was perfectly obvious that it was Serena, and just as obvious that there was no intent to deceive. Serena went back to using her original as soone as the glitch was fixed. I see nothing wrong with that typee of sockpuppetry.

Second is the temporary sockpuppet with a benign agenda. This is when someone creates a sockpuppet to illustrate a point. The best ones are outlandish caricatures that nobody takes seriously, but do speak to a particular foible or stereotype in society. While these do have the potential for fraud or abuse, they generally aren't taken seiously due to their nature. It is best if the perpetrator fesses up in fairly short order and we all have a laugh after learning something.

The third type is the outright fraud. These sockpuppets are created to appear as though there is more support for the perpetrators stance than there would be, or used to harass people from anonymous safety, or even to avoid moderation, such as being used to sneak back into the forum after being banned. These sockpuppets are the really destructive kind. They destroy trust and defraud other users. In addition they are, in effect, outright lies. In the case of avoiding the consequences of a ban they are also defacto vihicles for trespassing.

So lets be careful in this discussion to distiguish which type of sockpuppet you are referring to.

Witch,

Hi,

You wrote:

So lets be careful in this discussion to distiguish which type of sockpuppet you are referring to.

For the purposes of my thread I am working with the most general and the most simple.

I thank you for adding definiton and colour to the term and allowing the membership the opportunity to respond to the discernment you initiate.

I am particularly thankful for your pointing to the notion that as a concept sockpuppetry is not inherently harmful until an added element of intentional deception comes into play.

I think it also bears highlighting that even the lighter applications are not without their dangers.

The Primary reasons I have returned to this issue are:

A) in two different threads members have made accusations agaisnt other members. The first time I came across it I responded to the specific allegation, the second time I thought I might just save myself the trouble of responding to multiple allegations in multiple threads if we just had the discussion the once elsewhere.

B) I think that for the most part we have pushed past the more negative ways the sockpuppet can be deployed and we can, with some objectivity, lift up how we as members responded to anyone of the three applications.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think there is a fourth type of sockpuppet. This kind is a blatant sock puppet, we know it is a sockpuppet but yet they participate in the conversation in a true and honest manner. For me, these have been some of my favourite posters. We know there is no squirrel posting here, that Yoda does not drop by periodically and offer words of wisdom, I don't believe in vampires and I haven't seen spandex clad superheroes in a while.

These are sockpuppets in a manner of speaking because we know there is a human at the keyboard typing the post and that they are not a fuzzy squirrel or a little green man.

I think it is not the sockpuppet per se that is the issue, but rather any attempt to manipulate the conversation that is the problem.

PS - Yoda and the squirrel are my favourites.

As an aside, I have always assumed that these sorts of sockpuppets are people who want to participate in wondercafe in some meaningful way but because of their role within the UCC (or for some other reason) are worried about posting in a way where their identity might be, well, identified.

What about mine? or is it really a sock puppet? When I post on behalf of the church I use GG. GG has a completely separate account so that when the next WonderCafe coordinator for the church comes along they won't need to use my Boots one.

Boots: GG is not a sock puppet it is a completely different account and I am assuming that what you post there is sanctioned by the churches heirarchy.

Blessings
MS

I am still wondering if some still think that I am and to be quiet frank "why". And because of this worry (and others) I am even more lury about what I say and where. I don't get involved now with some disscusion that I would love to becasue of what might be said.

( sorry, a bit off topic. I am not wining but I do wonder if there are more intimidated people in here because of this fear)

These are sockpuppets in a manner of speaking because we know there is a human at the keyboard typing the post and that they are not a fuzzy squirrel or a little green man.

What!!! Next you will be trying to claim there is no Santa Claus, I suppose.

There definitely is a Satan Clause,
Opps, just mixed up the letters - I mean
a Santa Clause.

I tend to treat everyone at face value. I wouldn't know a sock puppet if I met one. If i don't like hte way a thread is going I will state my opinion once and remove myself from it. The only person I have control over is myself.

MS

MS you posted

"Boots: GG is not a sock puppet it is a completely different account and I am assuming that what you post there is sanctioned by the churches hierarchy."

Yes, when I post under GG it is usually discussed with a group of people (or at least one of the Ministers and myself).

The only time that something has not been discussed first I let you WonderPeople know that it is just me.

Mely: "These are sockpuppets in a manner of speaking because we know there is a human at the keyboard typing the post and that they are not a fuzzy squirrel or a little green man.

What!!! Next you will be trying to claim there is no Santa Claus, I suppose."

You make me laugh! Thanks for that!

Mely: "These are sockpuppets in a manner of speaking because we know there is a human at the keyboard typing the post and that they are not a fuzzy squirrel or a little green man.

_____________________________________________________________

No little green men, are there. Little green aliens - there are ... and little green frogs.

Also ... puppets we all are ... at various points in our lives.

Let the one who has never been a puppet be the first to cast a stone.

Puppets of the world Unite!

Oh, are we going to have another strike action?

No Crazyheart. As long as there is no anti-puppetism, there won't need to be a strike. We puppets do need to stand up for ourselves though. I was discussing that with E.T. the other day.

I've felt decieved when I realized that one poster was using more than one name and pretending to be 2 different posters.
It felt dishonest to me
Note:This is not what Boots was talking about-as Boots she posta as herself, as GG she relies her congragtions message.

hey Revjohn, nice thread.

I'm one of those accused of sockpuppetry, actually, to those who don't know.

I responded to accusation with my usual wit (ok, it was downright smartassery, but hey, whattaya expect?)

but I can assure you that I'm not a sockpuppet.

not that I can prove it.

part of the confusion could have had to do with the whole anarchistboy/moderation namechange, which is understandable.

but come on, I don't seem THAT fake to anyone do I?

I often find myself posting if I read my interpretation of hatred and dishonesty in an otherwise original attempt at discussion. It comes from a personal investment and reaction- I notice I will do it often when there are hatful and cruel slanders on women and lesbians and gays.
It shows me that the personal remains political.
Thank you for your thread . It can be personally revealing and it is always helpful to understand other's in this community.
I will think about this more but in our world I feel that hateful intent in a post needs to be exposed. It strikes me as a form of bullying.

Moderation,

Hi,

You wrote:

but come on, I don't seem THAT fake to anyone do I?

I submit that for the most part we all seem fake to each other. I'm not being flippant while I suggest that. Because we all lack the face to face dimension of conversation there is the risk that everytime we make ourselves vulnerable here we will have our naivete beaten out of us in a brutal manner.

So we can come to the table trusting and know that could hurt us or,

We can come to the table distrusting and know that it will hurt us.

What is real and what is genuine in a virtual environment?

You know about me only what I have allowed you to know about me. Some others know quite a bit more and of those, maybe entirely more than they wished to know.

You do not seem fake to me but I'll be honest with you and share that I don't know who you are so I don't know what you share that is genuine and what is veneer. I rely on a lot more than words on a screen to evaluate others. Here, that is all that I have.

Which means I have to risk trusting and maybe look stupid down the road or I have to be distrusting a prove myself stupid.

Because I believe that relationship is key I have to risk here or the only relationships that will happen will be negative ones. Because I have to risk I find that I am willing to trust others who are willing to take similar risks which leads me back to my problem with this place.

How do I know with any degree of certainty that you, on the other end of this correspondance, are just as willing to risk just as much as I am?

How, in a virtual environment can I be certain that you are genuine and not a facade?

At the same time it is humbling to note that the same trepidations I might have about you (in the general sense and not in a personal one) is exactly the same obstacle I have to overcome in winning your trust.

In a virtual environment I am as apt to be an illusion as I am the real deal.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn says,
What is real and what is genuine in a
virtual environment?

I suppose you do the same as with real
people, you do your best to figure out their
intent over time.

Is there a true self or a truer self? Goffman
makes interesting reading on this topic in
a short book called "The Presentation of
Self in Everyday life".

Practically speaking a nice sock puppet is
a nice sock puppet and a nasty one is a nasty
one. This is not a democracy here so a person
with more identities does not really have more
votes.

I once met an elderly war veteran who liked
to act in Shakespeare plays. I asked him why
he did so and he said:

"It is only when I am acting that I feel real".

I think by degrees for some more than others,
that says it all.

VillageIdiot,

Hi,

You wrote:

I suppose you do the same as with real
people, you do your best to figure out their
intent over time

Very true.

With the real though I have much better communication.

Here it is just dots on a screen. They tell me somethings but not as much as an audible sigh or a laugh or a tone of voice.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn says:

"With the real though I have much better communication.
Here it is just dots on a screen. They tell me somethings
but not as much as an audible sigh or a laugh or a tone of voice."

Notes on Posting as Broadcasting.

Shifts in technology cause alienation of a profoundly existential
sort as people figure out the rules and the dangers. The risk of the
identity is a core danger not only to impression management but
to the very structure of self, obviously here this will import a linguistic
bias to the essential. But other factors are at play here. First and
above all **posting is a form of broadcasting**. The normal
development and revelation of self is not acheived or assigned this
way, at least not yet. Intimacy issues which play between revealing
and concealing (an embodied habitus of the self usually associated
with sexuality but not confined to it) are harder to acheive. The
assignment of lowly status for a "faux pas" or more serious offence
happens incredibly fast here, not allowing the proper order of social
narrative construction. I hope I have given you some of the elements
to work with. ***This is a different reality***, not fake, but different
and it is another step in challenging the meaning of presence, family,
and community and is no less disruptive than the industrial revolution.

Is this a good thing? Gee...I'm stumped as it both fills in for but also
enables the former waves of alienation.

Do write me if there is anything about me you would like to know. At
least in wondermails the whole community does not know all at once.

There is a good book by Harold Adams Innnis called the "Bias of
Communication." In it I think he previsions some of the struggles of Paul
Ricoeur from a media perspective. In it he makes a "Plea for time". You
see, time is subjective and embodied. We cannot feel it here so we do
fear everything happening at once - the clock, the hour glass, such things
just do not measure the same way here and we are losing the social
agreements we have around them.

Blessings.

VI

*The Squirrel contemplates great moments in sockpuppetry: Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-23; John 1:29-34

EzEd:

How does Jesus' baptism relate to sockpuppetry?

Serena asked: "How does Jesus' baptism relate to sockpuppetry?"

EZ Answer: This won't be any fun if I have to explain it. I've failed.

Serena I am not sure about this but I think it refers to after Christ was resurrected He appeared to people in different forms.

*The Squirrel ponders his failure. (Or the failure to read scripture references.)

Ezed I am going by that when Christ was resurrected He appeared to Mary Magdalene as a gardener, and sometimes He appeared to people out of nowhere. just my opinion

When the bible was written it was perfectly acceptable
to call your writing by someone else's name to honour
them. So, in fact, a whole lot of the bible was written by
sockpuppets. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

*The Squirrel giggles.

This poem. a favorite of mine,
seems to keep coming to mind here
for some reason.

Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

-Robert Frost.

witch said 'Serena went back to using her original as soone as the glitch was fixed. I see nothing wrong with that typee of sockpuppetry.'

we have the best witch of any christian forum

boots, your name says you are on top of 'sock' anything

my feeling? a post by any name is welcome, regardless of foot covering or type of entertainment model

fake id is irrelevant--the important part is what is shared and stated

VillageIdiot,

Hi,

You wrote:

The normal development and revelation of self is not acheived or assigned this
way, at least not yet.

This is probably why I would have a hard time understanding WonderCafe as genuine community.

I think it tries hard to be one. I think it desperately wants to be one and I believe that there are many here who hope that it can be one. I just don't think that WonderCafe, even at its best can pull that off.

Where some of us know each other from other contexts or when several of us have taken the steps to make face to face contact possible is not WonderCafe. It is something other but those relationships and the intimacy we bring from them spills over and gives the impression that depth can be obtained here without the face to face.

You and I could pass each other on the street and except for the possibility of you connecting my avatar with the stranger's face we might never know it. And if I'm not smiling the recognition might be that much harder. So even though you and I have engaged in some heavy discussion here publicly and privately through Wondermail and we might have a sense of the other we do not really know the other.

You wrote:

***This is a different reality***, not fake, but different
and it is another step in challenging the meaning of presence, family,
and community and is no less disruptive than the industrial revolution.

I appreciate the points you are making but I am not convinced as yet. With respect to presence unless we are able to access the WonderCafe there is no presence and even if we can, issues of immediacy of need get in the way.

If I really needed you now, right this moment, I better hope it is not to call 911 for me because if it is I am likely beyond all hope of rescue before you log on and read this. True, the same thing could happen if you lived right next door or even in the same house. If I fall down a flight of stairs and cannot move I won't be typing how much I need your help and you won't be hovering around WonderCafe wondering where I have got myself to.

I believe that you would genuinely feel bad about my fall and that you would sympathize about how many hours I lay paralyzed at the foot of the stairs but the minute I start to question why you weren't there for me the reality sets in. How could you be there for me when I needed you?

I have no doubt that as I convalesce with the laptop beside me that you would be concerned to know how I was mending which will be a form of being present for me but again, I could write that I have had a horrible day, that I'm in excrutiating pain, send it and maybe in an hour or so you'll be able to type "I'm sorry to hear that" or something far more pastoral than that but by then I've logged off to try and find some way to deal with the pain that does not involve hurling the laptop at someone.

Family, I think not. I submit that it might just be me though. Even actual family on the internet doesn't compare to the actual sitting down with and sharing with.

You wrote:

Do write me if there is anything about me you would like to know.

I appreciate the offer VI honestly. From the conversations we have had I expect that I would enjoy getting to know you deeper. But I don't know if I could subject you to a grilling electronically. It doesn't allow me to finesse my way through the information gathering stage.

I can ask you about where you grew up and where you went to school but I'm going to get only cold information out of you and I need more than that. By the tone of your voice I have clues as to whether or not either was positive or negative for you and those clues lead me down other avenues of inquiry

There is a good book by Harold Adams Innnis called the "Bias of
Communication." In it I think he previsions some of the struggles of Paul
Ricoeur from a media perspective.

I'll have to look that up. I know that I can probably borrow anything Ricoeur from EZed, hopefully he'll only take my firstborn as collateral.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn wrote: "You and I could pass each other on the street and except for the possibility of you connecting my avatar with the stranger's face we might never know it."

EZ Answer: Kinda like not recognizing Christ in the other person we pass on the street.

You make a strong argument against the possibility of community with Christ between the ascension and the second-coming. Without face-to-face interaction, without placing our hands in those pierced hands, it would be futile.

Making vows and commitments in a relationship with Jesus Christ, without physical proximity and stimulated tympanic membranes and ocular detection of light, is futile.

At least the silly papists have a storehouse of real body and blood...I guess that means only the Protestant Reformers are screwed. ;)

Can my internet connection mediate the Holy Spirit? Probably not. The tongues of fire would fry my computer's circuit board (assuming my expensive surge protector didn't intercede with sighs too deep for words).

EZed,

Hi,

Kinda like not recognizing Christ in the other person we pass on the street.

An everyday occurance I suspect.

You wrote:

You make a strong argument against the possibility of community with Christ between the ascension and the second-coming. Without face-to-face interaction, without placing our hands in those pierced hands, it would be futile.

Well this is where my latent supernaturalism would kick in although I would argue that supernaturalism is more perjorative than actual. I don't think we have as full a grasp of what passes for natural in God's universe.

That aside.

I testify that there is a connectivity that I have experience both with the Divine and the decidedly not divine. It was not "Face-to-face" it was definitely "presence-to-presence". I have known and felt that there was someone there though I have no tangible proof that I can present. I didn't see anyone. I didn't smell anyone, I didn't taste anyone. I didn't touch anyone. Nevertheless, I 'felt' someone.

As hard as I try, and I am willing to submit it might just be me, this format does not give me access to that same kind of connectivity.

Panentheism and I have face-to-face history and we can communicate well enough with each other here but there is always a missing piece. A moment when I'm not sure if the good-natured jibe that is intended is actually what gets recieved. I do not percieve either of us of having it in for the other so I do not believe that for no reason at all one of us would turn on the other and yet, in the absence of that connectivity, even though I have an intellectual understanding there is a moment of apprehension.

How many colleagues in ministry do I spend my time with here at any given moment? We have, I believe, many experiences that are similar. How many are shared? I have found that the shared experience is where the connectivity grows for me. Similarity might be enough for understanding I do not know that it is enough for community. Conversely, I don't know that it isn't either.

You wrote:

Making vows and commitments in a relationship with Jesus Christ, without physical proximity and stimulated tympanic membranes and ocular detection of light, is futile.

True, but only if we limit what we qualify as experience to the empirical. I'm not arguing that we are forced to do that because my take on things leads me to believe that there is more to this Created universe than the things we can easily study to prove or refute.

I'm willing to step outside the box so to speak and discuss connection in ways beyond the readily obvious. At the same time those means that lie outside of the box that I do know of, do not come into play here.

At best my strong "T" is arguing for an "F" experience and reality.

You wrote:

At least the silly papists have a storehouse of real body and blood...I guess that means only the Protestant Reformers are screwed. ;)

This Protestant Reformer would suggest that they are just as screwed flour is not the building blocks of flesh and fermented sugar does not make blood.

We could argue that it is their faith that makes it real 'for them' so a change in my faith would make it just as real for me. I don't buy that. I do experience the Divine presence in the sacrament but it is not simply in the ingesting, smelling or handling of the elements. It is in the connectivity that I have experienced before.

You wrote:

Can my internet connection mediate the Holy Spirit? Probably not. The tongues of fire would fry my computer's circuit board (assuming my expensive surge protector didn't intercede with sighs too deep for words).

Levity aside that is my quandry. Talking to my wife via msn or e-mail does not resonate within me in the same way simply standing next to her does or shouting over the noise of the lawnmower, or bickering kids or barking dogs. There are even moments when we sit at the same desk in a three way messenger conversation with other family members and her physical proximity is overpowered by the connective sterility of the medium.

I have to shut down my screen and turn my concentration directy upon her in order to make the connection a live one.

Again, I'm willing to admit it is just me. That I am uniquely broken and for all others the warmth of their CPU mimics the body heat of other and it is just the same as if their other was physically present.

Except, if that is the case, maybe their physical relationships aren't as healthy as they like to believe. :)

I really enjoyed the Cambridge Wondermeeting. Because of that I have a level of connectivity with Pinga, Qwerty, Xandersdad and Specialmom. I can build on that here but the experience is not the same.

Moving back to the discussion of supernatural. This method of communication could fit that definition in that it allows you and I to communicate in a way that without the technology we simply couldn't.

I can be pretty loud but if I stand on my doorstep and start bellowing for EZed you, even with your very sensitive squirrel hearing are not going to hear me at all. About the only thing that will happen is the neighbours will get nervous and send the local constabulary around to check in on my mental well-being.

Even though this medium facilitates a dialogue it does not bring you near to me.

Prayer can look pretty much the same as me standing on the doorstep bellowing. I've engaged in prayer that resembles that particular format. The difference in my experience has been that as loud as I shout for you, you will not hear and you will not come near (this in no way is intended to be a disparagement of past conversations which I have greatly appreciated and cherished between us) God managed to pull that off.

I'm not arguing that the connectivity cannot happen here. I'm not going to role over and accept that it is a given though. Had it not been for us connecting as we have I do not know that we would have had some of the conversations that we have had. So while I know I cannot now stand on the front porch, holler your name and have you come right alongside of me (your fantastic but limited in that sense) I have stood beside you and we have worked together and in that shared moment the layer of connection I need was laid into place.

I am hoping that I will have the opportunity to do that with others who frequent the cafe but without that dimension there will always be a gap.

I'm not sure that I am articulating this very well. As an introvert I know exactly what I mean. I'm not sure that my vocabulary is up to the challenge of communicating what I know.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn wrote: "I'm not arguing that the connectivity cannot happen here. I'm not going to role over and accept that it is a given though."

EZ Answer: We sit in the same canoe with this comment.

(You occupy more of the canoe than me, but that's a different thread.)

EZed,

Hi,

You wrote:

(You occupy more of the canoe than me, but that's a different thread.)

Indeed.

Your life-jacket looks a little loose. Let me snug it up for you.

The bulging eyes improve buoyancy. Trust me,

Grace and peace to you.

John

Canoes-CANOES!!!!
A least if you are going Canoeing invite ME!

And ABPenny as well-she likes to watch canoes hit sandbars!

NOT GONNA MAKE A CANOE OUTTA ME!!!

AAAAHAHAHA OW HAHAHAHAHA OUCH HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

But Witch,
If you are truly a Witch then you must weigh the same as a duck, therefore you must be made out of wood, which means of course you float. I think you'd make a great canoe.