Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

That's hilarious, in a certain postmodern way - you know "Strumpette" is a cynically fake "persona", right? One constructed for attention-grabbing (or, more accurately, attention-whoring?). It's non-transparency masquerading as transparency, in a way that's almost over the top enough to be a parody of the whole concept.

Should it be transparent, or is it one of the cases for the shadows?

Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said ... postmodern indeed. I've posted about this on my blog and otherwise do have a question. Why did you put your transparency article on Strumpette's blog (which would seem to be a way of referencing her fictiveness, if that's the word I'm looking for)?

Of course, if you got Rageboy involved, this whole thing could really escalate.

It's less POMO than it seems. "She" heard something I said about anonymity and asked me to write about transparency, I assume in part because "she" is pseudonymous. I did include a line in the piece referring to "her" pseudonymity.

We can only hope Strumpette is a 50 year old guy with a hairy back.

In a virtual world where identities map one-to-one with names, then there is no anonymity. Every identity has a name, every name has an identity.

Anonymity is a concept uniquely enjoyed by our named bodies, i.e. that it may thus escape the repercussion of its speech.

Online personas talking with online personas are thus clearly identified and far from anonymous. The bodies that cradle the minds are irrelevent.

Judge not by the name of a man's skin, but by the content of each of his characters.

Here...

My self is my property. My presentation is my choice. My words and deeds are judged by only those vain enough to think they know better... and possessing the power to restrain me.

Regrettably, the web mob is that vain and certainly wants variously to rob the unknowing of their choice. Their end is to assume another’s property... with “pitchforks and torches” if need be. That’s what mobs do.

Pseudonymity surely is not of their liking. That’s good.

- Amanda Chapel

One more thing: as I make clear in my blog posting about this business (http://blog.opinity.com/2006/08/transparency_op.html) I'm really in favor of pseudonymity and have no wish to "rob the unknowing of their choice."

However, Ms. Chapel--if that's who's posting here, whoever she is--I do wonder why your post has such weird, almost ecclesiastical diction. Not that I'm against it. Just wondering.

Ecclesiastical diction? Hmmmm. I don't hear it. Could be the Italian-Catholic upbringing.

- Amanda

PS You know what they say about Catholic girls. :)

Yes, well, ecclesiastical in this sense:

"Regrettably, the web mob is that vain and certainly wants variously to rob the unknowing of their choice."

And:

"Pseudonymity surely is not of their liking."

Or maybe just 18th century? Oh, hell, distinctively odd.

And if ecclesiastical, not necessarily Catholic.

An Italian Strumpette Cathollic girl strutting her pseudonymity is an undeniable personae. Kudos! When can you come to ON! and advise my reinvention?

Not to pick on anyone, but ...

Persona is singular, personae or personas plural.

How embarrassing. I stand corrected.