in reply to (rebuttal) Re: Re: Consider Your Audience (SHAME) in thread Consider Your Audience
Conned? How were you conned? If the posts stand on their own, how did not knowing it was princepawn "con" you. How is one psuedonym ok but two are bad? More than one person on here has multiple logins (can think of two off the top of my head.) And your belief in "schemes" shouldn't require him to deny it. Prove he had a prior motive to slam perl or stop maligning him by implying otherwise. That in particular is the sort of behavior
I'm objecting to, casting him as a pariah. His actions have been marginal, but calling jihaad against him won't help him improve at perl or social contact, you'll martyr him.
I'm having to fight off using religious metaphors
in this discussion...
--
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)
(jcwren) Re: (too many) Consider Your Audience (SHAME)
by jcwren (Prior) on Nov 27, 2000 at 10:45 UTC
|
It's highly unlikely he'll be made a martyr. It's no reflection on him, but I don't think anyone around here cares enough. Even someone as 'famous' as abigail who was 'driven off' failed to be made a martyr.
I don't think the underlying model of how this online environment works is capable of making a marytr of someone. Martyrdom requires constant rememberance, and with the continual change of topic, and the focus on one sector, I just don't think it's feasible.
Please understand this is not a slight of princepawn, but a statement of how I feel the site works.
--Chris
e-mail jcwren
| [reply] |
(my last post WRT) Consider Your Audience
by mwp (Hermit) on Nov 27, 2000 at 12:09 UTC
|
No Jihaad has been called.
No one is scheduled for sacrifice.
That said, please allow me to continue the argument.
> How is one psuedonym ok but two are bad?
I never said that. Multiple people have multiple accounts
here, for whatever reason, and I could care less. It's how
the first account was used that we have trouble with. I'll
explain below.
> And your belief in "schemes" shouldn't require
him to deny it. Prove he had a prior motive to slam perl
or stop maligning him by implying otherwise.
I consider princepawn's explanation of
his actions to be questionable. So do several others. The
"proof" you ask for is in the pudding. I "called him out"
as you say for a better explanation, a better version of
Let us give thanks for princepawn shall whine no more. That's all.
> Conned? How were you conned? If the posts stand
on their own, how did not knowing it was princepawn "con"
you.
extremely... I'm not trying to insult you, but from that
it sounds like you're missing the point entirely. I've
explained my position in detail here and
here. There's not a whole lot more I can add
to my argument, or say to you. We've been encouraged to
drop it. But because I feel obligated to
argue my stance on the issue, I'm going to try again.
If a person pretends to be something he's not,
for an explicit purpose involving other people, we
consider that "to con." The person is a "con-artist" in
that he (or she) uses a variety of emotional and mental
techniques to convince the "victim" of some concept, or
some opinion. Like "buy this cure-all" or "I'm not too
bright, you can trust me" or "the Earth is flat." You get
the idea.
princepawn has said "...being princepawn has been a
keen insight into human nature." The context implies that
he was masquerading as princepawn to prove a point,
mainly that "certain people will attack you blindly and
hatefully after awhile even if you are correct."
Furthermore, he has said that his alter ego, metaperl,
is "proof of [his] ability to 'go with the flow'."
From the above we can surmise the following: The two
versions of the person we know online as princepawn and
metaperl are inherently different. By reading their
posts we can see that both are reasonably intelligent when
it comes to Perl as a language, yet one seems "unable to
connect the dots" as far as programming concepts and
PerlMonks behaviour (researching before asking questions).
From the reputations and experiences of both, we can see
that one is generally well-accepted (we will call this,
metaperl, the 'true' identity) and the other is not
(princepawn, the 'false' identity). By true and false
I mean relative to how this person is in real life. The
fact of the matter may be that both are false, but for the
sake of my argument I'm going to name one false and one
true.
Before princepawn's revelation, we all
lived in blissful ignorance, thinking that princepawn
is/was a intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl
programmer. He made outrageous claims1 about
Perl fallacies, he infrequently "did his homework" before
posting a question2 to Seekers of Perl Wisdom.
The end result of his presence on PerlMonks was aggravation
and wasted time on behalf of many monks here. Monks that
would defend Perl from his attacks1 and
answer his unresearched questions.
Now we find that the false identity,
princepawn, was actually a front for the true identity,
metaperl. What does this mean? Well, it means that
princepawn was pretending to be this intelligent,
if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer, who couldn't
seem to connect the dots on basic programming concepts,
and never did his homework before posting a question to
Seekers of Perl Wisdom. He had us all fooled into
believing this. Why did he do this? To prove a point.
The end result? Wasted time of many monks, to answer
the fake questions and fake claims of Perl fallicies.
To prove his point, apparently.
We were conned. Swindled, manipulated, cajoled,
persuaded. (From http://m-w.com.) See above for a more
complete definition. Time, valuable time (my time is
not valuable, so I have no trouble taking time to write
this :) was wasted. All to prove a point. (Yes, I know I'm
repeating myself. I'm trying to drive this point home!)
Do you understand what I am trying to say, now?
What now? Well, the way I see it, there are a few
options.
- A Better Explanation
princepawn may have misstated a few things in his
original explanation. If this is the case, a
better version of his story would be swell.
- The True Identity
Maybe princepawn was just being himself. Maybe metaperl
is really the false identity, and it took actual effort
from princepawn to act so sensible and polite. In this
case, the unresearched questions will continue to be asked,
the attacks on Perl as a language will continue, and time
will continue to be wasted. It is my ever-so humble opinion
that something needs to be done about that.
I'm done. I have no more to say. This is the last post I
will be making on the subject of princepawn for a long,
long while. This is not my crusade, this is not my flame
war. This is just my opinion. I am upset and frustrated,
and now I hope you understand why.
Friar Alakaboo
1. Attacks on Perl
This is not a complete list, merely a sampling of recent
entries.
2. Questions
Again, not a complete list, just a sampling of the
questions and answers that could have easily been answered
in the chatterbox, found with a Super Search, or found
with a quick perusing through the Perl docs.
| [reply] |
|
OK, this is devolving but I have to get a few more words in
edgewise before I quit this in disgust.
One, "con" in the meaning we are (hopefully) all using it
is short for "confidence". Thus, a con-man is a "confidence man"
or a perpetrator of "confidence games". I'll quote
www.m-w.com on "2confidence" since you like that site:
"of, relating to, or adept at swindling by false promises."
I don't think that characterizes in anyway what he did.
Perhaps if you use conned as "tricked" then, yes he did
so but in no way did he abuse what trust he built up with
the second account.
Everything below your sig is unworthy of
you or a response from me. We didn't need to rehash what
he's done that annoys you.
Three, quoting you:
Now we find that the false identity, princepawn, was actually a front for the true identity, metaperl. What does this mean?
Well, it means that princepawn was pretending to be this intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer, who
couldn't seem to connect the dots on basic programming concepts, and never did his homework before posting a question
to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. He had us all fooled into believing this. Why did he do this? To prove a point.
You jump from making vague points about his behavior
to ascribing motives here. Worse, a simple check would have
shown you that princepawn has been around since May but
metaperl has only been on since October. Five months is
one elaborate plan! Also you talk
about the two as if they were different personality traits
or that he was deliberately playing different roles in each.
I think merlyn's suggestion that he merely watched his
own behavior closer when posting as metaperl simply because
he didn't want to be revealed at princepawn until he had
verified his theory was correct.
I really don't see anything sinister in that behavior
and in fact I toyed with suggesting that he do this very
thing about a month ago. To make it more scientific he
should have written each post then randomly picked a
login so that he would treat each one the same but I won't
get caught up in method. See I (and likely he) don't see
this as an abuse of trust, I see him announcing that A.
he really can work at fitting in, so cut him some slack
with his preferred nickname so he can prove he's changed,
and B. crowing that he "proved that on recent posts he
was being unfairly filtered through a past he was trying
to leave behind."
Really, about your final points 1 and 2, I see them as being correct,
both of them. He could have explained himself better and
prince really is his real personality. The only thing I
disagree with in your summation is that something needs to
be done about it. I see metaperl and in recent posts (mostly)
a new sense of acting appropriately for the site. I see
him trying to understand what people want from him and
trying to match that.
And honestly, I see people with your attitude as the problem,
not him. If I were to treat you as you treat prince above,
I'd still be calling you "paranoid" months from now after
you've long since ceased to care about this issue. I doubt
that you are tho and I doubt very much he has an elaborate
scheme to abuse this site, our time or the very perl from
which we all sprung.
The funny thing is, I bet if the three of us met IRL
that you and prince would have a lot more in common than
either of you would with me. OTOH, he seems to
be willing to let by-gones be by-gones and you seem
to be holding a grudge rather tight to your heart.
Of course, I've been wrong before and will be again,
likely even before I post again. And to answer your question,
yes, I understood your point all along, read my post again
yourself. I asked how you had been conned, you give me
supposition in response. I asked you to prove your
accusation that he had prior motive to troll or trick you
for a nefarious purpose and you give me more theories.
You read my first post again
you'll likely note that it is this unreasoning supposition
that I'm railing about in the first place. My call to
Ovid was wordy but simple, cut prince a break and see
if he's changed like he says he has. Don't keep turning up
the rhetoric everytime he shows up. I ache to see someone
trying to crawl up into the light (however stubbornly) and
the very people who have been screaming about his behavior
trying to kick him back down.
--
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)
| [reply] |
|
|