[net.misc] sh.02 worth about Lady Arwen

hall (03/25/83)

#R:tekmdp:-185100:uiucdcs:10600088:000:369
uiucdcs!hall    Mar 24 11:39:00 1983

That's a good point. Anyone who operates under a pseudonym shouldn't
be taken *too* seriously. That's not to say that the comments aren't
entertaining, which they are. As a matter of fact, all net.news
users operate under some degree of anonymity. Only users at your
local site are likely to know if you are male/female, young/old, etc.
--John
(...pur-ee!uiucdcs!hall)

iy47ab (04/01/83)

I don't understand.  Why shouldn't I be taken serious?
I try to be serious, most of the time, when I don't post to net.jokes...
arwen the confused

bernie (04/07/83)

A brief response to John (...pur-ee!uiucdcs!hall) on the subject of
pseudonyms:
  Since it is easy for just about anyone to sign just about anything, we
have no way of knowing who's using pseudonyms and who isn't.  For example,
you sign your name "John"; how are we to know this is your real name?
The fact that Lady Arwen uses a name that is *obviously* a pseudonym shows
that she is not trying to be sneaky and hide anything, but rather is openly
saying "this is a pseudonym".  From my point of view, this *increases* her
credibility rather than decreasing it.
  Before you argue that people are identified by their e-mail addresses
(and so you, John, would not be accomplishing anything by hiding your
true identity), keep in mind that the same is true of Lady Arwen.
				not afraid to sign my real name,
				--Bernie Roehl
				...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie
P.S.  I don't really want to know Lady Arwen's legal name, nor do I think
it's important.