God, I love this thread!!!!

Not getting it is NOT the problem, if you who do NOT get it could take a live and let live, whatever turns you on, let a hundred flowers bloom, sort attitude about it.

Not getting it causes problems (but not for me) when you insist on making so many assumptions that put whatever you don't get into a bad light...when you insist in STEREOTYPING what you don't get.

Little John tells a very sad story about a chatroom relationship gone bad. In the context of this strand he is tacitly accusing me of being the same sort of person as the cad in his story. Am I the only person who sees that as uncalled for in light of what is transpired on this thread?

bflat cheers "bravo for Honesty!" So I am dishonest? On a scale of 1 to 10, how dishonest is a person who admits that she uses different pseuydonyms? As compared to someone who does so but does not admit it? As compared to someone who (at least claims that she) uses just one pseudonym, As compared to someonw who (at least claims) that he uses his real name.

Ebbie says "Where's the fun in misleading people by the written word?" and "Go play. Here is not the right place." Three questions: whom have I mislead, how have they been mislead, and what harm has resulted IN THIS THREAD by the misleading? These are not rhetorical questions. My curiousity has been piqued. A number of participants in this thread are strongly disturbed by my "coming out." What exactly disturbs you and why? The problem seems to be an honesty thing, but simply to call something dishonest isn't enough. IMHO dishonesty is not always a bad thing. If someone I really care about asks me if I LIKE the dress she has just purchased and is clearly so happy with, it is better for me to dishonestly say "Yes" than honestly say "No." "No" will simply make her feel bad to no good end.

CarolC - Nice shot. But... Where does name calling get us? What I am doing doesn't seem the least bit like rape to me. There is clearly no sex involved in the exchanges on this thread. I was up front when I started the thread. The people currently participating are here of their own free will. No one is being forced to participate in this thread.

Beanster - thanks for paying attention. Unfortunagely you give with the left hand and take away with the right. You were willing to take seriously the idea that I am sincerely intested in hearing the opinions of others. But then you call my post "non-genuine." You make an excellent criticism of people who lie when they state their opinions in a forum. But that is not the point. My initial question was about people who use multiple pseudonyms. There go the assumptions again. You are assuming that I use multiple pseudonyms so that I can lie to Mudcatters and stir things up. I never said that. You also want to believe that I am antisocial and with little empathy or conscience. Why are you so anxious to believe such things of me?

Bagpuss. Thanks for your trust. I'll see you there.

Jeri - your post discusses "anonymous flamers"? What flaming have I done here? You refer to my "less-than-honest-opinions." Where do you get the idea that I have been dishonest in this thread? Dishonesty would be the easy way to deal with it. All I have to do is say "Oh gosh, you all were right and I am wrong. I have seen the error of my ways. I will never lurk anonymously again. Thank you, thank you, thank you." and sign the post with a bogus but apparently real name. Now THAT would be dishonest. You accuse me of being manipulative but who in this thread is being manipulated and how?

I am sincerely interested in your REASONS for being disturbed by my initial posting. I am not particularly interested in hearing all the different ways of saying "I don't like what you are doing." Unfortunately, explaining your reasons will probably be difficult because you probably are not clear about them yourself. But I certainly appreciate any attempt you are willing to make.

Finally, I truly do not care what assumptions you make about me as "Phantom Lurker." It really is just water off a duck's back. But some of the assumptions some of you are making do worry me. I am not worried about me. I am worried about you. Internet interactions are NOT just like face to face interactions only faster. What is going on at Mudcat and a million other sites like it is significantly different from anything human beings have ever done before. The rules are truly DIFFERENT. If you are naive about this you could be in for serious problems. MMario, internet relationships really are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT from "those I formed via letters, phone conversations and reel-to-reel tape exchanges when I was young." If a child of mine were say what you said in your post of 21-Sep-00 - 04:21 PM, I would immediatley throw every computer in the house into a dumpster. John Cameron's story (assuming that it is true) is a perfect example of what happens if you are not sufficiently paranoid about your network relationships. When all was said and done, all that the lady had dealt with was WORDS ON A SCREEN.

Thanks for you time and opinions.