The Vacuous World

Pat:

Where do you find Chock Staffers intimidating
and pontificating? If you mean `contributors` and that too some of them only, perhaps I`d agree.

regards

Re : Pat Shah

just my thoughts. You have put them across very well indeed

Rishi

Re: Anita, Pseudonym usage, Chowk staff

Well made points Dr. Zaidi. Interesting you would be bringing up the issue of grant applications just as I`m finishing up a couple myself! However, I don`t think making false maligning statements from a pseudonym would damage someone as much as if they were made from a known entity. I mean, now that you have mentioned how you thought badgirl ``appeared`` as someone pushing an agenda, don`t you think that possibly falsely maligns her? Even if you said you thought it was the appearance? Regardless, I don`t think it was that harmful really.

Another point -- it seems that most Chowk staff people have real names and that everyone else who interacts is most often a pseudonym. I don`t have the statistics on this of course (I`m not staff), but maybe just MAYBE only the people who actually use their real names in the Interact sessions are mostly staff --- and everyone else mostly anonymous. Most people who read here don`t post. Then other non-staff people seem to be often pseudonyms.

I think that The Chowk Staff (not the capital letters) are probably a bit intimidating with the holier-than-thou stance that seems to emanate from this site. It took me a good month to realize everyone was actually human here. Also, many Chowk staffers have an inordinate ability to pontificate in these interact sessions also appearing quite intimidating at times.

Just a thought.

--Pat.

Re: Rishi (can`t keep count of replies),

Rishi, I am not against pseudonym use. I think they have a very valid role in many situations, such as those described by you. In fact, I might decide to use one myself when we move back to Pakistan. What I am against is use of pseudonym to indulge in abusive behavior, such as we have seen here.

Additionally I admit that I have thought BG’s use of pseudonym misplaced (but that’s just my opinion). I based this on some of the statements she has made. For example, in replies to Umair’s article ``Bombing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts,`` she has said:

``…even if there were a law against speaking out against the government of the country I lived in, I would not live by it. I am a free individual and no matter where I live, I have an inalienable RIGHT to speak my mind…I would do the same wherever I lived…``

Elsewhere in the same section she has said:

``Whatever you or I can do to understand what is going on, inform ourselves and those around us of the truth and then speak our minds. I think every bit helps…``

This kind of talk seems odd, coming from a pseudonym user. These words of hers are what misled me into thinking she had an activist agenda, and even inviting her to speak to a gathering of public health professionals. But she has clarified that she doesn’t have an agenda, and I am sorry that I thought otherwise.

You ask if in retrospect I could have handled the issue (of tag-teams and pseudonyms) with Random differently. Good question. The targeting by Random (of Saad and me) has actually been going on for a while (See The Daily Grind, Bombing Iraqis, Just Another Woman, current article). I have no idea why, but have ignored it so far, hoping he/she would just give up. I could have requested Umair to delete the offensive prose, but that’s against my freedom of expression stance. I asked for an e-mail exchange but that was refused. Given the inherent unequal playing field of writing under one’s real name, and defending oneself against an anonymous person exhibiting a high level of hostility, I felt the best approach was to be aggressive in return. I do not think it would be a waste if it has the effect of stopping future attacks because the hypocricy has been exposed. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Anita

Re: Anita

I agree that almost all of what you say in defense of your position regarding pseudonyms are indeed true. But then there are equally forceful arguments for letting people have the liberty to choose pseudonyms or not.

It depends on one`s point of view and rationale behind participating in chowk. Someone might look at chowk as an extended (but rather intelligent ) family to make up for the ones we miss back in our home towns, and someone else might look at it as a forum where like minded individuals can get together to do something constructive. There are also others who would just love to use it as a forum to shoot some breeze. There might be some who would use it as a cathartic exercise too. Depends where you are, and what your intentions are, i suppose. But then, i am all out for an individual`s freedom of expression and if chowk requires me to reveal anything i do not think appropriate for me to reveal, i might just stop participating. And it is this right to choose, that you are questioning Ms Zaidi. And while doing it, you are standing in the other end of the spectrum . It was a very apt issue that you took up, but then instead of looking into merits and demerits of the same, you ended up coming across as someone who has an agenda to accomplish ( pardon me if i am wrong here ).Why don`t we let people be just what they are ? If someone wants to use a pseudonym let him/her use it ? How does it matter if they do or don`t ? And if someone is playing a shoddy game, well that`s what censors are for .

One question that kept nagging me and i had to get it out of my chest...

In retrospect, when you sit back and take a deep look at this issue (of pseudonyms, tag-teams and such), do you feel that you could have handled this differently ? I sometimes feel that way and you know what, it makes me feel all the more miserable in having wasted a chance which could have been handled better .

Re: Random.

Can you provide concrete evidence of tag-team play between Ms.Zaidi and Saad. Like replies with their numbers and articles where they are featured. Would really like to see if your views are substantiated ? And if you choose to answer this, no vague answers please.

When accusing someone of something, you atleast owe them that . The burden of proof is pretty heavy and it squarely rests on your shoulders.

p.s : And i am not acting as an arbitrator here. These are to just satisfy my curiosity and my reasoning abilities .

Cheers

Kannan Krishnan

Re: Pat Shah and pseudonyms

Pat Shah, I agree with your basic premise that pseudonyms allow one to express oneself more completely, and for some people, also more honestly, without fear of consequences. They are also a powerful tool for investigative reporting when doing it openly may be too dangerous.

However, I do not think they are the best way to foster honesty in a number of situations. In fact, they may have the opposite effect. For example, if I were against a particular scientist because he/she didn`t give me a grant I applied for, I could start spreading false rumors about him/her to get back. On Chowk, if I say something someone doesn`t like, they can say false things about me, because it serves their purpose, and they have nothing to lose, since I can never know who it is, and what their motives are.

Before Umair put in the password registration system, people were even accusing others of being dope addicts, writing under different pseudonyms to create multiple personalities for themselves, and worse of all, posing as other interactors (for example someone could pretend to be me). One had no idea who was saying what. The chaos was unbelievable. The sad thing is - that`s why many people use pseudonyms. If that weren`t true, we wouldn`t even need this process of signing up, using password, have a language code etc. You`d see a lot more people interacting (we used to see a lot more people interacting)- but about half of them would be name-calling and falsely accusing each other of some or the other crime.

Another, admittedly a more benign variety of pseudonymer is the `feel-good` type. They appear to have some basic sense of insecurity that is fulfilled by making `feel-good` statements about popular causes in cyberspace where there is no way to separate virtuality from reality.

Also, a somewhat unrelated question - if everyone (all writers as well as interactors) decided that writing under one`s real name was just too painful, and adopted pseudonyms en masse would Chowk be as much fun?

Finally you ask how I seem to know that BG is ``intentionally advancing an ultraliberal activist agenda``. Actually I don`t. I don`t know anything about BG. I said that she APPEARED to be, that this is how she came across to me, but that I could be completely wrong, and may be this wasn`t at all her intention or agenda.

Re: Rishi

You ask why I am not asking BG whether a connection exists between Random and her?

I haven`t because I thought it unfair, since it is not HER pseudonym that is hurling these accusations of tag-team gang attacks on people at me. But I do think it curious that she hasn`t denied a relationship, if none exists.

Also, Rishi, while defending myself against Random`s accusations, I have been careful not to accuse, rather only question him/her about possible motivations.

To be accused of a crime that I`m not commiting, while the accuser MAY be playing the same game himself/herself from behind pseudonyms (see replies to Just Another Woman)- you tell me, where`s the justice in that?

Anita

re pat shah

sorry, for the `inconsistency`; my username is now `bg` for the forseeable future. when i first started interacting on chowk, interaction rules and customs were evolving, and so was my interaction.

Re: Anita

And while trying to find the possibility of a relationship between random and BG why are you not posing the same question to BG ?

just curious...

Rishi

Re: Anita, Random

Gosh, don`t you get tired of wanting to have the last say. And in this i am forced to give more Credit to Random than to you Ms.Zaidi.

If Random accuses you of tag-team play, you have all the rights to defend yourself. But in accusing Random of the same, what are you accomplishing except that in the near future, all your readers might take an extra look at the replies section to see how much of tagging really takes place between you and saad or between random and bg. What a waste ?

And if Random says that he/she does not have any connection to BG would that satisfy you or would you in which case come up with another ace up your sleeve.

And is Random refusing to answer this just to keep you guessing ?

c`mon lets move on

Rishi

Re: Random

Random yaar. I must say I have been rather patient with you. Would like just a plain yes/no. Do you have a connection with BG outside of Chowk? Since this can undermine the credibility of all your tag-team dhandora, why not simply deny it if it isn`t true?

Anita

Re: Pseudonyms

Yes, yes, enough has been written on this topic, but I felt I had to add a bit more.

Everyone knows the pros and cons as far as Chowk is concerned, but I think the point that badgirl (bg) made about it allowing one to be completely honest is important. For a site that provides true interaction, it is really one of the best means to foster honesty. It also may foster stupidity too as we know.

I`m surprised at Dr. Zaidi`s vehemence at characterizing an anonymous person as someone who is ``intentionally advancing an ultraliberal activist agenda``. Wow, you seem to really think you know this person. I wish I had your abilities. Then I could understand my spouse a bit better at least.

One beef with you ``bg``: why do I see some pieces and commentary under ``BG`` sometimes under ``bg`` and sometimes under ``Bad Girl``? I like how Chowk`s one comment about pseudonyms is that it should be consistent.

Re: BG (Reply 83)

Divulge your identity only if you want to; don`t feel pressurized.

Re: Anita (still attempting to get mileage) Zaidi (Reply 88)

Am moving on. Will send postcard.

Re: BG

Thanks for your response. Look forward to hearing from you.

Anita
(anita@chowk.com)

Re: Random

I wonder why you are having so much trouble answering this.

If you unfairly accuse others of tag-team personal attacks, shouldn`t you also disclose your own secret alliances, if any? A simple yes or no answer to the following will do:

Do you have any connection with BG outside of Chowk?

(No accusation, just a query.)

Anita

Re: Rishi

Hey, buddy, pal and friend of mine, I was being merely sarcastic. You did not offend me and consequently, there is no reason for you to feel that way. I sincerely appreciate the sentiments though. I have never been offended by anyone on Chowk. Granted my blood begins to boil at some of the arguments postulated, but that is always directed towards the message and not the messenger. I judge Chowkwallahs on the coherence, content and validity of their arguments and not on the basis of their cyber personalities.

Re: Chowkwallahs

I am an extermely sarcastic person and as far as being offended by your posts, I would not worry about it. No one can offend me unless I choose to be offended. Sarcastically speaking, I am too shallow and all the insults just glide over me!

However, since I am not a mind reader, I would hope that you, Chowkwallahs, will tell me if I have offended you in a post. I rather that you told me that instead of sulking and assuming I know what is wrong.

Re: Temporal`s post #81

I agree. My question on the profile of internet users in Pakistan was based on a specfic interest to utilize the internet as a political tool. As you rightly pointed out, we will not accomplish much sitting at our PCs since it amounts to nothing more than an utopian nonsense.

I think that it was BG who said it and said it correctly. First we need to define the terms ``grassroots`` and ``activism`` before we start to do anything. We need to find a target audience and a message that they can understand. Right now, I am in a ``research mode`` and my basic problem is identifying a group. After that, I can broadcast my message and create an awareness of the issue s.

I agree with your overall assessment, but I still think that this not an insurmountable problem. It can be done and message conveyed by creating ``an internet tree``. I tell two people who tell two more and thus, through a geometric progression, we can reach a wide audience. I have an idea and I know how it can work, but at this stage I have not worked out all the wrinkles. We have to work with the problem, the tangibles, and not be disuaded by the intangibles.

Hope this answers your question. In the words of Robert F. Kennedy, said upon the hearing the news of Martin Luther King Jr.`s assassination, April 4, 1968 and two months before his own; let us go out and make gentle the life of man.

Re: Anita (Reply 82)

``others use them almost entirely to take pot-shots at people (eg. Random)``

If my extensive interaction simply qualifies as pot shots, you are hurting or missed my points completely or in denial.



``Random, this was an argument about wrongly accusing couples of tag-team play, while hiding your own relationships, if any, behind pseudonyms, and playing secret tag-team.``

You`re in denial. Let me point out for the third or fourth time, that this argument was about you and Saad ganging up and attacking people rather than their arguments. That you attempted to discredit this by implying hidden liaisons between p-nymers, was your ill-advised retort. Keep the issue clear, and take responsibility for what you say. The good that has come out of it is that you both have become more sensitive to this issue.

``Regarding your relationship with BG, if any - its obvious you don`t want to address the question

directly - and I am happy to leave it at that.``

Eternally thankful to you for ALLOWING me to maintain my anonymity and not pursuing with ``calling my bluff``. Wait! Does this mean that I`m not BG? Just when I was getting used to being labeled an ``alter-ego``. The Lord be praised - I finally have a voice of my own!

One last word. Conquer this incessant desire to find out Chowkies` identities, whether it`s disguised as your need for empirical evidence in their personal lives or whatever else you convince yourself as being your motivating factor.

I`m getting tired of you going around in circles and harping over the same concocted issues, while not responding to the one I raised. I`ve made my point whether or not you admit it.

Let`s move on.