...and I'm supposed to know movie remakes? ;(

I'm more likely to have seen reruns of old TV series, on some backwater cable channel or other - but not that one. The Prisoner, yes. Although I didn't know English at the time. :p

<Keeps me out of trouble, I suspect.

If I pursued *everyone* taking my name in vain I'd either be horrendously busy, or disappointed that no-one was talking about me.>

Well, you are always free not to respond to every mention... that's what I do most of the time where I'm not directly addressed. Good to keep informed, though.

<Le Buinneach air>

Heh - how do you pronounce that?

I suppose even lunches have rights, though the toxic ones should be banned in civilized countries.

However, since you just referred to me as a Guardian Angel, I'll say this- I'll say this to you <Once> and then shut up about it.

As <Annie> recently, and painstakingly, pointed out, there's no such thing as "talking behind people's backs" at this website.

It's a public chatroom, so despite the ignore function or despite those who don't use Search Kibbutz for their own name, there are dozens of ways to "happen" upon someone talking about you.

That's why I wish you would show some alertness with regard to what <Once> has just exhausted himself doing- virtually stopping a flame war single handed.

If you really want to analyze someone, fair enough- but in certain circumstances- like now, for example- perhaps that analyzing could be done privately via email?

We all have each other's addresses.

Careless talk at this particular time could undo a lot of really good work by <Once>, and, to be fair, also done by <AJ> and <AJ's> detractors all-

First, the notion that people, <because they have that option available to them> - and this was the original assumption - when they login each time they do, would check the search kibitz and put in their own username or abbreviation or whatever, is completely false, because I am one of many a "person" that hasn't done this in 5 years of kibitzing here - ie. either type in my handle or 'Niels' to check if I have been addressed somewhere on this website... My only business here at CG is with the people I talk <to> and the threads that I may be involved in, and those are all neatly listed below my profile, i.e. the locations/pages I last kibitzed at. Then there are pages and persons I may also be interested in, and in the extreme case of wanting to check up on <all> posts made by eg <Domdaniel>, I have on rare occasion typed in a handle in the search kibitz function. Another example would be that I get home and want to read <Nigel Short>'s comments on a game page. Put his handle in the search box and it saves time, no spam, and neatly in chronological order.

But to get back to the point -- Dom, I assume like me and many others, doesn't check and use the search function with any regularity to see where there's been a mention of him, bad rap or good rap or neutral rap.

Second-- quite the assumption, really, and out of touch with reality, or should I say "normality", to assume that "people" on this website "do" something because "you" do something or use or are aware of a function... <Once> - whom <Jess> addresses here, is a case in point of someone who wasn't even <aware> of that function, or this application rather.

Thirdly - the subsequent assumption - and I'll address Jess now directly - that, as you say, and I quote: <It's a public chatroom, so despite the ignore function or despite those who don't use Search Kibbutz for their own name, there are dozens of ways to "happen" upon someone talking about you.> is a mystery to me. What dozen? At CG the chances of happening to run upon someone talking "about" you <outside> the recent threads you <may> want to revisit, is close to zero. NIL. There's only the below profile check on "where you bin" recently, and besides that there's nada, just random chance.

That's why those "in the know" and <"in the need">, use the search function and type in their handle or abbreviation.

So naturally, just as in real life (what's <really> the difference here?), there's talk behind people's backs and gossip and as a consequence possibly distasteful and potential unwelcome discourse.

Actually the mere thought that this is "just a public chatroom", implying that it's all rather "small-scale" and "easily and quickly <checked>" around here, is a fallacy to me and though possibly well intended, a misrepresentation of the situation at- and size of- CG.

The irony and "problem" and core issue here, then, is that <if> people here <do> find out that there <is> talking behind their backs going on, they may <from then on>, feel compelled or <forced> to use the search function to keep track of that. Does that mean that because of the fact that they - from point X in time now - <can> track if they are mentioned in whichever way and with whatever intention, mean that the whole concept of "talking behind people's backs" has vanished and gone "poof"?

In fact I feel sick in my stomach to merely think about the fact that I would be able to - to my "from now on unrestrained heart's delight" - talk about people <anywhere>, and sanction it by making myself believe in the fairy-tale that "there is no such thing as ..."

You yourself were arguing a few days ago that one of the problems with <Once's> truce working was that people were talking about <AJ> without addressing him.

That's what I saw a risk of again today, over at <Annie's> forum.

As for ways of finding out who's talking about you- the whole point is that if someone really wants to- they can find out.

This fact alone makes it potentially volatile to be posting in various places with the "expectation of privacy" because here there is none.

Your last paragraph seems to agree with me?

I don't necessarily think that analyzing others in various fora without addressing them directly is a "lowering of standards," if that's what you mean- but I'd be inclined to agree with you on that, despite the fact that I've been one of the worst offenders on that point.

My only point, really, was this:

At the present moment- with <AJ> peaceful, his attackers peaceful- maybe this isn't the best time to be analyzing him in public.

And yes, <Dom's> forum and <Annie's> forum is public.

We are in agreement on the main point.

I didn't- and I'm sure <Annie> didn't- mean that "talking behind people's backs" is ethically acceptable because of the fact that all the discourse here is public.

I'll speak only for myself here though- when I said there's "no such thing as talking behind each other's backs" here, I wasn't suggesting that the actual behavior- gossiping, backbiting, tattling and such- somehow "doesn't exist here", or suggesting it's somehow more acceptable because of the public nature of all our posts. Far from it. I'm with you on that.

I meant only that the discourse here is all public if anyone cares to look.

Quite complex, eh? I hoped I worded it well enough, though I could have done with less words and a more technical approach and analysis of, as you rightly say, outlining and defining/refining, my point.

Glad we have a mutual understanding, and I in turn confirm that I am in agreement with your summary in your response.

There's a possibilty I am ultra-sensitive on this particular subject, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Literally!

AHAHAHAAH

heh we are on <dom's> page.

<Dom> I really hope I didn't step out of line there- me lecturing anyone on internet etiquette is absurd, given that I normally make my posts in a pre-psychotic rage.

I also do not see how that relates to the AJ truce, which is a separate issue IMO, and why Dom should subsequently walk on egg shells here on "the above."

Maybe I miss something here, am unaware of certain "ties", but while I'm at it, there you go ;)

HAHAHAAA--

Sorry but sometimes my old dark humor bone has me by the ... well, cohones.

Protecting the truce will be a voluntary community effort.

What <Once> did was staggering. Even the people who wanted him to succeed didn't think that he would.

But he did succeed. He succeeded in convincing <AJ> and the others to refrain from violating the posting guidelines long enough for things to cool down, and now peter out.

No matter what happens from here, <Once> did something huge, and for entirely selfless motives.

Think of how much abuse- yes, verbal abuse he willingly subjected himself to, because he knew it was necessary to achieve his goal.

Think of how he himself never lost his temper. Sure he got frustrated, but he never <once> lost his temper and he never <once> violated a posting guideline.

Things may re-ignite, but there's no excuse for any involved then, to hide behind the same pseudo-rationalizations and emotion-deregulation.

If a few DO want to reignite, then those doing so will prove their pathology is there to stay, and then it is upto XX to show that he has learned a few things. No long-term guarantees from me though.

This is good to know. I thought you'd been extremely well-behaved and balanced recently.

Dear oh dear, I thought, what has become of the hot-tempered young vixen I useta know? Has she joined the Establishment and become a 'solid netizen'?

I copied this bit from Annie's forum, and may I re-assure you that as far as my response to <Jess> goes, you didn't start "me" in any way that I can think of, except that I was drawn in initially by your wonderful disqualification of Lemming. ... I merely addressed a topic that I feel quite strongly about (as put forward this time by Jess in the post I quoted from "yesterday"), for quite some time now, and which I hate to see misformed, or misinterpreted.

Naturally I'd value input by you, Jess (which she generously offered), or anyone else, even though I worded my thoughts in quite firm fashion.