[UPDATE: Enough is enough. I’m a Kat, not an instrument that uses catgut. Don’t play me.]
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a New York Times article claims that “sockpuppeting” is defined as “the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.”
Now, lets refer back to a bit of history that was revised out of existence (as yet with no formal explanation to the woman whose online existence within the blog at issue was targeted for erasure):
i’m not a sock puppet
Even if the position taken in the message is not at variance with the position she’s pushing (and, based solely on this I actually have no reason to presume that its not), writing in the third person about something that, based on the layout of the message, she is a signatory to and may well have been a co-author or author of….?
Verrrrrrrry interesting, no?
I have been banned from Pam’s House Blend for linking to information that this person (a) apparently did not care was online (FYI: It is still online, as is the other version of it on the website of a different organization), and (b) herself indirectly pointed to while claiming to be…
well, you know….
And now I’ll say here what I said earlier directly via e-mail:
You don’t get to pick and choose what people see – and, more importantly, how they see it – on publicly accessible internet pages. You posted about your connection to ERW, on whose website you openly tout your connection to PHB. I have not “published” anything about you either that hasn’t already been published by you – or that presumably you have allowed to be published – on publicly accessible internet pages. Nothing that is in the post to which you refer is, therefore, private in any sense of the word.If, on the other hand, you are claiming that I have incorrectly connected the dots between Lurleen and Laurel, then explicitly say and prove so and I will acknowledge any error that I may have made and I will remove the existing ENDABlog post.However, that would not alter the fact that Kathleen was improperly removed from Pam’s House Blend – and, per her as of my last communciation with her on the subject – still without any formal notification either that she was banned/erased from PHB or of what you assert to have been the specific violative wording. Even if she and I both inaccurately connected dots, she did not “publish” anything that your post did not all-but-directly point her and anyone else who might have seen the post before you removed it toward via your reference to ERW.
No special rights.