Snowspinner muses about stalking and murder, He's "edgy" and "artistic" Options

[orthogonal]

I have mastered the art of surveillance. For the past four years I have meticulously watched the same woman through my telescope. I know every bra and pair of panties that she owns. I can describe, to the millimeter, the location of every blemish on her body. I have also learned endurance - I went the entirety of last March without touching myself as I watched her.

. . . .

In desperate situations, I have learned that I can kill another man. A month ago I went out and found a homeless man. I lured him to the railroad tracks and garroted him. The police have yet to name a suspect. I am confident that they never will. The experience was exhilarating, but not so exhilarating that I would consider myself a psychopath. I am confident I can keep my random murders down to one a month with minimal effort.

Source

I'm sure Fat Phil will explain he was just jerking around, not revealing his unsavory self.

(Of course, he'll explain that his plea to "give jackbooted fascism a chance" on his user page is just a harmless joke too.)

[everyking]

He's quite strange. Very misanthropic.

[Selina]

More like schizophrenic...

[blissyu2]

Yes, back in late 2004. He also mentions that he can speak Klingon, and it was regarded by commentors as a joke.

I think we are taking this too seriously.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

He also mentions that he can speak Klingon, and it was regarded by commentors as a joke.

Snowspinner may be the real-life model for Comic book guy.

[Daniel Brandt]

Yes, Sandifer appears to be an English Ph.D. student at the University of Florida. One of his papers there:

"Duh: An Epistemology of Stupidity" Presented at the 2005 EGO Conference at the University of Florida.
Abstract: This presentation will deal with a practical downside of open knowledge projects based around the ideal that "anyone can contribute," namely the fact that "anyone" can and will include a substantial number of idiots. The question, then, is what one does with idiotic contributions, to say nothing of what one does with idiots in the social communities that inevitably surround such projects. How does one maintain quality of content while still allowing people who are detrimental to the quality of the content to contribute? Does one sacrifice quality? Openness? Does one have to sacrifice at all? I will address the problem through the example of Wikipedia, a user- created encyclopedia that anybody can edit and write articles for with ease. Based on case studies and discussions with users of the project, I will offer a picture of how one open project deals with idiocy. From these case studies, I will offer several possible models of how one can establish a working relationship between the demands of knowledge and the demands of openness, and try to offer a new perspective on both open projects and on terminal stupidity.

One of his lines on his Wikipedia user page:

"Deficiency in judgment is that which is ordinarily known as stupidity, and for such a failing there is no remedy." - Immanuel Kant

[Selina]

Lol, superiority complex much...

[everyking]

"Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy.

[Daniel Brandt]

That's great. Thanks to Hushthis for finding that. "Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy. Someone should start sending copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there.

If I know anything about how grad school works, it wouldn't take much to put him in a position where he either decides to leave Wikipedia or decides that he doesn't need a Ph.D. after all.

[blissyu2]

Its a pity really. Snowspinner's views on Expert Users are a good thing, or at least close to what I would suggest. Wikipedia needs to move away from the culture of ignorance and to respect people who actually know what they are talking about. Sure, we can all edit on things that we know nothing about, but if there is an expert about, or even someone who knows what they are talking about more than us, then they should be given preference.

But for Snowspinner to extend that to referring to people by the archaic notion that some people are superior to others is just stupid. IQ tests were popular in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's but have long since been superceded by more accurate models, such as Gardener's Multiple Intelligences and the related EQ tests, as well as derivatives. The current normal belief is that we are all overall equal, but that we each are good at some things and bad at others. This of course is not only scientifically a better way of looking at things, but its also a nicer way to go and coincides with most religious beliefs.

So why is Snowspinner stuck 50 years ago? Because he's an idiot? Or at least, this isn't his field of expertise. Who is the joker that gave let him be a PhD student on it?

[orthogonal]

Let me just say that I don't think "outing" Fat Phil as Snowspinner would be the right thing to do. Let's not stoop to his level.

[Donny]

Let me just say that I don't think "outing" Fat Phil as Snowspinner would be the right thing to do. Let's not stoop to his level.

The user formerly known as Snowspinner now edits Wikipedia under the username "Phil Sandifer", and the user page of Snowspinner is a redirect to the user page of Phil Sandifer, so this doesn't really count as "outing".

[Sgrayban]

Anyone that writes stuff like this has some serious mental issues hidden very deep... and should be watched

[God of War]

Anyone that writes stuff like this has some serious mental issues hidden very deep... and should be watched

It doesn't matter if he is being serious or not. As it is written, without any disclaimers, this page constitutes "terroristic threats" (has nothing to do with terrorism). This is Illegal. People can and DO get arrested for stuff like this.

[Sgrayban]

Which still means he has alot of mental problems when they write this shit. If they enjoy writing it the way he did then there is a real threat that is waiting to be unleashed at some point.

[everyking]

To be fair to Phil, his blog is clearly intended for literary/artistic purposes and I'm sure a claim that it's "terroristic" wouldn't be taken seriously for a second. I will grant that it could be something of an insight into his mind that he would write that kind of thing, but I don't need his weird musings to tell me there's something wrong with his head; I've been pretty sure of that for a good while now.

[Sgrayban]

I'm not ignorant...... I was just a shocked as the Uni was and the police.

[blissyu2]

I am not sure if I trust Snowspinner's 2 latest Live Journal entries. I mean, is he allowed to report on something like that in such explicit detail in public? I am not sure if that is permitted. He even mentioned their names which surely is a breach of privacy. Something tells me that we are being set up over this, and that those two entries are fakes.

Of course, if it is true, then it raises another question. Was it right for him to be investigated over such a thing? I mean, lots of people talk about killing someone (teachers, especially high school teachers tend to be the main fall guy, but also parents, siblings, and step parents are high up there) but how many people do it? It must be like 1,000 to 1 for every person that thinks of killing someone compared to every person that did it. And even if we write it down, so what? Does it really mean that you are going to do it? Is it really worth an investigation?

We can say that its "just to make sure" but unless someone actually died, or there was some more explicit source of it, why are we worrying about it? It is the kind of thing that should be used as evidence if someone dies, but without something definite surrounding it, its just a wild guess.

But then, should he then get praise over being "wrongly investigated"? Absolutely not. Next he'll be saying that he is the poor innocent guy that was harassed. Bullshit. He was the stupid idiot that wrote such a thing and then kept it up there when it was like that. I suppose next he'll say that he's been libelled on here and that he is the victim.

I'd rather see us go after Snowspinner for his crimes on Wikipedia, not clutch at straws on something like Live Journal, where we don't know him very well. We are better off when we are experts on a topic, not novices.

And now perhaps we've made things worse.

[Sgrayban]

But actions, including history of the person, and state of mind are accountable. Any court of law will agree with that also.

[orthogonal]

Dear god.

Had I know this would get so out of hand, I'd never have posted a link to Snowy's story here.

Don't misunderstand me: I find Snowspinner an unsavory young bully, far to fond of throwing his weight around on Wikipedia, and perhaps capable of overly enjoying writing fiction about victimizing homeless people.

But the operative word is fiction.

Informing the police and his university about Snowy's screwy slash fiction, suggesting it's criminal evidence, goes too far. As I've said before, there's no good in sinking to Snowy's level.

Snowy's an online poseur, a big man when he's behind his keyboard. He's no real-life murderer.

[Snowspinner]

Collectively they have far more first-hand expereince with real-life murders than any of us.

I don't know - you seem to fashion yourself quite the criminal profiler.

Dear god.

Had I know this would get so out of hand, I'd never have posted a link to Snowy's story here.

Don't misunderstand me: I find Snowspinner an unsavory young bully, far to fond of throwing his weight around on Wikipedia, and perhaps capable of overly enjoying writing fiction about victimizing homeless people.

But the operative word is fiction.

Informing the police and his university about Snowy's screwy slash fiction, suggesting it's criminal evidence, goes too far. As I've said before, there's no good in sinking to Snowy's level.

Snowy's an online poseur, a big man when he's behind his keyboard. He's no real-life murderer.

Creepy as I find your still caring enough about me to be on this thread, thank you.

I am not sure if I trust Snowspinner's 2 latest Live Journal entries. I mean, is he allowed to report on something like that in such explicit detail in public? I am not sure if that is permitted. He even mentioned their names which surely is a breach of privacy. Something tells me that we are being set up over this, and that those two entries are fakes.

Why wouldn't I be? One is generally assumed to be allowed to report upon and talk about one's activities and conversations.

But then, should he then get praise over being "wrongly investigated"? Absolutely not. Next he'll be saying that he is the poor innocent guy that was harassed. Bullshit. He was the stupid idiot that wrote such a thing and then kept it up there when it was like that. I suppose next he'll say that he's been libelled on here and that he is the victim.

I don't particularly see how being the passive object of a stupid police investigation is worthy of praise.

As for writing such a thing, come off it. Of all the idiotic accusations I've seen made against me on this board, the idea that writing a story featuring a mentally disturbed protagonist means that I myself am mentally disturbed is by far the most idiotic.

I'd rather see us go after Snowspinner for his crimes on Wikipedia, not clutch at straws on something like Live Journal, where we don't know him very well. We are better off when we are experts on a topic, not novices.

And now perhaps we've made things worse.

Well, you've certainly drawn attention to my journal, and given me a hell of a story to tell at parties.

Oh, and hey everyone. Like the color scheme you've got on the board here.

[Snowspinner]

Four questions for you, Snow:

1. Have you ever killed anybody?

According to the police, apparently that's inconclusive.

But no, I haven't.

As for the rest of your questions, having spent a good chunk of the last week defending my right to privacy, it seems silly to fritter that right by answering questions here.

Though actually, I'm tempted to open another Q&A thread...

[kotepho]

I can't decide which part of this is funnier, but since it is better if snowy is telling the truth I'll just go with it.
1) Someone cares enough to actually report this
2) People calling Phil's wikipedia actions crimes
3) Phil letting the police into his apartment, and then complaining when they see things and not having a witness.
4) Phil then complaining that they are lying, oh toes!
5) Phil thinking anyone would give a shit even if this was reported by someone he wronged on Wikipedia
6) The blogosphere reaction of FIGHT THE MAN!!!! FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!
7) The bit about comma usage
I can't decide which is the best. =(

[Snowspinner]

It is important that you establish that as a stance. If there are remaining doubts, mature comments acknowledging a community's need to protect its vulnerable members could be useful. If you don't want your fingerprints and DNA on record, that's your prerogative, but you might at a minimum try to consider the police interests in the matter from a neutral point of view. You might at least acknowledge the professionalism of people who knock on your door seeking to eliminate you from their list of potential suspects.

Being on a list of potential suspects would imply, you know, an actual crime - something they did not have.

The easiest way to avoid frittering away a right to privacy is to not "push the envelope" with ambiguous tomes that cause concern among your neighbors who might have unsolved murders on their duty roster. It was you who took us on a non-fiction literary tour of your inner sanctum, pointing out multiple discarded prescription medication containers scattered about. To me, that doesn't suggest a person seeking privacy, but rather a person revealing personal details in a way that could lead to personal insights as a result of group interaction.

I think we have very different conceptions of the right to privacy. I consider it to be the right to choose what I reveal and where. I will reveal that there were, on May 16, 2006, several empty prescription medication containers on my desk. I will not reveal what they had once contained.

The right to privacy does not preclude public interaction. If you were suffering a mental ailment, along with secondary symptoms related to stigma and you are also finding yourself a target of criticism for your administrative interactions, an understanding of your situation could lead to suggestions for improving an administrative process so it won't put such a burden on people in your situation. Instead of us pointing at your picture and based on obvious facial excitation saying that you appear manic, we could approach it with a sympathetic understanding that you suffer mania.

Are you diagnosing me as manic based on a single photograph? Because if so, you're the Bill Frist of mental illness.

Filing in these details could also reveal information that could help us help you understand why your need to push the envelope results in inconvenient situatons for yourself or others. That could lead to a better appreciation on your part of your role in communities, especially in those communities where expectations are not always consistent with your preferences.

It could also cause me to change into an invisible pink unicorn. We shall, however, never know, since I do not intend to fill in these details.

I can't decide which part of this is funnier, but since it is better if snowy is telling the truth I'll just go with it.
1) Someone cares enough to actually report this
2) People calling Phil's wikipedia actions crimes
3) Phil letting the police into his apartment, and then complaining when they see things and not having a witness.
4) Phil then complaining that they are lying, oh toes!
5) Phil thinking anyone would give a shit even if this was reported by someone he wronged on Wikipedia
6) The blogosphere reaction of FIGHT THE MAN!!!! FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!
7) The bit about comma usage
I can't decide which is the best. =(

7. Definitely 7.

I'll go with number seven -- he's a grad student in English and still can't satisfy his academic advisor on the simple matter of comma usage.

Not my advisor, to be clear. Director of writing programs, and general administrator of the TAs in the department.

Then, it wasn't written for class. If Sandifer's account is accurate, it's more like sad the English prof didn't have any concerns about ethics in fictional publication.

Good to know your knowledge of professional ethics in my field is as strong as your understanding of the DSM-IV criteria for mental illnesses.

Number two would be funny but it's off target. The only person who mentioned a crime was Sandifer -- as far as I know. It was his writing outside of Wikipedia, "pushing the envelope" in his blog entries, that created uncertainty among police over whether there was a crime committed or not.

Actually, one of y'all described my actions as crimes in a reply on Pulp Decameron.

[Snowspinner]

If there were a list of suspects, that would imply an actual crime. In your case, it doesn't seem you were on a list, but instead you published information that led law enforcement officers to investigate reasonable suspicion that arose from your publication. There is no question that there are unsolved crimes and missing persons that might lead police to exercise their right to free speech by knocking on your door and asking you if you meant it when you said you killed somebody.

I don't think their right to free speech is the most important thing protecting their right to knock on my door and ask questions.

Quite obviously. I consider the right to remain regardless how you choose to comprimise your privacy by referring to the untidy condition of your medical supplies. Asking you in no way violates your right because a.) you voluntarily identified yourself b.) you voluntarily provided information that inspired further questions and c.) you suggested you might answer more questions.

Of course asking doesn't violate the right. My not answering, however, exercises the right.

No, I am saying the fixated muscular excitation and red tint of blood coursing rapidly through facial epedermis evident in one image creates an appearance of prolonged excitation not related to an apparent context, which is consistent with manic conditions. Questioning an appearance is far different than offering a diagnosis, but you know that. Your avoidance of the question raises yet more questions, with no conclusive answers.

That did not make your case seem stronger.

Instead, you fill in more information suggesting a tendency to use surreal jest as an avoidance tactic.

Dude. I use surreal jest for just about anything. It's kinda like duct tape.

[Snowspinner]

Without a warrant, and without your permission to remain on your property, why did they leave when you rescinded your invitation? Your right to privacy and to protection against unwarranted search and seizure overrode their right to approach you and ask questions. They have other rights they can broker to retain a person of interest in a criminal investigation, but it seems by your account they relied on their basic right to speak. Fair enough that the First Amendment is styled as a protection against prior restraint by a government, but it still cuts both ways in affirming that private persons and public officials alike have basic right to engage in voluntary conversation.

True, if wholly uninteresting.

I'm not making a case. I'm asking questions.

And I'm Xenu the Space Conquerer.

Sometimes as we mature, we integrate aspects of our personality so we don't need so much duct tape. In this situaton, that could mean integrating the part of you that likes to let loose in his blog posts with the part of you that is glad there are people to keep killers off the street. You are glad somebody keeps killers off the street aren't you?

"Let loose?" Which post am I letting loose in?

[Sgrayban]

This is funny.... Now where are my wiki power tools....... LOL

[Snowspinner]

The one your academic advisor characterizes as "pushing the envelope" that resulted in police visiting you at your home.

How is that story "letting loose?"

[Snowspinner]

"letting loose" is used as a rough idiomatic synonym here for "pushing the envelope"

Interesting idiom.

I can ask related questions about your perceptions of the context in which that post would publish, but first, the question on the table is:

You are glad somebody keeps killers off the street aren't you?

I dunno, I feel like answering that would be anti-climactic after all this.

[Snowspinner]

I dunno, I feel like answering that would be anti-climactic after all this.

I feel like you avoiding an answer reveals conflicted emotions. Don't make me take it to the thread where your honor is on the line with a promise to answer...

Don't be silly. It's a loaded question with only one possible answer. You want me to give the answer so you can make a reply that starts with some form of "Then why do you..."

I see no particular reason to do this.

[blissyu2]

Oh, by the way, I wrote to Snowspinner to warn him. I probably wrote a bit much on there, but hey. I thought he should know about this.

[Snowspinner]

Oh, by the way, I wrote to Snowspinner to warn him. I probably wrote a bit much on there, but hey. I thought he should know about this.

I already knew, actually.

[Snowspinner]

That is what I am doing with this line of questioning -- attempting to discern whether your blanket "Thank you" to everyone involved in revealing the controversial blog post was genuine or more surreal jest brand duct tape.

I take kind of a broadly spiritual approach towards duct tape. Everything is duct tape. Nothing is duct tape. There is no spoon.

Do you appreciate the efforts of police to capture murderers, even though their work may sometimes be inconvenient for you?

I don't feel as though the question can be usefully answered in the general case.

[Snowspinner]

I can't find much other way to appreciate that except as indifference toward the work of police.

I do not appreciate every action that has been taken in the name of getting murderers of the street. I also do not condemn every action that has been taken in the name of getting murderers off the street. Therefore, the general case is pretty uninteresting.

If I posed the same question about wikipedia administrators, could you answer it in the general case? Do you appreciate the work of wikipedia administrators in stopping damage to the Wikipedia project, even though that work can sometimes be inconvenient?

I pretty much feel similarly.

[Snowspinner]

I can't find much other way to appreciate that except as indifference toward the work of police.

I do not appreciate every action that has been taken in the name of getting murderers of the street. I also do not condemn every action that has been taken in the name of getting murderers off the street. Therefore, the general case is pretty uninteresting.

Again, I'm not exploring your interest, which you represent as a global interest. I am exploring my interest in your appreciation of police work related to major crimes against persons. Let me try it again, another way. Would you prefer a system where, if a family member was murdered, your only option would be to hire a private investigator? Or are you generally supportive of the fact that we have publicly supervised police trained and ready to investigate homicides?

I am generally supportive.

[Snowspinner]

Q. Was it your intent, posting it on a page where nothing else implied fictional context, to flaunt the line that defines the rituals surrounding our suspension of disbelief?

I did not post it on a page where nothing else implied fictional context.

Q. Or was that an inadvertant result of the way live journal publishes posts -- did it just show up on its own page away from any other fictional posts and you never considered it might not be understood as clearly fictional?

Neither - every LJ post can be accessed as an individual, out of context page, but this is not the way that it would normally be encountered. The issue is probably this blog post: http://www.websnark.com/archives/2004/12/h...lls_it_mic.html which links directly to that story. Though if you actually followed that link, you'd notice that it is prominantly described as fiction there too.

Now, I know I'm piling on questions:

Q. Whether it inadvertantly or intentionally masked the line between fiction and reality, how does your appraisal of some people as "stupid" influence your view of the balance of responsibility between writer and author?

This question does not make sense.

Q. Would you say any person or particularly, getting back to our friends in blue, a cop who was not absolutely certain of the fictional nature of the tome was "stupid" for not immediately recognizing your intentions?

No. I do, however, question the sense of continuing an investigation after the fictional nature of the piece has been pointed out to you. More specifically, I do not believe that self-professedly fictional writing would ever constitute reasonable suspicion on its own.

[Daniel Brandt]

Let's explore who is being "stupid" in this whole case. We're in a political climate where a patron of a public library notices a penciled-in quote from Osama Bin Laden in the margins of some book, and shows it to the librarian, and the FBI is called in and eagerly grabs the records of everyone who recently borrowed that book.

In other cases, librarians have acted more professionally. The FBI serves them with a national security letter (no judge's signature required), and under Patriot Act One they were required to cough up borrowing records. If the librarian told anyone the FBI had been there and done this, it's a felony. (Patriot Act Two has modified this, after much lobbying from the American Library Association, so that librarians have slightly more protection now.)

Now we have Snowspinner. I think everyone acted reasonably in this case. The original complainer may have been sincerely worried, and it is their right to notify the proper authorities. The UF president took it seriously on its face, and properly referred it to the campus cops. The cops followed up and behaved reasonably. Snowspinner properly insisted, to an extent, on his right to remain silent and refuse fingerprinting.

What was unreasonable? Surely something was unreasonable, because a lot of people got activated in a situation where Snowspinner says it was all silly and unnecessary.

Let's look at two hypothetical situations where we have a crowded theater. Someone gets up and shouts, "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to yell 'Fire!' as loud as I can. Please do not get alarmed. This is only a test. I'm trying to see how far my voice carries."

In the second situation, the person gets up and just yells "Fire!"

What's the difference? In the first situation we have a meaningful disclaimer. In the second situation the perpetrator is properly hauled off to jail because when people stampede out of a crowded theater someone can get hurt. One is free speech, and the other is a crime.

It is clear to me that Snowspinner should have included a fairly elaborate disclaimer on his blog post. He should have explained that he is a grad student and is exploring creative writing, and assuming the role of an unbalanced and dangerous protagonist in a purely fictional presentation. This disclaimer should have been on top, in a typeface that is larger than the rest of it. Better yet, don't even publish the damn thing on the web. Keep it in a drawer until it's time to show it to your professor if you're looking for constructive criticism. Or email it to your friends. Don't publish the thing on the web. Cops are cruising Myspace looking for child porn leads, and you think your blog is off-limits?

It was stupid to do what you did. I think this stupidity came from the rush you've acquired from being an admin on Wikipedia. You owe your English Department, and the president of UF, an apology for doing something stupid.

By the way, Snowspinner, as someone who has had some experience in these situations from the COINTELPRO days of the 1960s, let me give you some advice. If the next time you decide to be stupid you find the FBI knocking on your door instead of mere campus cops, you should do this: Politely ask them what it's about, and then politely confirm that they are not there to arrest you, and that they have no warrant to search, and politely say that you refuse to talk to them. You see, it's a felony for you to lie to the FBI, but it's okay for the FBI to lie to you and trick you. And they are damn good at it -- they do interviews all day long.

They might present you with a waiver form, and ask you to sign it, and you refuse, and then they say, "Well, can we talk to you anyway?" Frequently it works, because you think you were smart for refusing to sign. What really transpired is that the FBI was smarter, because if you talk to them anyway, it makes zero difference that you refused to sign. This happened to me. In my draft trial, we introduced this issue. The judge would have none of it. He said, "You're a college graduate, and you shouldn't have been so stupid."

The bottom line is this: Don't try to pull your Wikipedia tricks in the real world. It's not worth the trouble it will cause you.

Martha Stewart will back me up on this.

[Lir]

More than one rapist/serial killer has kept a blog about it; its really not terribly surprising that the police would come asking about something like that -- its not like they arrested you.

[blissyu2]

Oh, by the way, I wrote to Snowspinner to warn him. I probably wrote a bit much on there, but hey. I thought he should know about this.

I appreciate your outreach work, blissy. It speaks well of you that you started this forum but didn't assume a role where you have any technical authority, prefering instead to accomplish your goals by setting tone, carefully considering contrary views and genuinely trying to expand the scope of dialogue by advising people of the conversation.

Actually, I didn't start this forum. Igor Alexander did. I didn't even have the idea for a paid for version. I am pretty sure that was Lir's idea. I may have had the idea for the name, but that was fairly obvious. I just paid for the domain name. Selina set up the forum, and did most of the work, and deserves more credit than me. Thanks for the thanks though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). I like to think of this more as a group effort. I won't pay the fees next year, and I hope that someone, or a group of people, will treasure the forum enough to put their hands up to put up the money. I hope so at least. I certainly don't think that something like this should be seen as the work of one person. It is a group effort.

[hades]

This is the page, linked from the first post in this thread as I previously cited, where there is no evidence that this is a fictional message. Can you tell us where on this page there is evidence it is fiction? Alternately, did you not realize it had published in this context with no message indicating it was fiction?

I hope it's not bad form for a random person not previously involved in the conversation to answer this one. (I came across this thread via BoingBoing this morning.)

These are the markers I took as evidence of fictionality when I read the livejournal page you link to:

* The final line: "My resume is attached." No resume is attached.
* The copyright and creative commons notices.
* Clicking on the user profile and journal main page links, both of which are obvious if you're familiar with the livejournal interface, but perhaps less obvious if you're not familiar with it. On the user profile page, it's made pretty clear that the posts are works of fiction:

Pulp Decameron is a microfiction writing project. The intent is to create 100 microfictions that play off of ten classical pulp genres ranging from Westerns to Sci-Fi.

If you'll excuse a bad analogy, it's my opinion that confusing that livejournal post for nonfiction is like coming across a copy of American Psycho with the cover and first few pages torn out on the street, and treating that as nonfiction. I should try tearing the cover and copyright notice out of a copy of that book and leaving it somewhere. I wonder how long it would be before the police were called to investigate Bret Easton Ellis?