AntiSocial Media, Slideshow Presentation by Judd Bagley Options

[One]

A lot of the material aimed at SlimVirgin from this site was way out of line, ridiculous on occasion, nasty on others.

A depressing by-product of that lunatic mud-slinging was that it suppressed credible criticism, and allowed the BADSITES brigade on Wikipedia to concoct a defence in support of ongoing abuse.

There's no doubt that this site has played host to completely unreasonable people, clearly unhinged types quick for revenge, that no one would like to cross.

I don't really like the "open forum" defense. Sure, it is important to have an arena free from Wikipedio influence. But sometimes you have to call a nutjob a nutjob. Thankfully, and eventually, the worst offenders have either left in a flurry of bile, or have been banned for their own safety.

I'm with you here. Wikipedia has a problem with unverified libel from any unidentified kook that wants to post it; I'm not sure why this site powers are hell bent on recreating that problem here. I don't think this site should require identity checks, but it should at least refuse to give paranoid nutters a platform.

Thankfully WR isn't doing so bad at this precise moment, but I hope the next nutjob is shown the door.


Edit: Good post, Somey, thanks.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 5th March 2009, 6:39am

[Cla68]

Edit: Good post, Somey, thanks.

I agree, a good post that can be used in the future whenever someone repeats the same, or similar claims. Actually, this thread has been useful in getting several issues discussed and clarified to some degree. Too bad that it has taken so long.

The discussion made me remember how Wikipedia was administered in 2006-07 and how changed it is now. The blatent POV-pushing by a number of admins, who openly teamed up to help and support each other, appears to have ended for the most part. Jayjg's continuing behavior is one of the last remnants of that mess, but this current ArbCom case, hopefully, will be his Waterloo.

What does this all mean to the big picture? Will it now be more difficult for someone to use Wikipedia for propaganda or to promote a personal agenda (like Naked Short Selling and defaming a certain CEO)? Will cabals of Wikipedia editors that try to operate as openly as they used to continue to be publicly criticized on Wikipedia, much like the IDCab was (more or less) recently? We'll see, I guess. No matter what, I think WR will continue to be an important element in ensuring that Wiki-abuse won't go unchallenged.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 5th March 2009, 7:10am

[the fieryangel]

That's the point, folks. Identity matters. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to lay your cards on the table and come out of your wiki-closets. You're going to stalked a hell of a lot less if you just stop playing this game with mirrors and masks and just say who you are.

As far as I'm concerned, Judd has something to beef about. A pseudonym has no rights at all.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

We have a named individual who is having to justify his actions to a pseudonym. Why is it over-reaching to say that this is not fair because the named person's real life is in the balance and the pseudonym's real life is not? And why should anyone listen to a pseudonym when a named person has given out pretty much everything that can be known about him except whether he carries to the right or to the left?

The whole reason that this entire discussion is taking place is because people are being paranoid because they're hiding behind pseudos. That's the whole problem right there. The named individual is, by nature of what that entails, immediately more believable. That's just how that game works, my friend.

Just to calm this recurring discussion down once again (how many times have we had this already? five times? ten times? I've lost count): whatever I know about anybody is going to remain a secret. I'm not going to out anyone, ever. All that I'm saying is that once you're "out", a lot of problems go away.

I will continue to say this because it's a fact. Like it or not.

Don't broaden this point further needed or you will find yourself isolated, again. We repeat this discussion over and over again because of your failure to understand a nuanced and reasoned position. Of course Judd has nothing to answer to SlimVirgin, an abusive admin of extraordinary authority and influence who has completely abused her use of a pseudonym. You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it. Followed by complaining about people who have done a better job and do in no way abuse their own pseudonyms. This is hardly any great virtue. Knock the "like it or not" nonsense off. You make yourself look like an intrusive busybody.

You've chosen once again to continue this discussion down this line and I'm only doing so to clarify some points. Anytime you want to stop is fine with me. At any rate, this is completely on topic, because we're talking about the underlying problem...and the underlying solution.

The pseudonymous culture of WP is at the heart of this problem. Denying that is to deny the obvious solution. By squelching (once again) the discussion of the very issue that is behind all of this is continuing the aims of the very structure that you supposedly put yourself up against. The main question that I have is "why?". It doesn't make any sense and suggests that you might have other motivations for doing so.

Secondly, you're pushing this "Proab = TFA" agenda again, while there is simply no evidence to support this, other than my having contact with Proab--as do you. If you'll read what I wrote above, I'm not at all "bitching" about having been "outed" because it's turned out to be the solution which has given me more power, not less. That's the "like it or not" part because although I realize that you're still stuck in "the Game" here with the whole mental process of seeing monsters behind every stray pseudonym, the reality of getting out of it is extremely objective.

You're still all playing with mirrors. My advice to you (and this means all of you) is to stop. That's the only way out. The applies as much to SV as it does to you.

Have you noticed that Flonight is using her real name here? I think that she's figured this out too...

I don't mind being the mirror that reflects your reality back to you (more on that in my next akahele article) and I'm well aware that this causes hostility--That's the point, actually! I'm far from "isolated", so I really don't care about this attitude. It's your "game" anyway, not mine.

And as far as I've been careless about "managing my dox"....Well, you all have. But why should that matter? Who believes what a bunch of pseudos say anyway? And unless you have something to hide, it doesn't really matter what they say.

[Jon Awbrey]

Sorry to go on so long, folks …

No you're not.

It's probably good to see that recap, anyway. Still …

Why are people hyper-dissecting the clues into the real person behind SV?
Didn't this thread beat it to death already?

And who cares? She's toxic, and she's vindictive, and you can't trust her.
That ought to be straightforward.

Goodness Gracious, People! I've been at The Wikipedia Review for almost 3 years now and I Have No Recollection Of Ever Reading This Stuff (IHNROERTS)™ — I guess it's good to know that we have such avid readers out there in WikiPodunkia, but it's really not worth the pain of having to sit through the roadshow version of The Most Excrement and La Mental Tragedy of SlimVirgin Again!

I know that a lot of the oldtimers here are not nearly so stoopid as they seem to be, that they are just letting HFO rave on … and on … and on … and on … in the more than likely vain hope that s/he'll slip ↑ and drop some actual sop of information here and there — but Goodness Gracious!², this is HFO=?=SV=?=SMcE=?=LM that we are talking about here, and I for one am getting sick and φucking tired of worrying about whether one of her many victims might have done a pun on one of her many pseuds or otherwise hurt the feelings of one of her many fake personalities!

But now s/he goes and wastes Somey's precious time digging through dusty archives, when he's way behind on vastly more important tasks — like fixing my favorite favicon!

Jon

[Moulton]

I know you are, but what am I?

You have bitched about being "outed" on some butt-hurt level, not that I give a shit about your petty dramas.

It's your fine prose that qualifies you to moderate a critical Review.

You deserve no better.

Terrorism vs Anti-Terrorism

Terrorist: You have sown fear in me. Now I will repay you by sowing fear in you.

Anti-Terrorist: I will hunt you down and annihilate you and your kind.

Terrorist: I am not afraid to die. My violence will strike anywhere, anytime, when you least expect it.

Anti-Terrorist: I am not afraid of your terrorist attacks. I will redouble my efforts to bring you down.

Terrorist: There are more where I came from. We will continue to fight your violence with our violence until the end of time.

Anti-Terrorist: Our violence is holy. We are using authorized and sanctioned violence under the color of law to fight your unlawful, evil violence.

Terrorist: I believe in my violence even more than you believe in yours. It is my true religion. I have no compassion for your lawful violence.

Anti-Terrorist: I have no compassion for your unlawful violence.

Terrorist: Then we are in agreement. Our mutual lack of empathy and our mutual fear ensures that our drama will continue forever and ever.

Anti-Terrorist: Suits me fine.

Terrorist: Me too. It gives meaning to my life.

Anti-Terrorist: Mine, too.

Terrorist: Then we're in agreement. We will escalate the mutual and reciprocal violence forever and ever.

Anti-Terrorist: Roger that.

I know you are, but what am I?

[the fieryangel]

I know you are, but what am I?

In other words, don't get even, get M.A.D.

...there's a lot of that going around...(I didn't know that David Gerard was in "Peewee's Big Adventure" either)

[Jon Awbrey]

I know you are, but what am I?

In other words, don't get even, get M.A.D.

… there's a lot of that going around …

Most of these Fake Equivalence Conflict Ending Strategies (FECES) appear to derive from the general philosophy of Coherentism.

The cache, of course, is that all such approaches to Sea Level In Mind Only (SLIMO) ignore the reality of where the true sea lies.

Jon

[GlassBeadGame]

By squelching (once again) the discussion of the very issue that is behind all of this is continuing the aims of the very structure that you supposedly put yourself up against.

Once again you make the the error of conflating "disagreeing" with "squelching" or suppressing. You are free to express what you want here on terms equal to everyone else to an extent that really quit unique. This level of freedom causes endless problems but seems to work very well.

You have an unrealistic and extreme position on the use of pseudonyms. That is you say they are never appropriate. I take a more nuanced and thoughtful approach. I believe pseudonyms should never be used to hood authority, that it is not appropriate for admins and people with authority on a top 10 website. I further believe that it is not appropriate for people who write BLPs on the same site because of power this gives them to do harm.

I believe that pseudonyms do have socially valuable uses, especially in relation to dissent and criticism. This view has a long history in the protection of minority viewpoints. The initial political debates that shaped the contours of America's political landscape saw much of the debate conducted by pseudonyms, with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison all assuming there use.

This use has been enshrined in the case law of free speech:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Notice that this is a shield for dissent not a sword for the powerful. I can't think of a more "intolerant society" than Wikipedia. You would think that our diverging positions would allow for a great deal overlap, especially if we are interested in a critique of Wikipedia.

Your crying "squelching" is especially annoying because while you are free to participate on equal and uncensored terms here your new site (Akahele) gives "real people," presumably including many of the abusive "real people" who run riot on Wikipedia, access you would deny me. I have supported the development of Akahele, have contributed comments, even on unequal terms. I will continue to do this so long as I believe it contributes to a meaningful discussion. It is your site and I think you should run it as you see fit. I don't appreciate your bitching that how those who operate this site might see things differently.

[Jon Awbrey]

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views … Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

So wait, in Ohio you can vote early, often, and anonymous?

Take that, Illinois!

Jon

[the fieryangel]

By squelching (once again) the discussion of the very issue that is behind all of this is continuing the aims of the very structure that you supposedly put yourself up against.

Once again you make the the error of conflating "disagreeing" with "squelching" or suppressing. You are free to express what you want here on terms equal to everyone else to an extent that really quit unique. This level of freedom causes endless problems but seems to work very well.

You have an unrealistic and extreme position on the use of pseudonyms. That is you say they are never appropriate. I take a more nuanced and thoughtful approach. I believe pseudonyms should never be used to hood authority, that it is not appropriate for admins and people with authority on a top 10 website. I further believe that it is not appropriate for people who write BLPs on the same site because of power this gives them to do harm.

I believe that pseudonyms do have socially valuable uses, especially in relation to dissent and criticism. This view has a long history in the protection of minority viewpoints. The initial political debates that shaped the contours of America's political landscape saw much of the debate conducted by pseudonyms, with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison all assuming there use.

This use has been enshrined in the case law of free speech:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Notice that this is a shield for dissent not a sword for the powerful. I can't think of a more "intolerant society" than Wikipedia. You would think that our diverging positions would allow for a great deal overlap, especially if we are interested in a critique of Wikipedia.

Your crying "suppression" is especially annoying because while you are free to participate on equal and uncensored terms here your new site (Akahele) gives "real people," presumably including many of the abusive "real people" who run riot on Wikipedia, access you would deny me. I have supported the develop of Akahele, have contributed comments, even on unequal terms. I will continue to do this so long as I believe it contributes to a meaningful discussion. It is your site and I think you should run it as you see fit. I don't appreciate your bitching that how those who operate this site might see things differently.

Who's bitching? I'm trying to show you guys "the way out". You can listen or not. Either is fine with me. But don't say that I'm against all "anonymity". That's just not true. I am against anonymity here because it has lead to a climate of paranoia, fear and imbalanced behavior.

Your "shield" of anonymity is an illusion. That's all I'm trying to say. This is not a threat, because I'm not going to out anyone. It's a statement of fact. The only way to stand up to intolerance is to stand up to it, with your mask off. It's just that simple. Once you've admitted your humanity and your own distortions and faults, you can then see that much of what was causing the conflict is simply an illusion.

Wordbomb is scary, striking out from nowhere, meriting an almost Statewide IP block and black-ops attacking his neighborhood (according to WP folklore...). Judd Bagley is a nice guy who's got a sharp mind and a lively sense of humor. When you know that WB = Judd Bagley, the black-ops story seems pretty ridiculous.

SlimVirgin is...well, we don't know who she is. But I'm sure that if you guys knew her story that you'd think of her in a very different way. That wouldn't change anything that she's done, but it might help in understanding why she did it and how you can relate to her in a different way in the future. Maybe she had her reasons, which you can agree or disagree with, but once you see her as a person instead of as an "action figure" then your view of her will change.

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y. As a matter of fact, I don't think that the four of us really want to know anybody's pseudos. That subject has never come up, only that we only want "real names" contributing pieces. And I think that any discussion trying to connect a real name poster to a pseudo would not be looked upon kindly either. So, participating there does not necessarily mean giving up anonymity here. It only means that you've proven to four people that you're who you say you are.

The point being, people, that if we don't start working together to address some these BLP/privacy issues with imput given by both supporters and critics of WP, the legislative branch is going to do it for us--just look at the stories coming through the news feed and you'll see that this meme is speeding up. When that happens, the net result will be less freedom of expression for all, not more. This will be the only way to address these sorts of issues.

IF Wikipedia can be coaxed to take a much harder line on BLP and privacy issues in a time frame of the next two to six months, then there might be a chance of spearheading an action in the principle social media sites to make policies to take care of such issues themselves. If this doesn't happen, then I think that all discussion of this and other issues of "free speech" will become increasingly irrelevant in the near future.

If there is to be a chance of this happening, then US verses THEM has to go. Can we start that here?

[Lar]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

[the fieryangel]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

You guys will see people writing on Akahele who have no connections at all to WP/WR/ED et al. So, y'all can speculate all you want. I imagine that'll be part of the fun!

[Lar]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

You guys will see people writing on Akahele who have no connections at all to WP/WR/ED et al. So, y'all can speculate all you want. I imagine that'll be part of the fun!

You miss my point. I won't be speculating, but others will (To validate that, do I need to name names? Er, I mean, identify pseudonyms?). And I don't consider it a fun activity at all. They aren't doing it in fun, they are doing it out of malice.

[the fieryangel]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

You guys will see people writing on Akahele who have no connections at all to WP/WR/ED et al. So, y'all can speculate all you want. I imagine that'll be part of the fun!

You miss my point. I won't be speculating, but others will (To validate that, do I need to name names? Er, I mean, identify pseudonyms?). And I don't consider it a fun activity at all. They aren't doing it in fun, they are doing it out of malice.

Sorry for my flippant response here, Lar. You're right that people will make those kinds of speculations. That's why saying "I'm X and here's my story" is the only way to stop that: once they see reality and how boring it all really is, they can't keep speculating.

Before anybody points out the hole in my theory, I am aware of things like "Chris Chan" on ED and other such incidents. The only response I have to that is take the discussion up one level and say "we only want adult discussion here". This won't stop others from doing this kind of thing on ED etc...which is why I'm extremely pessimistic in the idea that the status quo is going to be allowed to continue on the web in the long term. I think that it's all gotten out of hand and that something is going to have to be done on a legislative level.

Why do you think that Danièle Citron is getting invited to Radio shows and panel discussions? Her "Cyber Civil Rights" tactic is pretty good as far as promoting free speech (and I have sent Sue Gardner a link to her paper, because this is the kind of idea that WMF should be pushing hard to get adopted as the norm...). When enough legislators see that sort of thing, get a gander at ED (which she is speaking of in many of her presentations) and think about this, they're going to say "that's way too soft: let's fix the problem".

And that's when free speech on the web is going to get challenged. This is going to happen in the next few months, once they decide that they need a break from trying to "fix the economic crisic" which isn't fixable. This will be used as a convenient diversion and a cause that everybody will be able to get behind.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: the off-topic meta-discussion concerning Moulton's song parodies, and their removal to his own thread, has itself been moved to that thread. -- gomi]

[Hell Freezes Over]

As far as private mailing lists, let me ask you this...Did you ever send emails to a mailing list of editors which said something along the lines of, "Could someone please go revert so-and-so at (such-and-such) article? I've already used two reverts today."?

I have sent requests like that, though not for years. I don't recall sending one to a mailing list as such, though I may have done, but definitely not the cyberstalking list. Anything like that would have been before that period.

I believe you that you don't do it anymore, but you were doing it at one time. That's controlling content. Why was the content really so important to you that you were willing to cross that ethical line by secretly enlisting other editors to help you keep it controlled? Isn't that against what Wikipedia is supposed to be about?

I don't know which page you're talking about, so I can only answer in general terms. Most of the time I asked for back-up was on policy pages when people were trying to weaken them. Much of the time (not always, of course), editors who try to make radical changes to core policies have found themselves unable to make certain edits, so they arrive at the policy that thwarted them and they try to undermine it. I see keeping out poorly sourced material and OR as absolutely essential to Wikipedia, because without them we'd have a free-for-all, and so I didn't (and still don't) feel that requesting back-up there is a problem. Also, just because something is e-mailed doesn't mean it's necessarily a "secret."

If you're talking about article space, that's different, and it would depend very much on what was being kept out. There are things I would still defend and things I wouldn't, so I'd need more details before I could answer properly.

[Hell Freezes Over]

... Blissy, the Poetguy accounts, Sgrayban, Donny, Hushthis/Joey, Joel Leyden, Jorge, Lir, and Blu Aardvark are all gone. (And to be fair to the last two, they didn't involve themselves much in those threads.)

Blu Aardvark did his best to help with the situation, both here and on ED. I think it was Blu who first made the posts not be cached by Google, for example. He was really very kind to me.

One last thing: There was another claim made by SV as recently as last year, to the effect that WR members had accused her of "sleeping with people to get jobs." This presumably referred to a post made by Yours Truly, and in my defense, I didn't really make that accusation, at least not directly. Rather, I pointed out that a young female college student, placed in the midst of a large media pool-coverage site (in this case, Lockerbie, Scotland) that would have certainly been dominated by men, could have easily become the center of attention for those men - possibly to the point where promises of hiring her might have been made as a "come-on." I realize that this was an inappropriate and hurtful suggestion under the circumstances, and FWIW I apologize for it - but regardless, I've been personally involved in such media pools myself (also during the 80's), and I know first-hand that this is exactly what goes on, and that the suggestion I actually did make wasn't the least bit implausible.

Thanks for the apology, Somey. It's much appreciated.

About an hour and a half later, you edited the policy to back up Crum's threat.

You're right that I shouldn't have made that edit. In my defense, I saw and still see no difference between posting active or non-active links, so I probably didn't see that edit as much of a change — just making something explicit that to me was self-evident. Still, I take your point that it was the wrong time to make the edit given it had just been raised as an issue at RfA. I apologize to you for having done that.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Slim, there is not one claim...not one...on ASM that is not supported by evidence.

I've not looked at it for a long time, but when I last checked, it had me running around college bars in Dickensian frocks, throwing my head in my hands and weeping at the slightest excuse, and switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues. When your boss uses a British accent to offer me a French fry, I take it as a mortal insult -- 20 years later I get the chance to help destroy the American economy by defending naked short selling on Wikipedia in order to avenge myself.

I was about to say you couldn't make it up, but that wouldn't be quite true, would it?

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over: Fri 6th March 2009, 7:03am

[Proabivouac]

…switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but I will say that anyone who's spoken to Slim will quickly recognize a very obvious flaw in this claim.

[Alison]

…switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but I will say that anyone who's spoken to Slim will quickly recognize a very obvious flaw in this claim.

Slim has a quite distinctive accent, actually - a regional British one - but it's a million miles away from anything Canadian