I am back

zinkadoodle was an experiment

Published on August 7, 2005 By dabe In Blogging

Well, I have been outed as zinkadoodle. In fact, posting as zinkadoodle was an experiment. And no, ms whip lover, I never posted from work, as you accused me of. That was nothing but defamation, which you apparently revel in. Anyway, as zinkadoodle, I really did clean up my language, except maybe for a few slips, but nothing beyond the pale, or what any other blogger here at ju does. People even commented that I seemed like a cleaner version of dabe. Nice to notice that the politics are the same. Gee .... go figure.

Well, this really was an experiment to see whether I would be as completely vilified for my politics as for my swearing, which was my theory. You guessed it. It was POLITICS. It really had nothing whatsoever to do with swearing, which was only a righty ruse to get me banished from the forums. As zinkadoodle, I only hammered one poster, that being bakerstreet, and only because he hammered myrrander in my blog, in fact saying, and I quote, "....fuck you, you asshole....." Link Angela so kindly banished me for my response to baker for that, but baker continues to post. Yes, boys and girls, there really is a double standard here.

My experiment proved true. It's not about swearing. It's all about politics. But, that's OK. I learned a lesson. If I don't give em reason to banish me, for only swearing is against the TOS, and political leanings are not, then I can continue to post. So, Angela, as I pointed out in that email I sent to you, I only swore harshly at baker in my own blog, because he swore at myrrander. Yet, I do know that you only used it as an excuse to banish me for having a second persona, which apparently is also a violation of the TOS. So zinkadoodle is now but a memory here at JU, and a blog that not even zinkadoodle can post on. I guess I have a -1 score there.

I am a cleaned up dabe. My experiment worked. Now, it's up to the glorious powers that be here at ju whether I am allowed back into the forums. But, I'd sure like to think that this is not a democracy in that ju posters would have the right to vote on my admission back. It should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether whip or baker or any of my defamation club would think. It's up to the moderators only, I would hope, and should be based solely on the TOS.

Comments (Page 2)

dabe

on Aug 07, 2005

TW, thank you so much for that long explanation. Really, it means a lot to me. I try to understand, and in fact do understand why you dislike what I do, rather than me. I have a tendency to post my feelings. Why should I have to "walk on eggshells" around here, when those who preach their political dubya lovefests and liberal hatefests have no qualms or feel any need to hold back. I tend to dish what I get. And, I refuse to walk on eggshells to pander to the likes of them. I will not swear to them anymore. Not unless someone swears at me first. And, as zinkadoodle was doing, I will call any poster, particularly drmiler, for his continual namecalling and swearing, for which he seems to have carte blanche to do. I will not pander to them. Period. I have learned form Myrrander and Kingbee and a few others about the fine art of posting a retort without getting into trouble. They are both very good at it. My hat's off to them. And, to you.

I get the impression that whipsy, whom I hold in complete disdain for her self-rightousness, her blatant racism, her complete disregard for most people, except those who constantly pat her on the proverbial back for her bull, needs to constantly remind us all how utterly wonderful (NOT) she is, or thinks she is. And, I will not do it. I don't know why anyone buys into her nonsense. I do believe she's a real sicko, and I will not put up with her crap. I un-blacklisted her temporarily to see if she has anything to add, but frankly I could give a rat's ass. But, fair's fair. If she's going to continue to lie about me, about my posting, then I want her to explain herself. Also, what I find rather dispicable is how she would know that Angela has emailed me. Apparently, Angela has no qualms about discussing other posters with her, and that's plain unethical. Do you really think that I care about a minor deceipt in conducting an "experiment" when that kind of crap goes on in with this site's administrators?

As for deceitful, well maybe. But so what? I hurt no one. I never claimed to be anyone but myself, but with two characters. And, they even talked to eachother on one or two occassions just to maintain their separation. I even felt weird doing that. But, pathetic? I think not. Whipsy seems to think it's the end of the world because I did this. Well, it's not. And, the game is over. In fact, I likely cannot do it again. I only had that one chance to post as two users, and they have been used. I'm not a deceiptful person. In fact, I have scruples and morals that I would hold up to anyone. I have "come clean" and I do not lie. And, I live by my morals and ethical standards. If you feel that I deceived you for a short time, then I am really sorry. But, it's over. Gotta admit, though, it was fun while it lasted.

As for un-blacklisting zinkadoodle, don't bother. She cannot post anyway, as Angela has shut down my ability to post either using zinkadoodle, and as I am banished, or to any others' blogs, including zinkadoodle. Kind of ironic. And no, whipsicle, I could care less that you go onto zinkadoodle and post your crap. You're a fraud, and I think most people with any common sense already know that. Nothing but an ex-KKKer who still thinks like a KKKer. A distinction without a difference.

Dr Guy

on Aug 08, 2005

Of course it's not ok. But, we're talking about blogging, for cryin' out loud. I think comparing blogging to carrying a bomb on a plane is a bit over the top, dontcha think?

I think the comparison is following the rules. If you cant in something as simple as blogging, why should you be allowed to roam free in civilized society?

Myrrander

on Aug 08, 2005

I'm just surprised anybody cared that somebody cursed me. I actually don't care much myself, but you all make me feel so warm and fuzzy on the inside.

KarmaGirl

on Aug 08, 2005

1) anyone can post as a different persona by logging out as long as they are not banned. That is no secret and it's not difficult at all (you simply log out and log on as a different account).

2) I have *never* received an email from you.

3) You swearing in that post was a "last thread", not the reason your fake persona got booted. For pete's sake, you were talking to yourself. You were using your fake to thank yourself for sticking up for "him".

It should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether whip or baker or any of my defamation club would think. It's up to the moderators only, I would hope, and should be based solely on the TOS.

You agree to not use the Service to:
(c) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Stardock official, forum leader, guide, moderator or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;

"Impersonate" would include making a fake persona to post with. You need to realize that your fake was removed because it was a FAKE. You were confined after *many* warnings. Then you decide to create a fake to get around your confinement. Then you have the nerve to cry foul when your FAKE (not you) got banned? Oh, please.......

dabe

on Aug 08, 2005

1) anyone can post as a different persona by logging out as long as they are not banned. That is no secret and it's not difficult at all (you simply log out and log on as a different account).

So please, do tell, where does one log out? You've not made it very easy. I've been all over, and frankly, I cannot find it. Are you suggesting that the only way to log out is to email site admins to do so? And no, I have never sent you an email.

My beef with you was not taking baker to task for swearing first. And frankly, I did feel a bit immune to being chastised by my swearing unless, and only if, you also chastised baker. The fact that he could, without specific provocation, come onto my blog and hammer myrrander for the joke I posted and for which myrrander was agreeing with, was uncalled for, and unconscionable. Period. And, as I said above, sticking up for "him" was kind of funny, dontcha think?

You agree to not use the Service to:(c) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Stardock official, forum leader, guide, moderator or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; "Impersonate" would include making a fake persona to post with.

Well, that's a stretch, and certainly not clear. In fact, I never impersonated anyone. If I attempted to impersonate myrrander or baker or bill clinton, that would be "impersonation." I never tried to be someone I am not. I was merely myself, but without the swearing. I was actually me, Diane, using another screen name. Maybe the TOS should be more specific. Have you ever talked to a lawyer? I'm sure they'd agree that unless there is specificity, a law or TOS is up for interpretation. When I read that, I thought, well I'm not actually impersonating anyone, so that's not a violation. Now that you say it is, after the fact, is not really fair.

So, this is how I did it. I have a Stardock account. I set it up as dabe. When I was using my web browser one day, I realized it was not automatically registering me. So, I made a new account. Very simple really. Now that that lil hole is out of the bag, I think you have two things you need to fix here. 1) Go back and clarify your TOS, so people do not get caught into an "interpretation" thing, and 2) Somehow fix the ability to post via two accounts like that.

Then you have the nerve to cry foul when your FAKE (not you) got banned? Oh, please.......

I never cried foul about that. I cried foul because I got canned for swearing and bakerstreet did not. It was your excuse to take down the zinkadoodle account because of your interpretation of the TOS, which I read differently. If I was deceptive using it, I am sorry. But, I was only being me. It's over now. It's done. I would like to be allowed back into the forums. And, I would like to know how the h..... to log out of my blog, like I can log out of every other blog I post to, and my online banking, my cablevision account, etc. That would be really wonderful.

KarmaGirl

on Aug 08, 2005

Also, what I find rather dispicable is how she would know that Angela has emailed me.

I missed this the first time- she knows that because I posted a comment about it on one of your threads. Re-read http://dabe.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=79480 I said that I sent you private emails.

When she emailed me about your other persona, I responded with something that looked a lot like this: "Thanks for the info. I haven't been online enough lately to
even notice "zinkadoodle". I'll check it out". Which was the truth- I hadn't noticed that you continued to post. That is when I noticed the "last straw" comment and exiled the fake persona.

It's amazing how mountains can be made out of mole hills.....

dabe

on Aug 08, 2005

I'm just surprised anybody cared that somebody cursed me. I actually don't care much myself, but you all make me feel so warm and fuzzy on the inside.

I guess I'm just your #1 fan.

Besides, I thought bs was being particularly dispicable and audacious. Made me angry.

dabe

on Aug 08, 2005

And, I missed this the first time around:

It's amazing how mountains can be made out of mole hills.....

You're not kidding!

Myrrander

on Aug 08, 2005

particularly dispicable and audacious

i curse like a sailor, it really didn't seem that over-the-top

hahaha

KarmaGirl

on Aug 08, 2005

And frankly, I did feel a bit immune to being chastised by my swearing unless, and only if, you also chastised baker.

As you know, I send personal emails to people unless they continue to ignore my emails. Just because I don't air all dirty laundry doesn't mean that I don't contact people. People can assume all they want on this site, I don't care. I'm not going to state every email that I send or don't send, and I don't need to justify our actions. I also take a much harsher tact when the person who has been attacked contacts me. I have received more emails naming you as the attacker than any other blogger on here, so please stop while you're ahead.

I think you have two things you need to fix here. 1) Go back and clarify your TOS, so people do not get caught into an "interpretation" thing, and 2) Somehow fix the ability to post via two accounts like that.

1) It doesn't need to be clarified. If somebody creates a fake persona to get around being confined, there are no guidelines for that Fake. They aren't a real user, therefore they can be exiled at any time- end of story. We didn't exile you- we exiled your fake. It's also not a TOS, it's a Terms of Use. You aren't provided a service, because you don't pay for anything. The TOU is a basic guideline, which is left up to the interpretation of the moderators.

2) That is not a flaw. Married people blog on here- and they use a single computer. Should they not be able to log on as different people?

So please, do tell, where does one log out?

That would be the red symbol next to your name in the account box on JU's home page. If you mouse over it, you will notice that the mouse over says "log out". Not very secret at all.

So, Angela, as I pointed out in that email I sent to you, I only swore harshly at baker in my own blog, because he swore at myrrander.

And no, I have never sent you an email.

eh....which one is it? You didn't send me the email that pointed out why you swore at Baker? Are you having a hard time remembering what you said?

Well, that's a stretch, and certainly not clear. In fact, I never impersonated anyone.

Yes, you said that Zink was a male and you talked to him as if he were somebody else. That makes it an impersonation. You did not state that you were you, you made up a new person. You were hear when Dan got in trouble for the same thing, so it's not like you didn't "know". And, it would not matter, you knew you were confined- an action that was imposed by the people who run this site. You deliberately took action against it.

dabe

on Aug 08, 2005

That would be the red symbol next to your name in the account box on JU's home page. If you mouse over it, you will notice that the mouse over says "log out". Not very secret at all.

Well, I've not noticed that before. I guess I wasn't born with the knowledge that that would be the logout button. thanks.

Look, Angela, I am not going to debate with you about this anymore. Either you'll allow me to post, or you won't. Your call.

stutefish

on Aug 08, 2005

Personally, I have no problem vilifying someone for their politics, if their politics are vile...

Myrrander

on Aug 08, 2005

I have no problem vilifying someone for their politics, if their politics are vile...

which is why I have no problem villifying you

Texas Wahine

on Aug 08, 2005

I guess I'm just your #1 fan.

Nuh-uh.

Slanderer

on Aug 09, 2005

Welcome back.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!