Naming Ourselves: Who Will Decide Who YOU Are?

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Persephone Emerald wrote:

I realize hermaphrodite is not the most accurate or politically correct term to use, but I used it once in my post to clarify the meaning of intersexed for any neanderthals who may not know how to use a Google search when they come across a term with which they're not familiar.

---

Hermaphrodite is the correct biological term for an organism that has both male and female reproductive systems, both of them fully functional. Many mollusc species are hermaphroditic, for example. The Ancient Greeks used the word for physically intersexed humans, which is probably the origin of the term (not sure about that, I'd have to look it up).

It's true that some people nowadays object to the use of the word when referring to humans, but that's mainly because it's inaccurate. There are no human beings with two functional reproductive systems. Physically intersexed people merely have physiological characteristics of both genders.

In SL, however, the term is very popular, and quite accurate to boot. After all, SL herms roleplay people with two sets of functional genitalia. I have never met anyone in SL who called themselves intersexed, but I have met hundreds of hermaphrodites. You cannot deny these avatars the right to name themselves that way.

It's the same as the word shemale. Many transsexuals object to this word, but some refer to themselves in this way, especially trans women who work in the sex industry (an industry which also uses the word hermaphrodite btw, namely for female actresses who wear male latex or rubber genitalia in order to roleplay functional herms). I use to refer to my avatar as a shemale too, and I'm proud to be one in SL. Our world, our self-appointed labels. 

[Void Singer]

I thought we already covered that ground?

[Ima Rang]

---

Void Singer wrote:

I thought we already covered that ground?

---

 

Is there any ground that has not been covered at least once here? :smileyvery-happy:

[Void Singer]

lol I meant like within the last few posts to this thread, but ok, wrist slapped =P

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Void Singer wrote:

I thought we already covered that ground?

---

If I read you correctly, you argued that the term hermaphrodite is offensive, whereas I wrote the opposite. There are many hermaphrodites in SL. Since they actually possess two sets of functional genitalia -- as far as functionality goes in the context of SL anyway -- their avatars are indeed herms in the biological sense, and the operators would probably be offended if their avatars were called anything else. And if there ever was an RL person who had both functional ovaries and testicles, that person would be a hermaphrodite too.  

ETA: In RL, most women would object to being called a bítch, but the term would be very apt for a female canine furry in SL That's pretty much the same. SL is it's own environment with a different set of terms and labels.

[Carole Franizzi]

So, lemme get this straight, your “counter-point” consists in you insisting that you, tu, thou, in person, in the flesh, must be present as an eye-witness at any event a poster writes about in the forums for it to be considered a valid discussion point?

Ergo, I surmise that you are disinterested a priori in the topic of fake professionals in SL per se, but are only interested in challenging my right to discuss the topic in the first place.

There are literally thousands of posts contained in a huge number of threads going on in the SL forums right now. Might I suggest that you work your way through every single post which contains the expressions such as: “I heard”, “I saw”, “I read”, “I was told”, or any retelling of any event, episode, occurrence, issue, problem, complaint and glitch and demand to be given empirical evidence of what occurred before the discussion is allowed to continue. Then get back to me and tell me how many called you the “T” word and accused you of attempting to de-rail the thread.

[Persephone Emerald]

^ I Like this. :smileyhappy:

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Persephone Emerald wrote:

^

I

Like

this. :smileyhappy:

---

 

Unfortunately, unless you can comply with the new Standards for Legally Binding Forum Posting, by supplying the notarised results of a lie detector test, with attached photocopy of the qualifications of the official who carried out the test, proving that you had an emotional response within the parameters of the official definition of “liking”, we are obliged to request you to retract forthwith. :smileyvery-happy:

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

So, lemme get this straight, your “counter-point” consists in you insisting that you, tu, thou, in person, in the flesh, must be present as an eye-witness at any event a poster writes about in the forums for it to be considered a valid discussion point?

---

Even that's not good enough for me. I share a cranium with Maddy (though she hogs the amygdala) and I don't believe half the stuff she says.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

So, lemme get this straight, your “counter-point” consists in you insisting that you, tu, thou, in person, in the flesh, must be present as an eye-witness at any event a poster writes about in the forums for it to be considered a valid discussion point?

---

Even that's not good enough for me. I share a cranium with Maddy (though she hogs the amygdala) and I don't believe half the stuff she says.

---

I'm going to make an exception in your case and will avoid asking for notarised photoraphic evidence that Maddy hogs the amygdala, as it sounds utterly revolting.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

Even that's not good enough for me. I share a cranium with Maddy (though she hogs the amygdala) and I don't believe half the stuff she says.

---

On a CRUTCH, Snugs! You were always the down-to-earth one; we expected big words from Maddy. Now you drop one in that when googled just scoops up more. I mean what the hell? Did you take correspondence courses while you away?

[Ima Rang]

:smileywink:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

So, lemme get this straight, your “counter-point” consists in you insisting that you, tu, thou, in person, in the flesh, must be present as an eye-witness at any event a poster writes about in the forums for it to be considered a valid discussion point?

Ergo

, I surmise that you are disinterested

a priori

in the topic of fake professionals in SL

per se

, but are only interested in challenging my right to discuss the topic in the first place.

There are literally thousands of posts contained in a huge number of threads going on in the SL forums right now. Might I suggest that you work your way through every single post which contains the expressions such as: “I heard”, “I saw”, “I read”, “I was told”, or any retelling of any event, episode, occurrence, issue, problem, complaint and glitch and demand to be given empirical evidence of what occurred before the discussion is allowed to continue. Then get back to me and tell me how many called you the “T” word and accused you of attempting to de-rail the thread.

---

Cute twist, but no.

I said I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of individuals posing as real life doctors and putting individuals into dangerous situations as you stated it to be "the most dangerous" thing occuring in SL.  It was just a statement that did not serve to invalidate or validate the discussions. 

You threw out your "I suscribe to the Pep rule of thumb...believe nothing."

Then you offered up some threads, presumably to enlighten me to the fact that such is actually happening in SL.  None of the threads contained individuals that were posing as doctors, and no medical advice was being disseminated.  I saw one instance of someone claiming that they had encountered someone who claimed to be a 'therapist' who they eventually determined to be a life coach.

I'm not the one who said I abide Pep's directive to "believe nothing," you are.  Yet now it appears that you believe everything that is written and you have no need for evidence. 

You can discuss the smell of your own **bleep**  for all I care, Carole. 

BTW, I heard and read that LL is going to get rid of accounts that have not logged on in the last 60 days.

 

 

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

Even that's not good enough for me. I share a cranium with Maddy (though she hogs the amygdala) and I don't believe half the stuff she says.

---

On a CRUTCH, Snugs! You were always the down-to-earth one; we expected big words from Maddy. Now you drop one in that when googled just scoops up more. I mean what the hell? Did you take correspondence courses while you away?

---

I got that from Maddy's 1988 "Word of the Day" calendar, which is still sealed for freshness. She promises to open it when all the days line up once again in 2016.

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

If 'said blogger' is who I presume it is, then 'said blogger' is a person only way too eager to ascribe all sorts of negative descriptions onto others, and make up facts and accusations about others with no basis on anything other than sheer imagination.

It is a person who goes to extremes to be negative towards others and label them with derogations that said person then refuses to admit are untrue and refuses to admit to letting others define themselves.

Such a person does not deserve the respect of being able to define themself virtually, if they cannot afford that respect to other's RL aspects, let alone virtual ones. Said person's assorted angry screamings need to be cast into the wind where they belong, rather than given the respect of a discussion.

[Ags Falconer]

/me waves at Scylla!

[Void Singer]

context.

I said it's generally offensive in the RL usage, and noted it's quite popular in other contexts (porn, fantasy, fetish)

[Perrie Juran]

We are all products of the times in which we live.

[Carole Franizzi]

Ima: Cute twist, but no.

Me: Cute? Hey, if you find this going round in endless circles, repeating the same stuff, over and over, cute, who am I to judge? Different strokes and all that, right?

 

Ima: I said I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of individuals posing as real life doctors and putting individuals into dangerous situations…

Me: But nobody asked you to give evidence, Ima. Are we really still doing the courtroom role-play? May I be so bold as to point out that, in order for one human being to personally witness every single event occurring within SL, he would require the gift of omnipresence, which is, as far as I know, still the domain of the Almighty.

 

Ima:…as you stated it to be "the most dangerous" thing occurring in SL. 

Me: Actually I didn’t. Since you’re a stickler for correct quoting and have low tolerance for sloppy paraphrasing, I feel sure you will appreciate me pointing out that I actually said, “The truly dangerous down-side of believing claims to credentials is when they say they’re doctors, counsellors, etc.”.

 

Re: the rest of your post. Just let me recap the situation to date, so I’m sure I have it straight in my head - you, in your series of posts, cumulatively communicate the following:

a)      You have never witnessed, first-hand, fake professionals operating in SL, hence would be unable to bear witness regarding the matter;

b)      you have encountered two people who claimed to have witnessed such episodes but you have chosen to disregard such claims, as your stance is, like mine, in line with the Pep directive XXIV section 4iii, paragraph 9, “Believe nothing unless you, yourself, personally, in the flesh witness it”;

c)      you object to my belief that fake professionals operate within SL, even though I am one of the afore-mentioned persons who witnessed one such episode first-hand, on the basis of the fact it was me and not you witnessing it, and thus you are over-riding the Pep directive with “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand”;

d)       you do not care what topics I post about;

e)      you have no objection to me opening a thread about the odour of my faeces (though you expressed the concept in a more lady-like way, using asterisks);

f)        despite having no interest in the issue, no first hand experience in the matter and limited on-line time, you make posts which you, yourself, define as a “statement that did not serve to invalidate or validate the discussions”; 

g)      on the combined basis of the amended Pep directive, “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand” and on the principle that it is impossible for fellow residents to distinguish between role-play and actual criminal intent behind certain actions, you are communicating your disapproval of the AR function which would allow LL to investigate and attempt to verify the actual nature of such episodes, as, in your opinion, the risk of suspension or closure of an SL account is of greater import than the prevention and/or curtailment of criminal behaviour.

In light of the above, in future, if ever again I am recipient of a post from you which states, “I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of_______”, I will never again erroneously assume that you mean “Oh, really? Never heard of that. Fill me in”, but will be sure to apply the correct interpretation: “Insomuch as I have never been an eye-witness to such an occurrence, I am unable to bear witness either for the prosecution or in defence of the accused”. Good to know.

 

Ima: BTW, I heard and read that LL is going to get rid of accounts that have not logged on in the last 60 days.

Me: This must be an in-joke comprehensible only to those who have limited on-line time.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

We are all products of the times in which we live.

---

Even down to the genetic level

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

May I be so bold as to point out that, in order for one human being to personally witness every single event occurring within SL, he would require the gift of omnipresence, which is, as far as I know, still the domain of the Almighty.

---

I prefer omniscience myself, it's less taxing and I don't feel so bloaty. And don't forget omnipotence, that's my favorite!

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I prefer omniscience myself, it's less taxing and I don't feel so bloaty. And don't forget omnipotence, that's my favorite!

---

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I prefer omniscience myself, it's less taxing and I don't feel so bloaty. And don't forget omnipotence, that's my favorite!

---

 

 

 

---

/me casually checks "Mark all as read" and goes back to doing her nails.

[Ima Rang]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Ima: Cute twist, but no.

Me: Cute? Hey, if you find this going round in endless circles, repeating the same stuff, over and over, cute, who am I to judge? Different strokes and all that, right?

Ima Response: Right.

Ima: I said I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of individuals posing as real life doctors and putting individuals into dangerous situations…

Me: But nobody asked you to give evidence, Ima. Are we really still doing the courtroom role-play? May I be so bold as to point out that, in order for one human being to personally witness every single event occurring within SL, he would require the gift of omnipresence, which is, as far as I know, still the domain of the Almighty.

Ima Response: Are you learning disabled? I did not indcate that anyone was asking me for evidence. I made a simple statement that was only meant to mean- I can't agree or disagree with you as I don't apparently spend enough time online to have encountered such. Why is that so **bleep**ing hard for you to understand?

Ima:…as you stated it to be "the most dangerous" thing occurring in SL.

Me: Actually I didn’t. Since you’re a stickler for correct quoting and have low tolerance for sloppy paraphrasing, I feel sure you will appreciate me pointing out that I actually said, “The truly dangerous down-side of believing claims to credentials is when they say they’re doctors, counsellors, etc.”.

Ima: I stand corrected.

Re: the rest of your post. Just let me recap the situation to date, so I’m sure I have it straight in my head - you, in your series of posts, cumulatively communicate the following:

a) You have never witnessed, first-hand, fake professionals operating in SL, hence would be unable to bear witness regarding the matter;

Ima Rang: Correct, because I'm not online frequently.

b) you have encountered two people who claimed to have witnessed such episodes but you have chosen to disregard such claims, as your stance is, like mine, in line with the Pep directive XXIV section 4iii, paragraph 9, “Believe nothing unless you, yourself, personally, in the flesh witness it”;

Ima Rang: No, I said that I saw one instance within the 3 threads that you provided me of an individual stating they had encountered a supposed RL therapist who they eventually determined was just a life coach. I was simply pointing out that directly after you stated that you follow Pep's stance to believe nothing, you provide me with threads:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

No darlin’ – fearful of the damage somebody posing as a RL medical professional could do when he/she hands out medical advice in SL. There’s that too in SL…

------------------------------------------------------

Ima Rang wrote:

I guess I just don't spend enough time online. I have not seen evidence ot this happening.

Carole Fanizzi wrote:

Have a peek at these then....if you have time:

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/9f/255249/2.html

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Lifestyles-and-Relationships/Psychological-support-in-Second-Life...

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussions/Help-in-finding-help-SL-Domestic-Violence-Aub...

Just ironic...that's all.

c) you object to my belief that fake professionals operate within SL, even though I am one of the afore-mentioned persons who witnessed one such episode first-hand, on the basis of the fact it was me and not you witnessing it, and thus you are over-riding the Pep directive with “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand”;

Ha! You stated that you did not know if you witnessing RP or not. You may have eye witnessed a cartoon based soap opera...the horror. I hope you are writing the networks because they slammed a fake epi syringe into the heart of a fake patient on a real TV show just last week! Can you believe that mess?

d) you do not care what topics I post about

No.

e) you have no objection to me opening a thread about the odour of my faeces (though you expressed the concept in a more lady-like way, using asterisks);

No.

f) despite having no interest in the issue, no first hand experience in the matter and limited on-line time, you make posts which you, yourself, define as a “statement that did not serve to invalidate or validate the discussions”;

Yep. See above.

g) on the combined basis of the amended Pep directive, “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand” and on the principle that it is impossible for fellow residents to distinguish between role-play and actual criminal intent behind certain actions, you are communicating your disapproval of the AR function which would allow LL to investigate and attempt to verify the actual nature of such episodes, as, in your opinion, the risk of suspension or closure of an SL account is of greater import than the prevention and/or curtailment of criminal behaviour.

I don't require proof of anything, from anyone. I have proper perspective when engaging in a cartoon world. I'm sure that my "don't believe anything" even if Carole saw the RP with her own eyes and insists that it is the damn truth will probably cause the world to fold in on me, but, hey, it is a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't disapprove of you AR'ing anyone you damn well please for any reason you please. You are very good about putting a lot of words out that I have never stated or even implied. Some people investigate first and take action, and some take action and apologize if they are mistaken. I would have made inquiry before reporting....so what? I'm over it, I hope you make it past it.

In light of the above, in future, if ever again I am recipient of a post from you which states, “I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of_______”, I will never again erroneously assume that you mean “Oh, really? Never heard of that. Fill me in”, but will be sure to apply the correct interpretation: “Insomuch as I have never been an eye-witness to such an occurrence, I am unable to bear witness either for the prosecution or in defence of the accused”. Good to know.

Awesome. I hope that you stick to that.

Ima: BTW, I heard and read that LL is going to get rid of accounts that have not logged on in the last 60 days.

Me: This must be an in-joke comprehensible only to those who have limited on-line time.

Nope, a thread, right here in the Forums. But, it was discussed and turns out it was just a rumor.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Ima Rang wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Ima:

Cute twist, but no.

Me: Cute? Hey, if you find this going round in endless circles, repeating the same stuff, over and over, cute, who am I to judge? Different strokes and all that, right?

Ima Response: Right.

Ima:

I said I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of individuals posing as real life doctors and putting individuals into dangerous situations…

Me: But nobody asked you to give evidence, Ima. Are we

really

still doing the courtroom role-play? May I be so bold as to point out that, in order for one human being to personally witness every single event occurring within SL, he would require the gift of omnipresence, which is, as far as I know, still the domain of the Almighty.

Ima Response: Are you learning disabled? I did not indcate that anyone was asking me for evidence. I made a simple statement that was only meant to mean- I can't agree or disagree with you as I don't apparently spend enough time online to have encountered such. Why is that so **bleep**ing hard for you to understand?

Ima:

…as you stated it to be "the most dangerous" thing occurring in SL.

Me: Actually I didn’t. Since you’re a stickler for correct quoting and have low tolerance for sloppy paraphrasing, I feel sure you will appreciate me pointing out that I actually said, “The truly dangerous down-side of believing claims to credentials is when they say they’re doctors, counsellors, etc.”.

Ima: I stand corrected.

Re: the rest of your post. Just let me recap the situation to date, so I’m sure I have it straight in my head - you, in your series of posts, cumulatively communicate the following:

a) You have never witnessed, first-hand, fake professionals operating in SL, hence would be unable to bear witness regarding the matter;

Ima Rang: Correct, because I'm not online frequently.

b) you have encountered two people who

claim

e

d

to have witnessed such episodes but you have chosen to disregard such claims, as your stance is, like mine, in line with the Pep directive XXIV section 4iii, paragraph 9, “Believe nothing unless you, yourself, personally, in the flesh witness it”;

Ima Rang: No, I said that I saw one instance within the 3 threads that you provided me of an individual stating they had encountered a supposed RL therapist who they eventually determined was just a life coach. I was simply pointing out that directly after you stated that you follow Pep's stance to believe nothing, you provide me with threads:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

No darlin’ – fearful of the damage somebody posing as a RL medical professional could do when he/she hands out medical advice in SL. There’s that too in SL…

------------------------------------------------------

Ima Rang wrote:

I guess I just don't spend enough time online. I have not seen evidence ot this happening.

Carole Fanizzi wrote:

Have a peek at these then....if you have time:

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/9f/255249/2.html

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Lifestyles-and-Relationships/Psychological-support-in-Second-Life

...

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussions/Help-in-finding-help-SL-Domestic-Violence-Aub

...

Just ironic...that's all.

c) you object to my belief that fake professionals operate within SL, even though I am one of the afore-mentioned persons who witnessed one such episode first-hand, on the basis of the fact it was

me

and not

you

witnessing it, and thus you are over-riding the Pep directive with “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand”;

Ha! You stated that you did not know if you witnessing RP or not. You may have eye witnessed a cartoon based soap opera...the horror. I hope you are writing the networks because they slammed a fake epi syringe into the heart of a fake patient on a real TV show just last week! Can you believe that mess?

d) you do not care what topics I post about

No.

e) you have no objection to me opening a thread about the odour of my faeces (though you expressed the concept in a more lady-like way, using asterisks);

No.

f) despite having no interest in the issue, no first hand experience in the matter and limited on-line time, you make posts which you, yourself, define as a “statement that did not serve to invalidate or validate the discussions”;

Yep. See above.

g) on the combined basis of the amended Pep directive, “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand” and on the principle that it is impossible for fellow residents to distinguish between role-play and actual criminal intent behind certain actions, you are communicating your disapproval of the AR function which would allow LL to investigate and attempt to verify the actual nature of such episodes, as, in your opinion, the risk of suspension or closure of an SL account is of greater import than the prevention and/or curtailment of criminal behaviour.

I don't require proof of anything, from anyone. I have proper perspective when engaging in a cartoon world. I'm sure that my "don't believe anything" even if Carole saw the RP with her own eyes and insists that it is the damn truth will probably cause the world to fold in on me, but, hey, it is a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't disapprove of you AR'ing anyone you damn well please for any reason you please. You are very good about putting a lot of words out that I have never stated or even implied. Some people investigate first and take action, and some take action and apologize if they are mistaken. I would have made inquiry before reporting....so what? I'm over it, I hope you make it past it.

In light of the above, in future, if ever again I am recipient of a post from you which states, “I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of_______”, I will never again erroneously assume that you mean “Oh, really? Never heard of that. Fill me in”, but will be sure to apply the correct interpretation: “Insomuch as I have never been an eye-witness to such an occurrence, I am unable to bear witness either for the prosecution or in defence of the accused”. Good to know.

Awesome. I hope that you stick to that.

Ima:

BTW, I heard and read that LL is going to get rid of accounts that have not logged on in the last 60 days.

Me: This must be an in-joke comprehensible only to those who have limited on-line time.

Nope, a thread, right here in the Forums. But, it was discussed and turns out it was just a rumor.

---

If capitals in Netiquette amount to shouting, what does blood-red font indicate? An apoplectic fit?

Seriously, Ima – all these pages just to say, “I don’t know anything about that”?

You declaring, in this very thread, that you “don’t believe anything” makes interesting reading – does that mean that when, in the past, although you were exhorting others to believe that you knew the truth about another person’s life, “knowing” it to be in total opposition to what they claimed, you simultaneously held the firm belief that they should not have believed a word you said? Again, good to know.

I enjoy debate. Always have done. The challenge of formulating persuasive arguments is a pleasure to me. If the opponent makes the task even harder because clever, sharper, quicker, better educated than me, I enjoy it even more. Insults have no place in debate. Resorting to them is the act of a desperate loser, and of one who is wholly uninterested in discussion for discussion’s sake, but participates merely as a pretext to express pent-up aggression. However, since you stated in a previous post that you do not troll, I will accept the following as a genuine enquiry:  Are you learning disabled?

The answer is - no, I am not. I will, however, AR you without hesitation if I ever “witness” you asking me or anybody else that question again.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

May I be so bold as to point out that, in order for one human being to personally witness every single event occurring within SL, he would require the gift of omnipresence, which is, as far as I know, still the domain of the Almighty.

---

I prefer omniscience myself, it's less taxing and I don't feel so bloaty. And don't forget omnipotence, that's my favorite!

---

I always knew you were a bloke....

Oh! Omnipotence?

I always said I was 100% sure you really were a woman.