SophieJeanneLaDouce

So, we can't agree English can be tricky and leave it at that? A pity. If you want to get into uncharitable interpretations of other person's thought processes, make invalid assumptions and grandstand, knock yourself out. I'm not going to respond further.

This is how you, personally, read it. Many other native speakers read it otherwise. I'll just say English can be tricky and leave interpreting what is "correct" or "incorrect" to those with strong opinions.

While you are correct with your examples, people express themselves both ways in English. It's highly contextual and thus using "we" without being conscientious of context becomes a landmine. I already gave counterexamples where "we" means "everybody" and won't repeat them here. I'm not going to touch how English speakers use "we" when they mean "you specifically as an individual," or "I myself as an individual." This is not a case of being overly picky ~ written English can be damn tricky. There was a misunderstanding and I think the participants in the conversation all understand each other now. That, to me, is the important thing.

I think this is a great idea. If you wanted, you could rephrase it in a personal tone also, maybe, "I was hiding behind my avatar. Have others experienced this?"

Setting aside misunderstanding because of wording, I think this is a great question. In my experience, it's all incremental steps of growth. I've become much more open, gone too far, pulled back ~ experience and mistakes have helped me become more comfortable dealing with people. Part of it has been letting go of the anxiety and developing a healthy level of "don't give a 🤬." People are people ~ we're all terribly messed up top to bottom. But what works for me doesn't work for everybody.

I can accept and be forgiving of unclear language. English can be tricky when it comes to nuance. Actually, in English we can use "we" and "everybody" interchangeably. "Why do we need to eat?" "Why do we breathe air?" "Why do we die?"

The short answer ~ be "OK" with the idea that people can set their own personal boundaries. You have no right to dictate to others what their personal boundaries need to be. To accuse others of "hiding" is using manipulative language to shame others into behaving the way you wish them to behave. (Also, ensure you're not an extrovert wondering why introverts are behaving strangely.) So, I take it you were feeling insecure and felt discontent with your experience with your online presence. You then developed some courage to let go of some of your worries and found they were phantoms. If I'm reading this right, you have my sincere congratulations. It can be liberating to drop that facade. Perhaps you should chat with your SL psychologist friend and talk further about this transformative process you're experiencing. Or get actual counseling from a qualified RL therapist. If you feel you were "hiding" behind your avatar, it's natural for you to look at others and feel they must be "hiding" also. You're projecting your feelings and experiences onto others. It's not reasonable to run around asking why others are "hiding." It can be quite offensive to make such bold assumptions about others and insist they "overcome" their issues too. If you get pushy about it, it's not unfair to question your motivations. Why do you insist on trying to shame others into agreeing with you? This may be the root of your concern then. You had a positive liberating experience. You feel a certain way and think the rest of us should conform to your vision of what "should" be. I would suggest you give others the same consideration and let them enjoy SL the way they wish. For myself, I'm quite comfortable with my presence in SL. But I'm not obligated to make public my private life. In my view that's unhealthy and narcissistic. In RL, if you and I meet at a bus stop, I'll probably be uninterested in chit-chat. At best I'll be polite and conversational, but it's doubtful you'll get much personal information about myself. That's for people I've developed a minimal degree of trust with. If you insist I not "hide" who I am, I'll assume you're a stalker, walk away ready to call the police if you insist on getting me to not "hide who I am." In RL, that's called prudence. There are people with ugly motivations out there. In SL, over the years I've developed close friendships with other women with similar backgrounds as myself. Loving-kindness, compassion and willingness to accept each other where we're at in life form the basis of our long-term friendships in and out of SL. But each of us have our own personal boundaries and we respect those. That's part of why our friendships are so deep ~ mutual respect. Finally, some avatars have practical utility. I have an account for my marketplace shop. If you see that avatar, I'm busy with my shop. I'm not "hiding," I'm working. I have a couple of accounts to help test scripts. If you see those avatars, I'm busy building something. I'm not "hiding." If I wish to hop on one of these alternate avatars and wander around quietly enjoying the amazing creativity others have put on display in this wild virtual world, I'm not hiding. I'm quietly enjoying this spectacle of SecondLife.

If anybody uses Microsoft Code for other things, it handles LSL just fine with an extension. It gives me the LSL keywords, functions, help text, etc. as with any other language.

In response to Oz Linden's comment I know that this is a specialized way and doesn't address most cases, but it fits my needs. I use OAuth2 in my scripts. When a script starts, it presents client credentials to an authentication server. It receives an access token back, which the script remembers (below). This oath2header is added to all the HTTP requests from the script. list oauth2header = [HTTP_CUSTOM_HEADER,"Authorization","Bearer " + llJsonGetValue(body, ["access_token"])]; The benefit I receive is middleware on my server rejects all requests that don't have a valid access token.