who are the "characters" on the palm forum ?

[DoomsDave]

Putting a gloss on oneself is an integral of what people have always done. The web provides more elaborate props and costumes, but what really is the difference between that, and, say meeting in a bar, or in church? I've spent my whole life getting - and giving - false first impressions.

Good point, but I think the difference is you have a lot more info available to you when you see someone in person. It's relatively easy to spot the faking. There's an enormous flow of data between two people that you just don't get online. If you're willing to be present and get out of your head when you're with someone, i.e. not get caught by projections, you can really watch that person and you see an amazing amount of stuff you might not otherwise see if you didn't pay attention, and you would never ever see if you interact online and not in person.

Getting more technical about it, even 1 second worth of the data available to you about another person in flesh and blod couldn't fit into a high speed cable internet transmission. There isn't enough bandwidth - yet. In another 20 years that might be a completely different story. Most people don't absorb that much info about another person when they're with someone else simply because most people are so caught up in their own little world that the bandwidth bottleneck is in their own brain. But whatever little does get in, it's still much more than what you can fit into the average cable DSL line.

Do you really have a lot more information meeting someone in person? I don't think so. I think that you believe you have a lot more information in a person to person meeting. Which, when you think about it, can make an artful lie - or artful amplification of a convenient truth - that much more effective.

Read the story of Martin Guerre for a tale of epic lies, in France in the early 1500s. No internet then, no pictures. Nothing but personal contact for most people. Even see the movie, it's in French, and stars one of my favorite "Belgians," Gerry D (Gerard Depardieu). An astounding tale, which could even happen today, though it would be much harder. It makes a great study in truth and context, and why people accept truths. (Oh, boy, I feel my head getting ready to explode.)

Hmm. Gerry D moved to Russia and became a citizen . . . .

[_Keith]

All of those in-person traits can be used to personify, but also to deceive.

We pretty much know only what another person chooses to show us or not hide from us, but also from the other perspective we tend to see only what we want to see.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Putting a gloss on oneself is an integral of what people have always done. The web provides more elaborate props and costumes, but what really is the difference between that, and, say meeting in a bar, or in church? I've spent my whole life getting - and giving - false first impressions.

Good point, but I think the difference is you have a lot more info available to you when you see someone in person. It's relatively easy to spot the faking. There's an enormous flow of data between two people that you just don't get online. If you're willing to be present and get out of your head when you're with someone, i.e. not get caught by projections, you can really watch that person and you see an amazing amount of stuff you might not otherwise see if you didn't pay attention, and you would never ever see if you interact online and not in person.

Getting more technical about it, even 1 second worth of the data available to you about another person in flesh and blod couldn't fit into a high speed cable internet transmission. There isn't enough bandwidth - yet. In another 20 years that might be a completely different story. Most people don't absorb that much info about another person when they're with someone else simply because most people are so caught up in their own little world that the bandwidth bottleneck is in their own brain. But whatever little does get in, it's still much more than what you can fit into the average cable DSL line.

Do you really have a lot more information meeting someone in person? I don't think so. I think that you believe you have a lot more information in a person to person meeting. Which, when you think about it, can make an artful lie - or artful amplification of a convenient truth - that much more effective.

Read the story of Martin Guerre for a tale of epic lies, in France in the early 1500s. No internet then, no pictures. Nothing but personal contact for most people. Even see the movie, it's in French, and stars one of my favorite "Belgians," Gerry D (Gerard Depardieu). An astounding tale, which could even happen today, though it would be much harder. It makes a great study in truth and context, and why people accept truths. (Oh, boy, I feel my head getting ready to explode.)

Hmm. Gerry D moved to Russia and became a citizen . . . .

This thread is getting more and more interesting. I wasn't suggesting you can easily catch a lie in person but you still have access to far more info than just over the Internet. Imagine running a trial using only Facebook interactions. Would you be willing to endorse that for a justice system?

[trioderob]

so going by this logic you could read a life long diary of a person and know less about them then meeting them for 5 seconds.

um...................wrong

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

so going by this logic you could read a life long diary of a person and know less about them then meeting them for 5 seconds.

um...................wrong

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Seems like flawed logic to me.

[DoomsDave]

Putting a gloss on oneself is an integral of what people have always done. The web provides more elaborate props and costumes, but what really is the difference between that, and, say meeting in a bar, or in church? I've spent my whole life getting - and giving - false first impressions.

Good point, but I think the difference is you have a lot more info available to you when you see someone in person. It's relatively easy to spot the faking. There's an enormous flow of data between two people that you just don't get online. If you're willing to be present and get out of your head when you're with someone, i.e. not get caught by projections, you can really watch that person and you see an amazing amount of stuff you might not otherwise see if you didn't pay attention, and you would never ever see if you interact online and not in person.

Getting more technical about it, even 1 second worth of the data available to you about another person in flesh and blod couldn't fit into a high speed cable internet transmission. There isn't enough bandwidth - yet. In another 20 years that might be a completely different story. Most people don't absorb that much info about another person when they're with someone else simply because most people are so caught up in their own little world that the bandwidth bottleneck is in their own brain. But whatever little does get in, it's still much more than what you can fit into the average cable DSL line.

Do you really have a lot more information meeting someone in person? I don't think so. I think that you believe you have a lot more information in a person to person meeting. Which, when you think about it, can make an artful lie - or artful amplification of a convenient truth - that much more effective.

Read the story of Martin Guerre for a tale of epic lies, in France in the early 1500s. No internet then, no pictures. Nothing but personal contact for most people. Even see the movie, it's in French, and stars one of my favorite "Belgians," Gerry D (Gerard Depardieu). An astounding tale, which could even happen today, though it would be much harder. It makes a great study in truth and context, and why people accept truths. (Oh, boy, I feel my head getting ready to explode.)

Hmm. Gerry D moved to Russia and became a citizen . . . .

This thread is getting more and more interesting. I wasn't suggesting you can easily catch a lie in person but you still have access to far more info than just over the Internet. Imagine running a trial using only Facebook interactions. Would you be willing to endorse that for a justice system?

The point about the trial is interesting.

As far as picking a jury, that's an art. Often, the information you have isn't really much more than a facebook posting in terms of completeness. Questionnaires do help, sometimes, but people sometimes lie in those for various reasons.

And, some court proceedings are handled via telephone. That's an exercise of wondering what the other people are like.

[trioderob]

so going by this logic you could read a life long diary of a person and know less about them then meeting them for 5 seconds.

um...................wrong

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Seems like flawed logic to me.

actually its not flawed at all - its true

Because I could not stop for Death – He kindly stopped for me –

The Carriage held but just Ourselves – And Immortality.

We slowly drove – He knew no haste And I had put away My labor and my leisure too,

For His Civility – We passed the School, where Children strove At Recess – in the Ring – We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain – We passed the Setting Sun –

Or rather – He passed us –

The Dews drew quivering and chill – For only Gossamer, my Gown – My Tippet – only Tulle – We paused before a House that seemed A Swelling of the Ground – The Roof was scarcely visible – The Cornice – in the Ground –

Since then – 'tis Centuries – and yet Feels shorter than the Day

I first surmised the Horses' Heads Were toward Eternity –

- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15395#sthash.mYTWniG2.dpuf

Edited April 23, 2014 by trioderob

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

so going by this logic you could read a life long diary of a person and know less about them then meeting them for 5 seconds.

um...................wrong

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Seems like flawed logic to me.

actually its not flawed at all - its true

Because I could not stop for Death – He kindly stopped for me –

The Carriage held but just Ourselves – And Immortality.

We slowly drove – He knew no haste And I had put away My labor and my leisure too,

For His Civility – We passed the School, where Children strove At Recess – in the Ring – We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain – We passed the Setting Sun –

Or rather – He passed us –

The Dews drew quivering and chill – For only Gossamer, my Gown – My Tippet – only Tulle – We paused before a House that seemed A Swelling of the Ground – The Roof was scarcely visible – The Cornice – in the Ground –

Since then – 'tis Centuries – and yet Feels shorter than the Day

I first surmised the Horses' Heads Were toward Eternity –

- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15395#sthash.mYTWniG2.dpuf

Let me be a little more explicit about my question: how do you take my statements and make them imply that you could read a life long diary of a person and know less about them then meeting them for 5 seconds? Your logic doesn't take into account noise filtering. I was only comparing a 1 minute online post to a few seconds of seeing a person in flesh and blood. Reading someone's diary is an entirely different matter, the signal to noise ratio is optimal in the latter case.

Case in point, I bet I would see you totally in a different light if I saw you in person. And I have a hunch you wouldn't have the courage to say half the things you say online directly in a face to face interaction. Over radio maybe, but not face to face.

[Xerarch]

You know, I feel like I'm learning quite a bit about about people, just by reading this thread!

[paulgila]

yes, me too, more than i wanted to know

[JEFF IN MODESTO]

Notice how the characters come out to play?

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

This is better than my Facebook stream.

[LJG]

It is much simpler than what is being stated here. This is how we see ourselves.

[Ken Johnson]

Tri Bob? Why do I even read your posts? What a delightful waste of time!

[yachtingone]

Thanx Axel!!! Ken Johnson and LJG are spot on too!

[edric]

Boy, am I glad I'm not a character, (just kidding, I'm sure I take the cake) Ed

[trioderob]

Tri Bob? Why do I even read your posts? What a delightful waste of time!

Ken-

I know you love my threads.

in between selling and planting those magnificent Copernica you need something to read .

[Alicehunter2000]

This is my online persona.....master of zone 9a Palms!

and this is the real me..........thinking hard on how to cut my lawn.....

[trioderob]

worst thread ever.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I am surprised we haven't heard more from the PalmTalk peanut gallery.

[DoomsDave]

I am surprised we haven't heard more from the PalmTalk peanut gallery.

Who would that be?

We are, you and me by ourselves, one-man mega peanut galleries . . . .

[Moose]

I think the term 'character' should be properly defined beforehand. To me, the word conjures up someone who portrays them self slightly different than they would, in a live setting. As such, I would say I am a lot more confrontational and aggressive on-line. A person might meet me face to face and be delightfully surprised, where as on-line, my Character is often less amicable...

[DoomsDave]

There's been a few changes since this started, anyone have any thoughts.

Any recent characters?

[Darold Petty]

I have noticed that after the platform change-over, Axel is no longer listed as a 'stumphead'.  Trioderob, Yachtingone, Tad, and Ken Johnson have withdrawn from participation, as well.   

[Missi]

How fun! The current PT needs. MOAR. Characters!

[Moose]

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2014‎ ‎6‎:‎13‎:‎35‎, Ken Johnson said:

Tri Bob? Why do I even read your posts? What a delightful waste of time!

[Xerarch]

On 2/16/2018, 1:02:04, Darold Petty said:

I have noticed that after the platform change-over, Axel is no longer listed as a 'stumphead'.  Trioderob, Yachtingone, Tad, and Ken Johnson have withdrawn from participation, as well.   

I’m personally a little disappointed at the removal of the stumphead classification, I enjoyed it while it lasted. Actually all of those classifications are gone, juvenile, trunking, setting seed etc. Too bad 

[DoomsDave]

The Stumphead designation came from a former member who called himself TreeStump Head and who got really wildly abusive. Too many meds, or, more likely, not enough. He was 86'd from Palm Talk, though maybe he still lurks, hopefully properly medicated . . . .

[Ilovepalm]

I am always myself, whether online or in reality. There is no point in pretending, because a lie will come out. However, I am aware that many people on the Net pretend to be someone else. Yesterday, by chance, I came across a certain site, where internet haters advise themselves on how to set up fake accounts.  I'm surprised, that peoples has nothing to work another. 

[sur4z]

On 2/16/2018, 1:02:04, Darold Petty said:

I have noticed that after the platform change-over, Axel is no longer listed as a 'stumphead'.  Trioderob, Yachtingone, Tad, and Ken Johnson have withdrawn from participation, as well.   

...also PaulGila, MattyB, and Wal are MIA

[_Keith]

On 2/26/2018, 12:24:36, sur4z said:

...also PaulGila, MattyB, and Wal are MIA

They are not missing, just moved to Facebook where they are very active.

[Xerarch]

9 hours ago, _Keith said:

They are not missing, just moved to Facebook where they are very active.

But now the rest of us don’t get to hear their input any more, since not everyone on PT is connected through FB. 

[Missi]

3 hours ago, Xerarch said:

But now the rest of us don’t get to hear their input any more, since not everyone on PT is connected through FB. 

Right? That sucks!! Now, do we need a Let's Connect on FB thread? How would we do that without putting full names out there. Hmm...

How about COME BACK TO PT PLEEEASE!! 

[Missi]

13 hours ago, _Keith said:

They are not missing, just moved to Facebook where they are very active.

They are missing to those of us who don't know how to connect with them on FB (don't know their full name or email).

[Moose]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018‎ ‎10‎:‎43‎:‎53‎, _Keith said:

They are not missing, just moved to Facebook where they are very active.

Don't do facebook

[Moose]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2018‎ ‎3‎:‎46‎:‎37‎, Xerarch said:

I’m personally a little disappointed at the removal of the stumphead classification, I enjoyed it while it lasted. Actually all of those classifications are gone, juvenile, trunking, setting seed etc. Too bad 

You really had to earn the stump head status, was not a classification given lightly.

[DoomsDave]

I didn't, and don't, do Facebook. They were a monster from the start.

[sur4z]

On 3/29/2018, 9:13:37, DoomsDave said:

I didn't, and don't, do Facebook. They were a monster from the start.

...agreed!

[BS Man about Palms]

 I'm Still

[BS Man about Palms]

Here