NorthOfNorth wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 9:00pm:


If you look at those I have banned here, you will see who the obvious socks are.  Further, I have been around these Forums for 15 years plus and I know who these sock characters are.  Curry Muncher for example is an old sock from another place.

Yes it does.  But, I have more than enough experience to know that I nail the right target.

Aussie wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 9:07pm:

Yes... And you'd probably know that's an old defence for cops as well (usually when the evidence doesn't fit the alleged perp).

I understand if a poster doxes someone (or attempts to), that would be easily recognised.

The rest is arbitrary and it would depend on the moderators' comprehension of responsibility as opposed to power, which is where I'm going with this as it is an issue we try to instill in those who are in a position of authority, being that they have responsibility over subordinates, not power.

Aussie wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 9:30pm:

No need for consolation. I'm light years from being offended.

But it has given me a platform for inquiry into the primal psyche when it comes to exercising unaccountable 'power'.

If it consoles anyone here, the world's most famous 'sock' was Jawaharlal Nehru who routinely wrote pseudonymous 'letters to the editor' criticising himself when he believed that newly independent Indians were not criticising him enough as the prime minister of India. Of course, his reasons were noble: to teach Indians about democracy and their right to free speech.

Aussie wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:52pm:


Where is your evidence leading to proof that they are socks? Assertion doesn't hack it, consigliere.

Frank wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 10:48am:

Yes and I think the obsession with eliminating 'socks' is ridiculous.

And, yes, everyone here is an approximation at best of a 'real' person whose true identity must be protected.

Given that moderators, or anyone else, cannot identify (short of posters' 'outing' themselves) who is a 'sock' and who is not, why even bother attempting to enforce an unprovable allegation?

If spouses or friends join a forum who post similar opinions to the 'target' poster... So what?

And, seriously, when people hold sophisticated or long-held ideals or beliefs, they're highly unlikely to be 'turned' by the numbers against them, let alone that often an idea has the advocate as much or more than the advocate has the idea.

Rules based on unprovable allegations do not enhance the quality of a forum; they merely provide narcissists and petty 'control freaks' a penny's experience of exercising arbitrary 'power'.

Frank wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 10:48am:

absolutely correct

John Smith wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 4:59pm:

Calabrian wit... the fruit of cousin marriage.  Go and ... er....tend ( ahem...) to the goats, Gino, there's  a good boy. Get your jiggles out....