Possibly. But how much?

 

No. Obviously I used to, which is why I signed up here to begin with, but that was a while ago.

Ah, and I forgot:

Sure, why not? You seem friendly enough.

 

Would you ride my tongue till you squirt?

 

Me too. Now I like to read stories and vote on them sometimes. Maybe I've read or voted on one or all of your stories.

 

Do u like anal ?

 

Do you think I can get the wife off with my tongue?

 

Why did you start this thread? I just wonder that if you've been a member for 11 years and never interacted before.

 

After I've been discussed in several threads, I thought I would just give an opportunity to ask all the questions someone may have.

 

Well, as I said before, I will participate in discussions, just not with this account. However, those who talk about the "death" of GD, or the forum in general, or the stories site, or whatever, usually only mean that it's dead to them. Of course, that means nothing, unless those members take themselves so serious that they thing their participation can make or break the forum, or parts of it. Their departure might even be a good thing, as it may give people a chance to join in the debate who previously felt alienated by the ever-same rhethoric from the ever-same members.

The bottom line is, the forum has been as active as ever, if not more so. I give people more topics to talk about, and I think the only reason some members complain about that is because they don't dominate the conversation anymore. Depending on where you stand, that may not even be a bad thing.

 

I am simply curious: to avoid "dominating the conversation" -is that the purpose of starting threads/topics with your Alex_1 account but generally participating in threads with a separate account(s)? Although it is commonly accepted that we all use an anonymous medium in the internet, shouldn't it make a difference to know who you are talking to at some level?
I do not mean to accuse you of it -especially since you freely stated your use of other account(s), but unfortunately the most common use of multiple accounts is for the purpose of deception in some manner, which is a view that I suggest may be at the root of some complaints.

If the forum is indeed as active as you say, is there a need to generate more topics to talk about? And so much that it requires a separate account?
Or is it more the case of a plan to steer the conversation away from the "ever-same" "rhetoric" to open the forum up to wider participation? I wonder why doing so, would be of any great concern to anyone that has no active investment in the site?
Just wondering...

 

No, it shouldn't make a difference at all. In fact, I think conversations should stay on topic, and not get into personals. It matters not who says something, as long as it is factual and correct. So no, "who you are talking to" is actually counterproductive to a good conversation.

If the facts speak for themselves, why do you need to know who you are talking to?

That may well be, but I don't see the problem with it. So people have alt accounts - does that take anything away from what they're writing? In real life, I have alt accounts too. I'm different with my doctor, than I am with my kids. Does one invalidate the truthfulness of the other?

I don't "generate more topics". I do what I enjoy doing - post interesting news I've found. Some of them spark a conversation, some of them don't. There's no harm in it, one way or another. It's not like forum has a capacity problem with the amount of threads it can hold.

Let's put it like this: A casual reader of this forum, which I am, would start out with the Sexuality section, steer maybe a little into Personals and Stories, and, depending on their interests, may participate in the games, or peruse the Pictures. Nobody, however, comes to a sex forum to talk gun violence.

So, at one point or another, everyone might take a glimpse into GD. And, again: for the casual reader, it will look like a very hateful, vicious and "dangerous" crowd, and participation seems to carry a high risk of personal insults, attacks and overall unpleasantness. The risk is greater, if one were to challenge a certain pervasive mindset.

Now, this kind of environment turns a lot of good people off, and I believe this is a situation which can be improved. And one way to improve it is to make sure different opinions are visible as well.

 

Apples and oranges. Do you use multiple alts with your doctor and multiple alts with your kids? That's what we're talking about. Using multiple accounts, not just in GD, but in the very threads you start.

As for your ridiculous comment about "not dominating", any member could just do the same thing as you and launch a half-dozen threads a day and not participate in them any further. What if a bunch of people did that? Do we really need three pages of new topics every day with a few responses here and there? Login the next day and find that the last topic you replied to is now buried on page 4 somewhere? Yeah, that's a successful strategy. Not!

 

Is there are reason people hate on the thread creator?

 

While it is true that "who a person is" should not be a factor in determining the accuracy or validity of what they say (and I agree that it is easier to hold a discussion when the topic doesn't devolve into positive or negative "affirmations" of a persons character or behaviour) however, I suggest that it's simpler to continue conversations when you know you're talking to the same person as before -as we are in this thread.

In the above context it is quite normal and even essential at times to react accordingly in different situations, but does that equate to identifying yourself as one account to start a discussion, and then addressing yourself as another account to further the discourse?
Hypothetically, if this situation were to happen in real life, where someone were to have a pile of hats and multiple names that changed to suit the topic, do you think the focus would be on the validity of the conversation or on the situation?

 

We don't hate her/him/whoever. Part of the reason for the confusion is, this thread was started in General Discussion, and some genius Mod decided to move it here. But it belongs in General Discussion where the issue starts.

The issue is, some people question who the person is. This account was created in 2004 and had 0 posts until a few weeks ago, when all of a sudden, the account doesn't just become active, it's almost hyperactive in the number of threads it starts, but doesn't participate in. Over the course of about a month, and maybe a half-dozen threads a day, the account holder has maybe replied 2 or 3 times to questions people have asked, and always in a cryptic manner. (That's 2 or 3 times, as opposed to the dozens of questions people have asked.) Now, nobody would have a problem with starting a half-dozen threads if you're going to participate in them. If not, why bother?

Anyway, a long-term member posted a thread named "The flight from General Discussion", in which they noted that since this member's account "resurrection", there's been a precipitous drop in participation in GD. So this little game of "Is it bigger than a breadbox" was supposed to be the answer to "who I'm going to let you think I am."

 

Succinct and to the point!

Alex_1 needs to explain itself!

Thinskin

 

Considering Alex_1's start date which pre-dates the creation of the forum, it is likely an account created by the management in the early days designed to make it appear there were a lot more members of the website than there actually were. Now that the forum is dying, in an act of desperation, they pulled this dormant account out of mothballs and are using it to spam the place with a bunch of "interesting" topics. Unfortunately, it has only irritated people and driven away participants.

 

That's true. However, the way I do it is simpler for me. And in this case, my convenience trumps your convenience.

No. And that's not what I'm doing. The discourse is furthered by enough other members most of the time so it won't need my direct involvement, as it should. I'm really quite happy with the way it's going; I don't understand why you're not.

The focus should be on the topic. Seeing as the focus is on the topic, I don't understand the confusion.

 

I have explained this before.

What else would you like explained?

 

I have explained this before, too.

No. They have not.

That probably says more about the irritated, driven-away participants than about anything else.