h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Posted at the time I was writing the other, obviously.



~SL~

Hi Hoovooloo,

I don't think you *intended* to post on behalf of LeKZ, but posting anything written by a banned member -- whether it comes from an email or another site, or quoting a telephone conversation -- is hard to distinguish from posting "on behalf of" that person.

Nothing against you, nothing against LeKZ, but I think the decision to moderate your post was consistent with the rule against posting on behalf of banned members.

(If it's any consolation, I think it's absurd that you were given an official warning just because of that XXXX posting. I'm afraid to write too many X's now, even while legitimately discussing this stuff, for fear that my message will be misinterpreted as a "code" or a language other than English.)

Hoovooloo,

The Special Effects Department thought I said too much that I had either read at another site, or in email, or both, and one of my posts vanished. I didn't actually *quote*, so if you actually posted actual content from elsewhere or from emails, that probably would be considered 'posting for a banned researcher'. Odds are the only reason you've not got banned yourself is that you didn't post FOR, but rather AGAINST a banned researcher. I think in my case it was probably because I wasn't doing it because I was asked to do, or because I am new and stupid, or because they're just being nice, or because the posting was borderline.

Look after yourself. It looks like someone slung yet another complaint at folkz, and now they're on a moderated system, which as a free-speech group, is NOT what any of them could possibly want. Since it's apparent to anyone who thinks about it that if you were angry enough to post that here, you must have been angry enough to complain, and they were on a 'one more strike and you're out' warning, it's a miracle that they've been allowed to remain online, although moderated. Again, the same people over yonder are speaking up FOR you, in the event that it was you who complained, asking everybody to lay off you.

I'll be around tomorrow, but I can't spend all weekend online. This is all so violent. It's making me dizzy. There's so much gratuitous anger and people slanging and hurting one another.

Once more, Hoovooloo, I consider you a friend, and I understand what happened, very well, I think. You've got a friend or some elsewhere. I do think you overreacted, rather badly. I'd say the same is true of the post to which you overreacted, and I'd not be the only one. You thought so.

I hope you can put this behind you. That 'you' means anyone who might be reading this. Good people who do things in anger and for the wrong reasons end up much more miserable about them than bad people who are horrid all the time and think they're just bloody great. Isn't that super? Life... don't talk to me about life.



~Silent Lucidity~

I am going to post this to Hoovooloo's space too, in case he *really* is unsubscribed from this conversation. He's been notorious for saying that he's unsubscribing from here, and yet he keeps on posting! (No criticism intended ... that's totally harmless!)

Hoovooloo: I never asked that you should go read FoLKZ. I think that LeKZ's message there was a case of extreme over-reaction. It was clear to me that they saw only the one message, asserting, on the face of it, that they would lie for a frivolous reason. Now: I know them well enough to know that they don't react *mildly* to any accusation of dishonesty or untrustworthiness on their part. Such constitutes a 'button' for them. Press that button and you elicit an extreme reaction. I know ... I have unwittingly pressed buttons of theirs, on numerous occasions, and elicited negative reactions towards me. When that happened, I *immediately* stepped back and apologised, *because* I know that LeKZ have PTSD and that if I 'trigger' them, it causes for them an extreme amount of emotional stress ... I have a good idea *how* extreme and painful and harrowing and damaging that can be, because I have PTSD myself. And I *care* for them. I *don't want* to hurt them. I *don't want* to do that to them. From my interactions with LeKZ I *also* know that they are *extremely willing* to apologise for unfairly accusing someone while under extreme stress. Note that extreme stress *does* interfere with a person's judgement. If it did not, it would not be extreme. I've always found that if anybody ever accidentally trigger LeKZ and they respond vehemently and unfairly, they are willing afterwards, when calmed down, to apologise for it and to respond kindly to the person again.

Now, though, I want to produce one more piece of the puzzle: LeKZ's reaction there seemed to me to be a very clear example of their being hurt extremely badly by someone they care very much about. The reason of the extremity of their reaction is because they care much for you and felt betrayed. You've only seen that, and a few other postings. I've seen all the postings *leading up* to that, so I know what has been happening in their minds to lead them to that vehemence. They've been going through and absolutely immense amount of hurt lately. It's been so intense that it's devastated *me*, over here. I don't blame *them* for that ... I only wish that the hurting could end sometime.

Like I said, I never asked that you should go read there. If you want to know what's going on there, you should read the backlog as well, not just the recent postings.

Also, there was no way in which you could prevent me from reading what you said. I have it saved on my computer, just so you know. LeKZ never could keep me from reading what *they* said either. They could post trigger warnings, but I can use my own discretion as to whether I would read it or not. The trigger warning *would* help me to brace myself for whatever may be coming, though. Your 'warning' said, 'anyone who is a friend of LeKZ and don't want their illusions shattered, I suggest you go and read somewhere else'. I am a friend of LeKZ but I *want* illusions shattered, if I am under any. I was *never* under the illusion that LeKZ was a compulsive truth-teller. I consider them *more ethical* than that. What you revealed was, to me, totally consistent with what I know of LeKZ's character. It was a prank. I still consider them extremely honest and trustworthy where more important matters are concerned. As do you. LeKZ said that your *further* clarifications of their honesty was acceptable to them. They *also* did not contest the information you revealed. They apologised for what they said, explained that it was said under what was, to them, extreme provocation in the midst of extreme general stress, and asked that nobody attack or malign you.

In all of this recent nonsense, I've pretty much stuck to the same position: disagreements between people should be *reasoned out between them*. This has been consistently *not happening*. Under the 'reasoning out' system, what would have been proper would have been if you took note of that LeKZ felt extremely offended by what you said, clarified what you said *to them*, and accept their retraction and apology. I *know* they would have retracted and apologised. As it is, they *did* - even after further hurt, betrayal and provocation.

I wanted you to take note of the fact that there exists a rift in the communications between you, which puts *them* at a great disadvantage., making *them* very vulnerable. This situation still exists. Under this situation it would be decent *not* to make accusations in a place where they cannot defend themselves. The *problem* is further exacerbated by the fact that you have, from your end, broken off communications with them. This makes misunderstandings millions of times more likely than would otherwise be the case, and it makes talking things out between you *impossible*.

Now take note that they have lost *another* forum in which to talk. This disempowers and disadvantages them even more.

I still contend that the decent thing to do would be not to make any accusations, or even assertions, about them ... unless you are willing to re-enter communications with them, so that you can hear for yourself how what you say makes them feel. In my code of ethics, which I cannot expect everybody to adhere to, but which I still consider a very reliable guide for action, it is *always* necessary to take into account the way other people may feel about what one says *about* them.

I want to point out another thing: I did not complain about that particular posting of LeKZ's on Topica, because I did not want to add one more complaint to the burden that was busy causing the probable downfall of FoLKZ. *However*, I started out a message to them, privately, about what they said there, because I was certain that that was *not* the way they really feel about you and I wanted to defend you as well. As it were, things happened too fast, so that message did not get sent before things became even worse.

That's how I see things from this end. I still respect you as well as LeKZ. I would prefer that neither of you press any of these points much further. I don't need unnecessary quarrelling between friends of mine.

I just want to add one last thing: for me, betrayal of confidence is a triggering act. I have a tendency towards paranoid psychosis. *Anything* that makes me distrust people, or start to question the trust I put in friends of mine, is destabilising to my state of mind. I have many friends who have entrusted me with sensitive information. I could 'bring down' some of them with this information if I wanted to. In turn, I have entrusted some friends of mine with sensitive information about me. They can use that to hurt me and damage my reputation if they so wished. I trust them not to ... but your willingness demonstrated here to reveal sensitive information entrusted to you makes me feel very unsafe now when I consider that some friends *I* trust may do the same. Some have already, which has hurt me immensely, but I have managed to clear it up between us and our friendship is still continuing. But I can't very easily handle too much of that sort of thing.

Hello Return of the... Pillowcase,

How do you prefer to be addressed?

I would like to say bravo for that posting. It was fair, and truthful, and I don't believe you 'attacked' anyone, nor do I think you said anything at all wrong. You defended the awkward *position* in which LeKZ are, which is admirable, without resorting to any sort of excess of adulation.

I think it is only fair to warn you that Hoovooloo may not agree at all. Please consider this as a possiblity and be prepared to either be ignored or brushed off by him, possibly rudely. This is based on observation and a guess, and I very much hope I am wrong.

Well spoken, friend.



~Silent Lucidity~

Hi again, Silent Lucidity! You can call me Pillowcase, or Case, or Einauni, or Willem (which is my real name).

I just want to tell you this: Hoovooloo and I are on friendly terms. Our discussion of this has proceeded very civilly. I respect both him and LeKZ. Hoovooloo did in fact not agree with my points, which is his right. Hoovooloo also do not wish to argue about LeKZ any more, and I accepted that also, so I will not talk any further about this specific incident. LeKZ have also asked that none of her friends argue with Hoovooloo any more about it, so I guess the only people who will argue about it any more will be people who are friends neither of LeKZ nor of Hoovooloo ... and I cannot imagine that such people will have much to say about the matter. So, here, on h2g2 at least, it will pass...

Good to know your name, Willem,

I posted a response to Hoovooloo's after yours. I've more or less specifically *asked* him to not speak of them where they are able to read it, because it obviously does more harm than good.

Let it pass. Let it pass. Please... this is not at all just and it reminds me so very much of, well, *me*. I'd bash a person, for not reading my mind, in half a second. Their fault. I know better now, of course, but it takes *learning*, and that takes admitting you're *wrong*. Real men don't do that. I feel really sad for everybody who has been hurt.



I am sorry, everyone, this is tragic for a few people, upsetting for a few more, and mostly trivial to nonexistent. The lives touched are not being helped. That's a shame. It's a damn shame.

~Silent Lucidity~

HVL: I know you're still reading here, if for no other reason than that you know you are a topic of discussion, Let's just say that I know the feeling.

You made a statement in here somewhere about two Folkz being prejudiced against you, and I can only assume that I was one of them. So, to set the record straight:

- I bear you no ill will. In fact, I respect you very much, and I was quite touched by the "Harlequins" tribute during my suspension. I like to think we could become very good friends, or at least as much as can be accomplished online.

- I have known LeKZ to fly off the handle on many occasions. I saw the "F*****g Liar" post and suspected that she had done it again. My first instinct when seeing something like that is to say to myself, "Let's not be hasty. Gather the facts, then react accordingly." So, I came to you to gather the facts, regarding your post, and what you intended it to mean. I was withholding judgement of any sort until you spoke up. You did so, and as I said before, I was satisfied by the response.

Whatever transpires between you and LeKZ, I leave between the two of you. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I have nothing against you, and my inquiry into the situation was motivated by a desire to prevent strife between two people I respect. Too little, too late...

Aww s**t.

Colonel, I just left you a longish note in which I very, very specifically said some things on this very subject.

Here, I'm just going to say, if you or anyone else cares about Hoovooloo, DO NOT mention LeKZ around him. He needs not to be thinking, talking or hearing about her. There are a lot of things I'm far too thick and uneducated to grasp going on here, but that is one thing of which I'm certain.

Hoovooloo, if by chance you see this, don't reply, don't think about it, go and have an and see a film. Right now, you need to look after yourself.

Colonel, and anyone else, I am not the person to talk with about this, because I'm a Dogbert. I don't know how to fix people. I get paid absurd sums of money by idiots in corporate suits, to handle situations where they shove a pile of documents at me, and say 'Here, would you find out what happened? Then tell us how to fix it without actually spending any money, and this is the list of personnel we are not, under any circumstances, letting go. Everyone else is expendable'. I sneakily work my basically Labour temperament in, and the problem is always some incompetent whom I have to advise them to promote away from doing more harm, at the price of cutting out the two people in the lower ranks of management who were the most cordially hated... well that's an ideal scenario. I can and have and do fix screwy management situations.

People? I don't know me at all well (which is very likely because first impressions are lasting ones, and I took an instant dislike to me, and it was mutual). Not my forte. You might know someone you could ask about this, Colonel.

Hoovooloo, in the event that you see this, I'm your friend, too. As harsh as I was, I am your friend.



~Silent Lucidity~

AND ..according to an e-mail I just got today ..one of you (above)really IS the one and only original LEKz. (LOL)
*waves*
Funny thing is, she (I knew her as Arpeggio first and foremost and possibly ONLY) ..she seemed to be suggesting that Tefkat and I are GUILTY of having more than one User ID. Duh!
Guilty is one of several emotions I no longer feel.
Tefkat, bless her, is still human enough to be hurt (see above) and honest enough (see above) to actually tell it like it was at n2g2.
We really did (as Boooby Dylan said) 'try to get close to' Arpeggio.
But we just couldn't figger out if our crime was leaving the seat up or down. After a while, and not a long while for life is short, I just said pee on it.
peece
jwf
*warning - I only came here unknowingly from a link supplied in an e-mail from LeKZ and having now seen the issue and addressed it - I am gone - so expect no further reply from me in this thread - course, if you're nice you can always come to my homepage and yell at me*

OK so I lied.
[Can we still do that here?]
But I thought I'd better add ..I have since realised that the link I referred to (above) took me to Postings made four pages and several days back. I guess I should check my e-mail more often!
Now these more recent three pages (which I finally just read) tell me you really didn't want to hear any of my last bit anyway so frig y'all.
*waves to Tefkat*
peace
jwf
*gone*

*latest*
I just found out elsewhere that Silent Lucidity has been banished for being LEkZ! Oh, the horror, oh the humanity!
Well, OK, I figgered she had to be one of the persons above.
As I say (above) she sent me the link (complaining about Tefkat) and it was pretty obvious from SL's fight with Tefkat over the n2g2 history that's who she was!
Tefkat and plaguesville have been saying so for days...

*really gone now*
jwf

Wow. It's an interesting experience going back and reading these posts by Silent Lucidity with the whole new context that she was really LeKZ. I wondered how an objective outsider could read the Intelligence thread and so easily side against PR.

"So I'm wondering the devil happened? This is a process-breakdown that cost a *lot*. And I'm not just talking about our ambitious young writer. It cost the Guide a lot, judging by the articles Arpeggio has in, one of which is scholarly..."

Patting one's self on the back too hard is bad for one's back, good for one's chiropractor. Si/Lu seemed very friendly and straightforward in the few places I encountered her, but it is a kind of betrayal to come here and make friends with people and rehash all these arguments as if she were an observer, feigning impartiality.

"She went above and beyond the call to try to help the bloke, because she was new, or had high standards, and was clearly familiar with the field."

Be aware that the issues are never as straight forward as might be thought when dealing with a multiple personality.

Silent Lucidity was not a simple collection of lies or back-patting. Silent Lucidity is a new alter of LeKZ who still does not understand that he is not a separate individual and still does not feel that there is any reason why he should be banned from h2g2. LeKZ and he did communicate but only by email precisely as he claimed. He was created to perform a specific function which he went far beyond.

So long as you refuse to accept that there are actual separate personalities in an mp, you will not be willing to accept this, which is unfortunate. I suggest you rent a copy of "The Three Faces of Eve" and try to understand what was wrong with Eve White's husband's thinking.

If you understand that an mp may not know that s/he is multiple till relatively late in life and that this may be caused deliberately by alters of the mp, then what I am telling you about Silent Lucidity will not come as any great suprise.

Now, here is the more interesting question. It is clear that when the editors banned Arpeggio, they meant that they banned all of LeKZ.

At the time when Arpeggio was suspended for a week, it was stated that even if it wasn't Arpeggio who posted the rude message that caused the suspension, Arpeggio was responsible for controlling access to that account. On the surface, this seems to indicate that the editors were banning Arpeggio and not LeKZ.

Recent talk, however, about Silent Lucidity has been that LeKZ was banned and therefore Silent Lucidity being an alter of LekZ violates the ban.

So, do you all support the editors' seeming assertion that it is the body they are banning regardless of who is responsible for the offense?

Am I obliged to accept their learned diagnosis that Arpeggio is precisely the same, for the editors purpose, as other very distinct personalities that make up the LeKZ system.

Be very careful here, before you say that the only thing that matters is the body that types on the keyboard. Be aware that mp is a recognized human psychological condition that is *not* considered to be an illness.

One could argue that a psychological condition is not grounds for another driver's license so why should it be grounds for exception here. At the same time, anyone who has ever spoken with any number of LeKZ's people, particularly the extremes such as between a three year old, such as Pat, and an adult, such as Guido, would have no trouble saying that these are not the same people as far as personality and the relationship one one have with them.

So, who is being expelled from h2g2 this time? It isn't Arpeggio, she never came back, ever, to *my* knowledge. It isn't LeKZ, because Silent Lucidity isn't aware of LeKZ except as someone from history and an email address.

But then it is LeKZ, because SL was made from the stuff of LeKZ and since Arpeggio was made from the stuff of LeKZ about 37 years ago the two must 'clearly' be the same. I'm afraid I don't see anything that clear.

And for that matter, Arpeggio had nothing to do with the creation of Silent Lucidity, as I have come to understand and as it was revealed to me. That was done by another mechanism entirely.

Barton

Barton, I hadn't thought much about this in terms of multiple personalities.

"Silent Lucidity is a new alter of LeKZ who still does not understand that he is not a separate individual and still does not feel that there is any reason why he should be banned from h2g2. LeKZ and he did communicate but only by email precisely as he claimed."

From what I had read on LeKZ's website, I thought her alters were able to communicate directly with each other. Maybe this one's different because it's new.

I'm not sure how differently a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder should be treated by h2g2 staff. Should they really give each of LeKZ's 20,000 alters a chance to prove their ability to socialize? Is LeKZ in control of her alters enough to ensure that one banned personality (Arpeggio) would not momentarily take charge to post to the Silent Lucidity account?

"So, do you all support the editors' seeming assertion that it is the body they are banning regardless of who is responsible for the offense?"

I support it. Otherwise they would need to hire a new Community Editor, one to deal exclusively with the "community" inside LeKZ.

"Am I obliged to accept their learned diagnosis that Arpeggio is precisely the same, for the editors purpose, as other very distinct personalities that make up the LeKZ system."

I think you miss the point. It is not that editors are making any diagnosis of LeKZ. They react to what LeKZ has done as if she were any regular person, banning her based on repeated anti-social behavior. (I still disagree with the "encoded" message that was used to justify her ban -- if it's that offensive, why is the post still visible? Still, if they had let her stay an extra day or two, she would have made a remark about someone like "nothing a few garrottings couldn't fix," and would have been banned anyway.) The only reason h2g2 editors would have to "diagnose" her is if they agreed that she deserved the kind of special treatment which you've been arguing for. On whose authority would the h2g2 staff then start making exceptions? Could people break House Rules if they send in a note from their doctor? If I got a warning today, then I could suddenly claim that it wasn't me who deserved the warning, it was one of my multiples. You want the burden of proof to be on the editors to find out which researchers have multiple personalities, or whether researchers can control their anti-social personalities?

"...as I have come to understand and as it was revealed to me..."

Revealed to you by LeKZ? It's troubling that so many people on h2g2 consider themselves experts on psychology now, throw around catch-phrases and acronyms like "alters" and "mp" and "DID," act like they can quote at length from the DSM-IV, when most of their information comes from LeKZ, who is teaching them all about how they should treat her.

Before post 1335 gets removed for "defamation" or something like that, let me point out that the quote about garrottings is either an exact quote or a close paraphrasing of something she wrote on yahoo n2g2 message boards. Ask jwf (John W Fulton).

We can either allow that LeKZ was banned or that Arpeggio was. If the first then the whole discussion is pointless. So, to move on.

If Arpeggio was banned and Silent Lucidity were to permit Arpeggio to post then, under the same grounds that you could be banned if I were to sit down at your computer and break the rules -- that is you are responsible for how your account is used (The point Peta made when Arpeggio was suspended for a week -- as I recall it.) then Silent Lucidity would clearly be in violation of the House Rules.

"From what I had read on LeKZ's website, I thought her alters were able to communicate directly with each other. Maybe this one's different because it's new."

So, you *are* willing to accept something you read that LeKZ wrote as having some validity?

Actually, while LeKZ has said that there alters can and do communicate, they have also said that some of those alters are not communicating for various reasons. She has never said that each of them automatically understands what every other one knows or is doing and has clearly indicated that each of the alters has distinct characteristics and personalities.

LeKZ has also said that they can block various personalities for various reasons. And most recently, LeKZ said, that Silent Lucidity is not aware that he is a part of the system which I have no trouble accepting as a truthful statement since I tend to talk with various people in LeKZ on a fairly regular basis.

I want to go on record right now, that neither I nor any aware personality of LeKZ, would claim that there are actually thousands totally separate and distinct individual living inside the one body that belongs to LeKZ. LeKZ calls them metaphoric constructs and I have no problem accepting that terminology after my experience with them. But, the point is that they function as distinct individuals forced into an accomodation by virtue of sharing the same external existence. The internal existence is another matter entirely.

I am not insisting that you or anyone else should accept that I am any more entitled to make a diagnosis that are the editors. I am suggesting that if these personalities are psychologically viable as personalities, then there is no basis for insisting that none of them have any reality but that only the body matters.

I am a trained actor, the characters I portray may seem real to some people, but they are not viable and have no life away from the stage. I am not submerged during their presentation. And, there is never any danger that I lose track of that distinction.

I don't know if you have ever been inside a locked ward at a mental treatment hospital. I have been, on visits, and have met patients who so far as I could tell, had no personality evident at all. I would not be inclined to simply state that the body I saw was in anyway responsible for any action. While a personality may be difficult to define, it was not at all difficult to see that one was not in evidence. And I would much rather deal with a personality that had to share time with others interacting with the real world through a single body than with a body that has no personality willing to interact at all.

I doubt there is any one of us who cannot say of someone we know that that person has a terrible personality or has a wonderful personality by which we are not speaking at all about the physical shell through which we percieve it. I don't know how any of us can make such a statement when none of us have ever seen a naked personality completely free of a body, yet we do. Our observation of so many different factors that we cannot begin to list them allows us to make such statements. Please don't discount out of hand, just because you have never dealt, even over a phone connection, knowingly with more than one of however many parts of a multiple personality and known that they were distinct.

To be fair, they are also similar, in that they are all constructed out of events of that body's life history as well as shared genetics. This is part of what caused some people to say, oh look! He writes just like LeKZ.

Well, there are things about Silent Lucidity that reminded me of LeKZ from the first time I read more than an sentence or two. But there are also things about SL that I have stated to others, that I don't think any other part of LeKZ could do, most particularly the story, about spousal abuse, not in the way that it was done. Other parts of LeKZ could have written an article but not that story.

Reject what I have said if you choose. I have no intention of doing more than what I have done here, ask for consideration of the question.

Barton

> "...when most of their information comes from LeKZ..."

Give your fellow researchers some credit for being able to use search engines and/or read books...

I have to agree with Deidzoeb, though - it's not remotely plausable to expect the Editors to be mental health experts, especially in an area as fraught with controversy as DID.

Barton: I'll reply a little later, can't write a long one while at work.

Lucinda:
"Give your fellow researchers some credit for being able to use search engines and/or read books..."

No, if it's something you found from a search engine, it doesn't necessarily deserve a lot of credit. Waldo from the World Trade Center Tourist Photo told me not to believe everything I see on the web.

Seriously though, this is a case of which conflicting experts you believe. Some psychologists these days talk about multiple personalities as if it was an old, debunked notion on par with the four humors or Astrology. Some psychologists these days would still say that homosexuality is a psychological problem. Although there is a general consensus on most subjects, there are things like multiple personalities or "recovered memory" where support for the idea waxes and wanes from year to year.

I'm not sure where I stand on multiple personalities, haven't done a lot of research into what the "experts" say, and it looks like the whole thing depends on which experts you want to believe. But I still think people are taking LeKZ's word for all kinds of things because they believe her when she says she's a genius.

(Didn't I just say I wasn't going to write a long post?)

I actually think (gut reaction here, not an expert opinion) that the idea of "metaphoric constructs" sounds very plausible. I have several metaphoric constructs that I play in Dungeons and Dragons and Star Wars roleplaying campaigns on weekends. Monks and wookies and elves. (Yes, I know role-playing is drastically different than Dissociative Identity Disorder. I don't mean to minimize it.) The question is whether h2g2 should make exceptions to their rules based on how intensely a person wants or needs to express themselves through metaphoric constructs.