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

Are you or anybody else you may be in touch with mildly/wildly amused by the fact that there's a [url removed by moderator] sign in my last post here? Possibly not, because you don't know what was there... Suffice to say, I have in the last 24 hours provided an email address. The domain name for that email address was a completely made up one, an injoke referring to an actor mentioned in a previous exchange. URL in previous posting was another reference to said actor's role in Robin Hood, and I actually thought (foolishly) that nobody would seriously believe that there is actually a xxx-xx-xxxxxxxx.cxm (I've x'd it out here, but I'm sure you know the character I'm on about.) This comes on top of finding out, approximately 20 hours after the fact, that my friend's "decoding" of the x-post, despite being almost by definition certainly no more and probably less offensive than the original which is still up was in fact referred (temporarily). >ROTFL< Also, I notice Peta's still got an eye on the LS thread. Gee, I'm right again, this is getting boring.

H

Re: Public domain?

Two things:
1. It was late.
2. I'm not a lawyer (despite my uncanny resemblence to Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate, or insert other devilishly handsome lawyer type of your choice... )

H

On last visit to the hole in the old oak tree, I failed to bookmark it , and the route provided isn't there any more!

So, it's 15:41 UK time now. I'll look for the hole again at 21:00 UK time, and this time I'll do what I should have done in the first place and book mark it.

Thanx
H

A couple of points (have I apologised ever for using this thread like a hole in a wall?):

1. Naff: "inferior, in poor taste".
2. The following is my opinion only: I think posting the initial stages of the X post can only have negative results. While it may be of some academic interest, the damage is done, the italics have unequivocally said their minds will *not* be changed. I suspect that if you could incontrovertibly show the X post to have originally been the Ten Commandments, it wouldn't help. It would, however, give certain PeopLe A verY Big, nOisY laugh. So why do it? As I say, just my opinion. Yoo did ask...

H.

Two things:

1. The hole in the old oak tree is now bookmarked.
2. I didn't go there when I promised because my mouse, with impeccable timing, started sending the pointer to the bottom left of the screen and clicking all three buttons spontaneously every 15 seconds or so, then hanging the computer after ten minutes just this evening. So I've been out and bought a new mouse. Apologies for the lateness of the response...

H.
Cipher, Trinity, soon to be in the arms of Morpheus.

Novelty: I'm not using this thread like a hole in the wall. I'm talking to yous! I've been inspired, today, to write Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Guide to conversing with Multiple Persons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A628643

Since it is actually all my own work, pieced together from various bits of information I've got through several channels (wow, guess that makes me an actual researcher!), I expect there are things I've missed, or got wrong, or said in an inappropriate way.

Since I'm aware that yous are a multiple person, and that the only other multiple still allowed to post here seems to be awol (his ID is Arhuaine, FYI), I'd appreciate any feedback you'd like to give.

I'd have just put this up on Peer Review, but I'd like it to be a little more authoritative before I place it in that forum.

If yous don't want to contribute, or don't think it's a good idea to write an entry on this, or think I'm presumptuous for starting one, please say. This is another one of those entries (like "Jet Engines") that I'd like to *read*, and since nobody else is writing it and I don't know enough, I'll just start it as best I can and marshall input from those better qualified.

Thanks in advance for any comments...

H.

I've copied your Guide into a text document and will take it apart and put it back together later today... Possibly tomorrow morning in your time zone.

Don't be too surprised if you get contridictory responses from myself and someone else. There are no set rules yet, so any system responding to what you've written will be doing so based on personal preferences.

Hope you don't mind if I treat it like it IS in Peer Review. I'd like to see this get a lot of positive attention, so I might have more than the ordinary amount to say.

Anything I suggest is, of course, merely a suggestion, which you are at complete liberty to ignore.

Passing it to you was absolutely intended to *be* Peer Review of a very special kind, so I'll be very grateful for any help you can give.

Thank you.

H.

I don't know how picky you want me to get. I'm going to go on the premise of 'very' and show typos, too.

Dissociative identity disorder is the current technical name for a phenomenon more commonly1 known as split or multiple personalities.

*Dissociative Identity Disorder - All three words capitalized*

*commonly*

It is quite unrelated to and should not be confused with schizophrenia, and to many of the people it affect, doesn't seem like a "disorder" at all.

*True*

It is quite rare, although at least two researchers and one ex-researcher for the Guide are multiple people.

*It has been considered quite rare. In recent years, some psychiatrists have become convinced that there is a body of evidence that in may be more common than previously believed.*

Many people are sceptical of the existence of this condition. Some question its reality, and say that those with the condition are faking it to "get attention".

*or that patients with poor self-images or poor self esteem fake it to 'please the doctor or therapist'.*

It is not the intention of this entry to enter into that discussion on either side. This entry assumes only the incontrovertible fact that these people exist and are deserving of the same courtesy you would extend to anyone else on a first meeting.

*Good. Multiple people are people, too.*

The intention here is simple. We take as our starting point that you are involved, or about to become involved, in a conversation with a person who has multiple personalities.

*A person you know to have multiple personalities?*

Regardless of your opinion of the reality or otherwise of the condition, you wish to show common courtesy as you would to any other person, and to do so you wish to respect their assertion of their status as a multiple person. However, this is complicated by the fact that although you are addressing one physical body, you may in fact be addressing any one of several, or several thousand persons. You wish to know the polite way to conduct a conversation with such a person. Do you use singular or plural forms? How do you know whom you are addressing? How do you deal with a response from a personality you have not interacted with before?

Good intro. Makes the point, assumes that the reader is interested, doesn't condescend.

Dr. Dan Streetmentioner can answer all these questions, and more!

Lesson 1 - Systems, Multiples and Alters

Multiple persons sometimes refer to themselves as "systems". This refers to the collective group of personalities inhabiting the body. The individual personalities are referred to as "alters". It is not considered polite to refer to them as "multiples". Each is an "alter", and as far as each alter is concerned, they are an individual person.

*Yep. I, John, am not a multiple of the D-sys. I'm an alter within the D-sys. Multiple describes the system, not the individuals within it.*

There are varying degrees of communication between alters. Do not assume that because one alter has a particular piece of information, that that information is known to the whole system. Multiple personalities develop primarily as a protective mechanism, so it is more than possible to tell one alter something and find out later that another alter is completely unaware of the fact.

*True, especially in a system that doesn't have good internal communication. Because this isn't about multiple systems in general, and just about courtesy, there's no need to go beyond this statement.*

Lesson 2 - Gender and Age

Just because the body of the multiple person you are addressing is of a particular gender, it is not valid to assume that all their alters will match that gender, or indeed identify with gender in any way. Some may not even consider themselves human. Much of the reasons for this are to do with the reasons for the manifestation of DID, and are beyond the scope of this entry. For this reason, it is polite to use gender-neutral language when addressing a multiple person, unless you are certain of the gender of the alter with whom you are speaking.

*Much of the reasons? Much? You sure? Likewise, consider 'have to do instead of 'are to do. As to the actual content and message, I like it.*

Similarly, although the body of the person has a definite specific age, alters may be any age. This includes very small children, who may have any or all the idiosyncrasies that any other small children exhibit. Tolerance similar to that extended to small children is appropriate here, or failing that, an appeal to speak to someone older in the system. Multiple persons are usually able to bring a more adult, responsible personality to the fore if appropriate. Treating a "four year old" child alter as though he or she were an adult simply doesn't work, any more than treating an actual four year old in that way would.

*It might be worth mentioning that most multiples become so in childhood, so there are, in most multiple systems, likely to be more children than adults. I'd also request that you get rid of the quotation marks around the phrase 'four year old' in your final sentence. Tthe quotation marks, to me, imply that this is not a 'real' four year old.*

Lesson 3 - Personal Pronouns

If referring to the collective, i.e. all alters, the word "yous" is used. If addressing a specific alter, "you" is appropriate, as it would be with any conversation with an individual. Verbs which go with "yous" take plural forms, as well.

If addressing a multiple person, "yourselves" is appropriate. If addressing a single alter, "yourself" is correct, and addressing a single alter about other alters, "themselves".

Lesson 4 - Names

Remembering and using the correct names is very important. Multiple persons may have several alters with very similar names, so it's important to be very specific about which one you are talking to or about.

It's worth reiterating that gender neutral names (e.g. Lou) are a bit of a minefield. If in doubt, ask. You will be thanked for taking the trouble to be polite.

*It's also worth noting that someone with a gender neutral name might be gender neutral. The word we use when speaking of Pat, for instance, is 'Pat'.*

Lesson 5 - Group Entities

Just to make things even more confusing, it is possible for several alters to be individuals who function exclusively as members of a group. The best advice here is to use whatever collective name they present themselves under and whatever pronouns are appropriate, depending on whether they refer to themselves in the singular or plural.

*In other words, take your lead from the person or people to whom you are speaking. Absolutely.*

Lesson 6 - There is no Lesson 6



Lesson 7 - Why bother?

Why go to all the trouble of finding out all this stuff, and juggling names and concepts in this way? Everyday courtesy is a good start.

*If you have a group of coworkers in your employer's Information Technology department, you refer to them by name, you don't call whichever one you're speaking to 'Information Technology'. Learning the names of alters who interact with you is no more difficult than learning the names of people who don't happen to share one body.*

Added to this, the fact the mps are almost invariably fascinating people with a very different experience of life from the norm should be reason enough to want to talk to them, and to want to do so courteously.

*No comments/changes.*

It is important to stress that people with multiple personalities are not insane. They can and do function in society in the same way that us monos do. There are just more of them in there.

*I think this is an important enough concept to warrant a seperate paragraph. On the other hand, I have to admit that not all multiples can and do function is society, any more than all monos (which you might want to define) do.*

Dr. Dan Streetmentioner would like to point out that the above is all his own work, and any mistakes are his entirely. Input from people who know more about this stuff would be greatly appreciated.

*I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for doing this. It's something of a shame that the basic message needs to be 'treat a multiple person or the alters of a multiple person with the same respect you'd treat anyone else', but that's where it stands. Thanks again.*

This is great. For future reference, be as picky as possible. All feedback is good feedback, even if I ignore it. I'm *not* ignoring any of this, but it's late and I've written rather a lot this evening , so the changes necessary to bring this a bit closer to what I want it to be thanks to your helpful comments will be made tomorrow or later in the week.

Thanks again.

H.

I've not updated Streetmentioner because I'm not in the mood. I haven't forgotten it, and it will be done, next week probably. I'll ping you when I've done it and ask for further comments.

On a different subject, you've said this:
"Historically, I don't know of any instance where those who use terror as a strategy have had any long-term success in meeting any goal other then the creation of an atmosphere of terror."

The Minister for Education in the Northern Ireland assembly is a former active member of the IRA, and the deputy leader of their political wing. Given that Wales and Scotland now have their own devolved assemblies (Scotland's even has tax-raising powers) it is possible (in fact, I think, probable) that had the IRA not been regularly killing civilians for over thirty years there would still have been a Northern Ireland assembly anyway. It is also *possible* that had certain members of the IRA been political activists for the duration of that time, they would now be in the same positions of political power that they now hold anyway. There's obviously no way to know.

But the fact remains, they shot people, they detonated bombs in city centre pubs full of people, they demolished a large section of Manchester city centre, they killed two children shopping for gifts for their mothers the day before Mother's Day with a bomb I must have practically sat on. The result of those efforts is political recognition and power. I can't think of another example, but that's definitely one.

It's worth saying that I'm glad we are where we are with that situation, I'm just hopping mad we had to go through what we went through to get here. I wouldn't chuck those people out of the government - they are elected representatives, and they are literally representative of a view. We still have problems here with Irish terrorists, but those are a distinct bunch who are not trying to establish a political point. I think they're doing it because they enjoy it, and because they can. Just my opinion. But the actual "proper" Provisional IRA have been on cease-fire for a long time now. They don't have what they want, but they're getting there. We don't have what we want (decommissioning of their weapons), and we don't seem to be getting there with that - but then I think whatever progress is made there is kept very quiet until there's something concrete.

Star Trek:The Next Generation did an episode about terrorism called "The High Ground". In it, Data referred to examples of terrorism being a successful tactic, and cited the Irish reunification of 2023. I had to rent that episode, because at the time it was *illegal* for the BBC to show it, as it was judged to constitute pro-IRA propaganda. Star Trek! (I think it has been broadcast since...) This was about the same time that whenever Gerry Adams appeared on the TV he could say what he liked but it was illegal to broadcast his voice. So his exact words were read by an actor, the dubbing had to be deliberately bad so that the public would know it was an actor. Surreal.

I was going to go off on another connecting thing there, but I'll leave it here.

Peace.
H

H,

"Not in the mood" makes sense, given recent and anticipated world events.

I don't know that the political recognition and power of the individuals you mention is a result of the terrorist activity. I also don't know that personal political recognition and power was the goal of those individuals. I'm sure that it wasn't the stated goal, which was much broader and less personal. I'm not saying that, in either case, it wasn't. I'm saying that I don't know.

It's interesting that the "proper" Provisional IRA began making progress after the cease-fire. Seems like they had the sense to realize that terror wasn't working. I'd have to conclude that, in their case, real political change is the goal, rather than simply blowing people up.

On a coldly analytical side note, it also seems that they kept terror at the level of a tactic and did not elevate it to a strategy. As a tactic, it didn't work, so they set it aside as interfering with the strategy and moved on. Let me know if I'm wrong.

I can see where citing Irish reunification as an example of the successful use of terrorism could be taken as pro-IRA propaganda in a country that is regularly victimized by IRA terrorism. I'm actually surprised that the episode was available for rent.

The idea that Gerry Adams' face and words were okay to broadcast, but his voice was not, is surreal... makes no sense at all.

The movie "The Manchurian Candidate" was suppressed in the United States for over 20 years. It was released at about the same time as the John F. Kennedy assassination and the story was held to be too similar to the facts surrounding the real assassination. The supression was at the starring actor's request, according to all available information.

NBY - searching for a way to symbolize shock/horror/outrage at the mass murders and support for the mainstream Islamic community, which was in no way responsible for those actions, at the same time.

David e.a., so far I have referred to you as 'you' and not 'yous', and to LeKZ the same way, because 'you' is used for more than one person, isn't it? I use 'yous' when I very specifically want to emphasise the diversity of persons, though. Should I in fact always use 'yous'?

In general I refer to LeKZ as LeKZ because so far I have not had time to get to know any of their individual people well. I/we have tried hard, and would very much like to talk to some specific people of theirs - for instance Vivienne would like to speak to any of the Gaelic Gals, while I, Willem, wish very much to get to know Elektra better, and also April, and Pat and the other kids.

I also still don't know any of your own people very well, which is why so far I have addressed you as 'David e.a.' in general. Can you perhaps somewhere write something about them - perhaps on Multiple People, or in an email?

Just to note, there is strong prejudice against multiple people. Just today a person (in my real life, to whom I've read some of the things written on LeKZWorld, hoping that they might believe some of it) said the following to me: that LeKZ *is* a psychopath who's made up those horrible stories, and who's pretending to be multiple personality and *is* totally self-centred, wanting to be the centre of attention always, and utterly without a conscience or with any regard for the truth. This person said that those stories are too horrible to be true and the person who made them up must have an incredibly sick mind. This person also said that LeKZ *is* a snake who tries to ensnare naïve people by telling them all these things, which will make *her* seem more interesting and fascinate those naïve people and make them sympathetic towards *her* so that *she* can then control them.

So far I have not seen the slightest sign of LeKZ wanting to control me. In fact, I really wish any of them would email me back a little more, so we can talk about things. If anything, they've been very inactive lately in all of the different places where I know if they so wanted, they would have a golden opportunity for controlling people. Their messages, in those times when they can bring themselves to post anything, also do not seem to be intended towards controlling people. They vary enough in their content and tone that there is no clear apparent 'agenda'. And also, strangely enough if their stories are indeed so fascinating and enthralling, they are not exactly immensely popular.

I know brainwashing. I know people who've been brainwashed beyond belief. Two of them happen to be very, very closely related to the person who's been making these assertions about LeKZ. These two people have been brainwashed, by a religious group, into believing that black people are not human, and that people who *oppose* fundamentalist Christians should be *exterminated* man, woman and child, without any mercy. Homosexuals too, even if they call themselves Christians. This person is rather concerned about these two, but apparently not as concerned as about me being 'influenced' by LeKZ.

The views expressed by this person is strangely similar to what some others have said - but this person was quite unaware of what has been happening here on h2g2.

I'm sorry for not emailing more. You know how things are. I'd still like to hear what yous have to say about my latest.

I think you're right about the tactic/strategy thing. I doubt, however, that the people involved would be in the positions they're in if their cronies hadn't placed bombs. Just an opinion.

I had heard that the Manchurian Candidate was banned, but I didn't quite believe it. Then again, things I can't quite believe seem to be happening with depressing regularity lately. I should set my credulity filters to "bloody stupid" and just have done.

A satirical TV show, "The Day Today", posed as a serious news broadcast and took the p**s so effectively that today, five years later it's still difficult to take some of our news anchors and reporters seriously. One item they had was an interview with a representative of the IRA, who "under reporting restrictions" had to inhale helium to remove credibility from his expressed opinions. Hilarious, and just in time, too - the restrictions were lifted shortly after. No connection, I'm sure, but it did do and excellent job of pointing out just how pointless the restrictions were.

I'm off now. More at a later date...

H.

Sorry, I hope you are not upset about me having intruded into your conversation here, but I had something to say and ask about multiplicity that I thought was relevant.

No apology necessary, W, in fact I'll be over to bother you for input on Streetmentioner's guide entry as soon as I've finished incorporating NBY's comments. I thought it would be best to get the views of one system at a time! Have a think, in the meantime. More when I can think straight...

H.

Hi Willem,

In response to your first question, I'm very comfortable with 'you'. The word is both singular and plural. In my case, I'd prefer that you use 'yous' only when you are specifically and intentionally speaking to everybody. After all, I refer to myself in the singular. Because the D-sys does have a host person, whose name is David, that works for me/us. Additionally, being a multiple person is not something we normally advertise, because it can be a distraction when we're trying to make a point where it isn't relevent. Usually, it is, in fact, David doing the writing here. When it's not and we're writing to a known and trusted friend, such as yourself, we'll let you know who's doing the talking. This is David, and I refered to myself in third person because 'I' isn't too helpful withing this context. "Usually it's me doing the writing" doesn't tell you who "me" is.

There is no person named "LeKZ." That is the name for the system as a whole and appropriate for you to use when speaking to the system as a whole.

Jeremiah and John have spoken to you briefly. They, and some others, will gladly speak to you more via email or at Multiple People. I (David) am the main "public contact" person, more for the sake of consistency than for any other reason.

There certainly is a strong prejudice against multiple people, as has been seen at other threads here at h2g2. People simply don't want to believe that real evil exists in the world, and don't want to acknowledge that it has an impact on individuals. This is in spite of the evidence of last Tuesday. Had anyone said that there was anyone capable of masterminding such an event, and others willing to follw through and do it, that person would have met the same level of rejection.

Too horrible to the true? That disbelief is what evil counts on. That disbelief will continue, despite the rubble in New York City.

I don't presume to speak for LeKZ, who can and do speak for themselves. I don't think that any of the FoLKZ at Topica are being controlled. LeKZ are intense, emotional, and sometimes have a wild temper. None of those traits make them popular. They are not a politician. My experience is that people who want to control others tend to be smooth and manipulative. My experience is that peole who want to control others do NOT 'go off' at their friends when they feel let down by those friends. Alienating people has never been an effective way of controlling them.

I won't go further than that here, or get specific. I wouldn't want to be accused of posting on behalf of a banned researcher or anything of the sort.

Finally, anyone who believes that brainwashing can be done over the internet, in a relatively short period of time, just DOES NOT UNDERSTAND. Any brain that could be washed that easily isn't capable of reading and understanding.

More via email and possibly at Multiple People later this weekend.

David et al

This reply is WAAAY late, I found it by chance on a search for Multiplicity-related stuff and I was surprised to find my name, Arhuaine, mentioned in relation to all the controversy. Anyway... um... yes we have been AWOL for some time, but we're back, and now I'm trying to wade through all the mire to find out just what all the controversy was all about, and whether being "out" as Multiple on H2G2 is such a good idea after all. Oh, and Arhuaine is female, btw.

==Arhuaine of Doltaghey House

Well, as a 'mono' I would say that being 'out' as a multiple on h2g2 is fine. But I would say that wouldn't I?

I know of more than one person here who is openly but not evangelically multiple.

All of the bans that I am aware of came about not from multiplicity, but from repeated breaking of the rules. And if you don't do that, you should be fine.

Welcome, or welcome back.

Ben

Thanks Ben.