Nope.
Not as I understand the term. Like, if they currently spend their weekends acting in community theater — or if they someday audition for a part in anything from a Broadway musical to the latest Fast and the Furious sequel — I’d expect them to use something else as their stage name, or to seek to get billed under their real name.
And, to clarify one or two things I’d said before:
I’d said ‘no,’ but — to choose a fairly common example — “James” is of course the name of every big-screen hero from “Bond” to “T. Kirk,” as well as every movie star from “Dean” to “Earl Jones.” But I don’t think they intended for anyone to think of anything like that upon hearing it.
Likewise,
I honestly don’t recall seeing or hearing any other employees there using the same name, but I’d bet that some do.
Did you have some previous interaction or see them previously
like (but not limited to) did you talk to someone before this incident (perhaps on the phone) where they used a different name and sounded an awful lot like the person you were talking to in person?
or perhaps see someone who looked very similar previously
No, nothing like that — and no one who looked and/or sounded a heck of a lot like them, either.
Is
and I was given some information by one of the employees there,
important to the riddle? If so we can explore this a bit.
If its important information, was that information they gave you about themselves?
It was pretty generic. You know, like a movie usher telling people they’re required to turn off their cellphones, or an amusement-park ride attendant letting you know you can’t go down the waterslide yet, but, hang on, uh-huh, okay, you can go now.
So … this is not a job where it is routine for people to use something other than their real name, but…
Hmm. Was there something about this particular workplace, if not the job itself, that makes it more likely that someone would go by something other than their given name? By this name in particular? Or is it just, say, that hundreds of people work there and the name is a common one, so it’s a good bet that somebody else uses it?
If you had to guess, would you say that this person’s motive for not going by their real name was:
- Safety
- Privacy
- Convenience for themselves / fellow employees
- Convenience for customers
- Self-expression
- Deception
- Honoring or paying tribute to someone / something?
Going off what I’d just said in the last post: I always figured that movie ushers and ride attendants — and the tour guides at a winery or a museum, or whatever — simply use their own names, whenever they introduce themselves “Tom” or “Amy” or whatever. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize; but I think I’m right.
Yes to the first, but I can think of other names that would’ve worked just as well.
Convenience for — let’s say fellow employees.
Is transgenderism involved somehow?
Is the employee’s gender male, female or irrelevant?
Do you suspect other employees at this establishment are also using pseudonyms?
Do you have a suspicion of what the employee’s actual name is, or just that its different from what they said?
Did they have to think before giving their name or did they say it easily?
No.
Irrelevant.
Yes.
The latter.
Easily.
Did all of the names given by the employees have something similar in common, like were they all names of flowers, or all begin with the letter B, or were John, Paul and George and Ringo?
I may have missed something; did I indicate that I was given the names of multiple employees?
Was the commonality between their names what led you to believe that they were probably pseudonyms?
Does it involve Americanizing a foreign name?
Nope.
You indicated that you suspected that other employees also had pseudonyms. So I was exploring the possibility that you had and that the fact that everyone’s name had a commonality meant that they were all probably fake. Apparently I’m on the wrong track.
Asside: did this post I’m quoting previously say that you suspected they did have a commonality (but not like the examples I gave) or was I hallucinating?
In a sense, I’d say you’re on the right track — in that there was a commonality in the names given by two of the employees, though not along the lines you’re thinking. But the problem is: while that commonality strengthened my conclusion, I got there without it.
(And, no: you’re not hallucinating.)
Thinking out loud here, the key to me seems to be figuring out how having an employee use a pseudonym could make things more convenient. And how a relatively common name can be seen to be surprising enough to be thought to be a pseduonym.
Did the employee’s name have something to do with their function. For example say the person handing out popcorn being called Orville, or the person handing out candy being called Reese?
No, nothing like that.