What, only now, after five years? There’s always been various kinds of hysterical bullshit going on around here. Although I grant you this particular one is rather pernicious.
I think this particular fad will be temporary, although highly annoying until it blows over.
WHAT! Sounds to me that you are advocating ANIMAL SLAVERY there!
The hysterical bullshit will only last as long as people let it. Letting people push their buttons (which yeah, I do too), playing along with them when they try to stir up shit, and completely failing to have any real sense of perspective. Hell, I’m as big a drama queen as anybody, and this board is, for better or worse, one of my primary social outlets, but it’s still hard to take it all that seriously. I mean come on, people – it’s a message board. On the internet.
Wow, Giraffe. That’s even more of an image than I got when I wrote that.
But since you asked: I can state authoritatively that yes, yes it is.
I just need to point out that **jayjay’s ** got this absolutely backwards, at least in regard to renfaire “employees”. At least the renfaires I’ve been exposed to have rules akin to the sumptuary laws of Merrie Olde Englande for the persona of each employee, in addition to rules about fabric types and use of modern materials in costumes. Renfaire “employees” are required to dress within a decade (usually about 1580 CE) and a specific geographic location (usually southern England). In contrast, the SCA has a suggestion that you make an attempt at pre-1600 CE garb, without any requirements on the use of modern materials or limits on geographic fashions.
As I understand it, people who just wander into renfaire or the SCA are welcome to wear whatever’s within the limits of the local state law.
Ooo, Sorry Jayjay. I should have previewed. As a group the historical standards of the SCA are quite low. But as nutcake individuals (yes, I’m one of them) we can be quite insane.
Somebody upthread implied to could get mead at any SCA event, just like renfaire. That’s not quite true, you have to know an SCA meadmaker who’s willing to give you a glass. Being cute really helps. Renfaire sells mead, or at least gives tentspace to somebody who does. The SCA does not (and, IIRC, by the rules to maintain it’s insurance and non-profit status, may not)
I think what worries me the most is if some self-appointed Woodward-and-Bernstein type decides to research my (or someone else’s) posts and contact that person’s boss or school or parents with their version of “the truth”. I know that’s one of the risks of posting to a message board, but we’ve always operated under the “what happens here, stays here” principle.
And, for some reason, I’ve just had an image of Gladys Kravitz peeking at my house from her front door. I’d hate to be on a message board full of people like that.
Robin
You still have it!? :eek:
This isn’t much of a substantive comment, but this has to be the most chicken-shit OP I’ve seen here yet.
<To the tune of “Eleanor Rigby”>
o/Solomon Grundy, wearing a schlong that he keeps in a jar by the door... what is it for? o/
Guin,
I hardly think we’re going into “one big simultaneous orgasm” over this bullshit. Some of us are concerned that the SDMB is turning into a fucking joke. THis kind of crap would be the big joke. Maybe the SDMB admins can interview every new and existing member and keep it all on file so we can be banned whenever it seems someone has said something different than they did in a previous thread.
I don’t care if it turns into a fact-finding mission on some posters’ parts to try and out people, but I sure as hell ain’t gonna pay for it. That and I’ve nothing to fear, and while I’m sure a goodly amount of our members do, I don’t care that they lie or embellish and I find it a colossal waste of fucking time.
No orgasm, no fear, just a lot of head-scratching and yes, marvelling at the time some people have on their hands. I’m personally doing a bit of both of the eye rolling and laughing, myself.
Sam
Depends on the Faire and the SCA Kingdom. Also do note- after the gates close, there is exactly 0 authenticity at Faire, while SCA events keep “in personae” all event long. And, the food at Faire tends hardly to be “period” at all. An SCA “feast”* could* well be very authentic.
However, I have seen outfits at both that might not fit within “the limits of the local state law” 
**The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own - for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the ** Straight Dope Message Board.
-with apologies to Rod Serling
I wasn’t actually talking so much about the people who’d actually work a Faire as I was about the nutters (spoken with much affection) who attend as guests in garb. I’m really quite sure they didn’t wear rayon velvet or pleather in the 16th Century… 
I think in the future, if Dopers suspect other Dopers of being inconsistent or lying, they should do one of two things before posting a pit thread: 1) email that Doper directly and ask them for clarification or 2)ask for clarification in the eyebrow-raising thread.
I understand how it might be fun to find a discrepancy in someone’s story or identity (I used to daydream about how I was going to find out that december was really a gay black woman living on foodstamps) but I think it’s only fair to go first to the source. Maybe Phlosphr has a good explanation. By starting a thread like this, you’ve already branded him a liar without getting all the facts first.
And even if he is lying, so what? It would be kind of pathetic, I guess, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
I don’t think you’re really hunting witches, Zoe. But I think you may be opening a can of worms.
I’ve posted stuff about me, but I have never misrepresented the truth to such a degree as certain people have. (no, I’m not naming names, haha)
Just saying.
I wonder if the OP will return to answer the points raised in rebuttal to her accusation?
Specifically, the fact that the two threads cited in the OP are not obviously in such tension with each other as the OP suggested… Zoe, what about it?
This is just to let you know that I showed up for the flogging.
You seem to be of divided opinions.
Those who think I shouldn’t post anything about Phlosphr’s contradictory statements.
Those who want me to post more because the first one is so trivial or can be explained away (if one doesn’t look closely at the context of the older statement).
Those who are ready to resign from Straight Dope because someone has been pitted for lying. :rolleyes:
Those who think this is related to the K6 banning.
Those who remember that I have brought the subject up with Phlosphr previously.
Those who assert that it is necessary to lie to protect one’s identity.
Those who assume that Philosphr’s fabrications were about protecting his identity.
Those who assume that Philosphr’s pretenses could never hurt anyone.
One or two who haven’t formed an opinion yet.
Those who see no problem with lying.
Assorted other opinions.
I’m curious about something. Since tolerance levels for dishonesty seem to differ, what levels of lies are you willing to tolerate from other Dopers?
Lies told to protect your identity?
Lies told to entertain?
Lies told for the heck of it?
Lies told to get attention?
Lies told to gain admiration and respect?
Lies to create a false identity at SDMB?
Lies to gain sympathy?
Lies that lead to claiming medical expertise and offering medical advice?
There are people that I respect here who disapprove of this pitting, so I am weighing my actions against their assumptions and what they may not be aware of.
In the meantime:
“Livejournal” is also a site that I have never read or participated in as far as I know. So I’m not one of those particular “losers” – as you designate them. I don’t plot with anyone and although I have been relieved to see one or two people banned, I don’t advocate exclusion.
I am not an Indian who turns into a wolf.
Nor is my god.
Mea culpa.
“Assorted other opinions”?
Like the one where Phlosphr did NOT lie, but rather you misread his meaning? The one where a very real distinction between owning and wearing RenFaire garb to RenFaires is an entirely different thing than owning and wearing SCA garb to SCA functions? The one where both of the threads that you reference
in your OP are deconstructed to show that they are NOT necessarily contradictory?
Wow…that’s a lot of options hidden under your #11. And funny how they’re all the options that would prove you wrong about this.
Trying to characterize the people who would prefer that this type of OP not become a trend as all justifying lying is disingenuous and, frankly, beneath the dignity and intelligence of the poster I used to think was Zoe.
What do you mean by tolerate? I’m going to assume that means I don’t feel a person should be banned. I certainly would lose respect for a poster that lied in certain circumstances.
No problem.
No problem, but the entertainment value lessens if you discover the lie.
Sure, as long as you’re not being a jerk.
Tolerate, but irritating.
Tolerate, but think the poster was pathetic.
See above.
See above.
Possible banning depending on how often it happened and the nature of the advice.
Zoe:
On the off chance I’m one of the “posters you respect,” I’ll tell you where I stand on your list - I’m halfway into #2. I don’t “want you to post more” - but I do feel that this instance is not as damning as you feel it is.
I have made my feelings about phony claims to legal expertise pretty clear before (see “Mooncalf, Beryl”) and I’m opposed to deception on that level. I’m also opposed to what Number 6 seems to have done. But I don’t think that every inconsistency rises to that level.
Specifically, I can well imagine someone seeking to keep their posts anonymous, and changing irrelevant ancillary details in an attempt to do so. Some of these are obvious - my son is not actually named “Bricker Jr,” for instance - and some may not be so obvious.
Based on what you’ve shown so far with regard to Phlosophr, I’m not persuaded you’ve made a case, and I’m not pursuaded there’s a case to be made. That’s not an invitation to post more - it’s a commentary.