|
|
|
|
|
by solarkraft
1114 days ago
|
|
Someone sensitive to this kind of thing may already perceive this comment as offensive (because it contains an arguably overreaching suggestion and a hint of disgust), which seems like a good explanation for the strong response. Because I'm not directly emotionally involved I can make the following response: > he should probably just own it if it is indeed him Well, maybe, but consider that he may just not want to. That should be respected. > listing virtual avatars as members is strange Not at all, really. Publishing under a pseudonym is the norm rather than the exception online, so is having multiple of them. Multiple on the same project may be unusual, but so what. They can do whatever the hell they want. I agree on your other points and believe that a clear "we will leave this question open and would like you to stop wondering about it" would go further towards the goal than what's currently happening. |
|