| re: If Wagner was a fake | |
|
Posted by: |
Leesa (gallytrotter@mchsi.com) 01:52 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| In reply to: | re: If Wagner was a fake - Pudding 11:26 am UTC 09/21/08 |
| It doesn't seem particularly weird to me that Wagner could well be Jim--it seems consistent with the latest blog post language and maybe he was just so moved to contribute. Wagner's posts definately imply that the poster IS Jim, though--which of course makes us all wonder if that's true. I have this problem with people impersonating others on forums like this (not meaning the Ryan/Desmond debacle; that was so obviously a joke that was misunderstood), saying crap that is blatently not true (which was why the Susan thing needed to be shut down--and why she still has photos up on her blog site of Steinman being identified 'rightly' as Cypherd and isn't being sued for infringement or anything else, is beyond me), and generally confusing and misleading longtime and new fans alike. No other artists would tolerate that crap on their fansites. Many fansites are set up to give people the straight story, as the artist wants it, as a reaction to so much media bullshit. But this forum seems to prefer this cloak and dagger stuff. I guess if the media were out there presently stating publically false info about Jim he'd be more inclined to use this format to clarify. What's the big yank for Jim to tell JD yea or nay that the Wagner posts are/aren't him? Apparently it just makes the board that much more 'interesting'. I don't get it frankly, all the aliases we need for posting...Jim must express some desire to keep it that way but then again voting for Bob Barr makes sense to him--go figure. Leesa J > Dave never said she posted, but apparently she has > confirmed that it is him by other means. > > Why do I doubt Wagner is Jim? > > Well...Jim has had a decade to post on Rockman before now > and he hasn't. His first post on his blog was some random > thoughts about Sarah Palin amongst other random thoughts. > The way Jim writes ISN'T that difficult to immitate at > all. > > There's a 'Barnum Effect' with some fans who want so much > for it to be Jim, that they'd relinquish any possibility > of it not actually being him by throwing logic out of the > window, for that moment of talking with their hero. > > Obviously I have no evidence that it isn't Jim, but > equally I have no evidence or clarification that it is. > All it would take for me to be convinced that it is Jim is > for JD to say so on the board. She's obviously mentioned > it to some people, but not on the board, why the big > secret? > > > I didn't see the post by JD either but Dave said that it > > was posted. So I don't know why someone thought that > > Wagner was/is Jim Cypherd. Pudding, what made you doubt > > that Wagner was actually Jim? > > > > > I know you re-appeared when this Wagner person appeared > > > and I never saw any post by JD. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: If Wagner was a fake - Pudding 11:26 am UTC 09/21/08 |
| Next: | re: If Wagner was a fake - vulnavia9 01:35 pm UTC 09/21/08 |
| Thread: | |