Accidental hair cut

No matter where you go, there are always going to be people who make up stories and such. I don`t normally come to the bloopers side, I try to stick to the long hair support part.
I found the original story quite amusing, whether it be fake or not. I always seem to have bad luck with things, and I was thinking, wow someone else does too!

> Before you read my response, please know that I was> not responding to "stirr things up". I am a> decent guy and I respect the policies of any> board/board owner.Frank,It was Tom, under the additional aliases of Natty and Vera, who seemed to me to be the one trying to "stir things up."> I did react because I am sensitive to people telling> others how to behave, to net.police.And I am sensitive to people being dishonest and deceitful.> First of all, you will have to follow the `Hair Talk`> link before you get to the `Hair Bloopers` to find> this message. It is very easy to miss this statement.While it appears to be possible to enter the HB`s discussion boards without seeing the page which states each board`s intended purpose, that doesn`t absolve posters of their responsibility to adhere to the board`s guidelines.> But even then, it is not a unambigious statement, is> it? It refers to `funny hair stories` and also to> `related topics`. For me, fictional stories count as> related topics, even if they`re not labeled such.Maybe, maybe not. The last part of the last sentence is somewhat ambiguous, so fictional stories might be permitted under the guidelines.That said, I can conceive of only two reasons why Tom might have posted his stories on this board. Either (1) he wanted to share his thoughts with like-minded individuals who would similarly "enjoy" them, or (2) he wanted to mislead and disturb others by presenting his lurid stories as being factual. Had he at least labelled his stories as beingfiction, I doubt that that would have prevented those in group (1) from "enjoying" his stories any less, and it would help alleviated any potential angst among those in group (2) since they would have known that the story was just fiction. The fact that Tom has posted under multiple pseudonyms lends credence to the likelihood that his motive was to shock and deceive. And since he has never stated that his lurid stories are fictitious, it seems clear that he intends to deceive as well.> I understand your position, but yelling "Troll> Alert" is usually not interpreted as a suggestion> for courtesy.That was not the purpose for my having declared a "troll alert." I`ve previously explained why I raised the troll alert, so I won`t repeat it again here.> It is not a hoax if you think fictional stories are> allowed.But it is a hoax if the fiction is presented with the intent to trick others into its believability. Note that Tom never isssued a disclaimer that his stories were fiction, nor did he ever inform those, who posted with earnest responses, that his stories were false. When people wrote in sympathy to Vera and Natty, whose identities and experiences were purely a fiction in Tom`s mind, and Tom failed to ever disclaim their fictional nature, Tom manipulated those very people who responded in sympathy.> They do not cheapen the spirit of this board, if> you`re convinced fictional stories are allowed.But I`m not convinced that fictional stories are allowed. The board was conceived as a place to share truthful stories about "what happened to your hair to how you dealth [sic] with it..." From its inception until fairly recently, the stories posted were sincere.> Because I am sensitive to privacy matters. I use a> handle:> "sanders" is not my real name (Frank is,> btw). It is a way for me to escape the restrictions of> my social environment.> I might get into trouble if the wrong people connect> sanders to my person. (Even if I have not done> anything unlawful).While you needn`t have shared all of this, I wonder then why you have given your name previously as "sanders" when that name could possibly contribute to your getting "in trouble?" (No response requested.)The issue here isn`t privacy. I don`t care to know Tom`s real first name, or his last name, or his e-mail address, or his place of residence, etc. I think Tom is abusing the ability to post under multiple names as part of his plan of deception.> Others might have other reasons. Who are you to> disclose them?Because as I stated earlier, I am sensitive to dishonesty, and so it is a privilege to be an advocate for those who post here in a sincere manner, so that they can be assured (in this instance, at least) that what they read as coming from multiple pseudonyms are in fact coming from one person, and I feel that this is especially important given the fictional and lurid nature of Tom`s posts.> Your debating techniques are good. Are you a> politician or a laywer?I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. But if I were truly good at debating, I would have satisfactorily answered your concerns before now. Right?> What I professed, i.e. that I know of well-known> authors who use multiple pseudonyms, does not imply I> approve outing of authors who use pseudonyms. For me,> that privilege is with the user of the pseudonym.That`s fine for you, and in other circumstances I might agree, but the overriding factor here is the circumstances surrounding Tom`s posting. Had Tom posted his stories in a forum which very clearly invited such stories, it would then clearly be within the bounds of such forum. But the only clearly-defined purpose of Hair Boutique`s Hair Bloopers board is as a place to discuss factual stories.Had Tom posted a series of factual stories under multiple handles, then I would have had no interest in "outing" his singular identity. Had Tom posted his fictional stories under a singular handle, then "outing" him would probably not have been an issue. But given the multitude of hoaxes under different pseudonyms, it reeks of a conscious agenda on Tom`s part to deceive.> Furthermore, with the use of the double quotes around> the word `well-known`, you seem to want to suggest> that my sources are doubtful. I am quite happy to name> a few respected authors. But I wonder whether those> Dutch writers would ring a bell. Besides, it would> distract the discussion from the issue at hand> (perhaps that is what you`re after?).No, that was not my intent. I had quoted "well-known" because it was your allegation, the truth of which cannot be known to me as I don`t know about whom you speak. I`m acknowledging your claim as being truthful without my knowledge that it is. My Dutch colleague, Johannes, might know of those authors, but now I`m straying from the issue. :-)> You turn the argument around. I don`t regard Natty as> deceitful (remember: multiple handles are not> disallowed).But Natty was deceitful because (1) Natty isn`t Natty. Natty is Tom. Unless, of course, the name "Tom" is yet another pseudonym for "the one who posted multiple fictitious and lurid stories," and (2) because he wanted others to believe his stories.> So: yes you should accept, regardless whether you> think Natty is a coward or not.Interesting, given that you earlier said, "I did react because I am sensitive to people telling others how to behave." Likewise, I have difficulty with your suggestion that I silently accept Tom`s actions here.> Two??> You and two other people makes three. Me, plus Natty> and JT also make three. That is far from a> statistically significant sample. It is discussion> trickery.> I don`t wish to conduct a poll, I wish you to use> arguments that stand up.As I said, I am well aware that three does not a significant sample make. I didn`t expect you to accept those 3 voices as conclusive proof. That`s why I suggested a poll, and what I was thinking of at the time I made that suggestion was an on-line poll within this discussion forum.> I agree and if the owner of the board wants this, I> think he/she should make this clear. It was not, and> therefor I think you`re stepping the line with> imposing your views onto others.The stated purpose of this board leaves open (what seems to be) a very small window for that which is not a factual hair accident. Is it a place for people to post fictional stories -- under one handle? Maybe. Is it a place for a person to post fictional -- and lurid -- stories, under multiple handles, and never admit to the fictional nature of their stories (or their identity) even after others have posted in earnest with the belief that the stories were true? No Frank, I don`t believe so. This is a Hair Bloopers board, not a Haircut Fetish Story board.> Again, which concept?The concept of honesty. Tom/Vera/Natty has been persistently dishonest.> Your concerns are not backed up by the policy as> expressed by the board owner; nor for the aspect of> the multiple pseudonyms nor for the aspect of the> fictional nature of the story.I`m concerned about his lack of honesty, integrity, and forthrightness. Dishonesty may be not be specifically prohibited here, but who wants to frequent a board where dishonesty abounds, where people are left to wonder what they read is real or fake, and end up questioning and possibly even doubting the honest recountings of actual hair accidents?Dave

> Please, could everyone interested in continuing the> debate exchange email addresses and do so in private> before this board is shut down by continuing assaults> and bickering as has apparantly happened with Hair> Politics?> There are so few quality boards online that the loss> of any of them is a loss to all of us.> No flames please, I would just like to see this board> get back to a fun and friendly place to visit.> Just my two cents worth,> Bonniei agree Bonnie

Hello everyone,Wow.....about the Troll Alert Message.......But I am continuing one with a NEw Thread..ITS Time.lolWell I noticed a month or so ago ....How Long my hair was getting when............my daughter was not around to help me braid my hair....lolI could not get to the end of my hair without any help and my daughter was at school.....so as I was braiding my hair....I need help to get to the end and I laughed when I figured out how to do it on my own.......LOLI had to wrap my braid on a door knob....so I could Braid the last half that was left.LoLI laughed on that one.......heheITS Getting Long!lolWell thats just a new thread I wanted to start.Anyone else had to do this...>>?lolKricket Crowehttp://mypage.goplay.com/KricketCrowe/Different link then the one below......the one below is the new site that I built for just my hair and the hair lovers that have emailed me for more.SmileHope all had a great Halloween!KCRelated Link:My New Hair Site.....

> Before you read my response, please know that I was> not responding to "stirr things up". I am a> decent guy and I respect the policies of any> board/board owner.Frank,It was Tom, under the additional aliases of Natty and Vera, who seemed to me to be the one trying to "stir things up."> I did react because I am sensitive to people telling> others how to behave, to net.police.And I am sensitive to people being dishonest and deceitful.> First of all, you will have to follow the 'Hair Talk'> link before you get to the 'Hair Bloopers' to find> this message. It is very easy to miss this statement.While it appears to be possible to enter the HB's discussion boards without seeing the page which states each board's intended purpose, that doesn't absolve posters of their responsibility to adhere to the board's guidelines.> But even then, it is not a unambigious statement, is> it? It refers to 'funny hair stories' and also to> 'related topics'. For me, fictional stories count as> related topics, even if they're not labeled such.Maybe, maybe not. The last part of the last sentence is somewhat ambiguous, so fictional stories might be permitted under the guidelines.That said, I can conceive of only two reasons why Tom might have posted his stories on this board. Either (1) he wanted to share his thoughts with like-minded individuals who would similarly "enjoy" them, or (2) he wanted to mislead and disturb others by presenting his lurid stories as being factual. Had he at least labelled his stories as beingfiction, I doubt that that would have prevented those in group (1) from "enjoying" his stories any less, and it would help alleviated any potential angst among those in group (2) since they would have known that the story was just fiction. The fact that Tom has posted under multiple pseudonyms lends credence to the likelihood that his motive was to shock and deceive. And since he has never stated that his lurid stories are fictitious, it seems clear that he intends to deceive as well.> I understand your position, but yelling "Troll> Alert" is usually not interpreted as a suggestion> for courtesy.That was not the purpose for my having declared a "troll alert." I've previously explained why I raised the troll alert, so I won't repeat it again here.> It is not a hoax if you think fictional stories are> allowed.But it is a hoax if the fiction is presented with the intent to trick others into its believability. Note that Tom never isssued a disclaimer that his stories were fiction, nor did he ever inform those, who posted with earnest responses, that his stories were false. When people wrote in sympathy to Vera and Natty, whose identities and experiences were purely a fiction in Tom's mind, and Tom failed to ever disclaim their fictional nature, Tom manipulated those very people who responded in sympathy.> They do not cheapen the spirit of this board, if> you're convinced fictional stories are allowed.But I'm not convinced that fictional stories are allowed. The board was conceived as a place to share truthful stories about "what happened to your hair to how you dealth [sic] with it..." From its inception until fairly recently, the stories posted were sincere.> Because I am sensitive to privacy matters. I use a> handle:> "sanders" is not my real name (Frank is,> btw). It is a way for me to escape the restrictions of> my social environment.> I might get into trouble if the wrong people connect> sanders to my person. (Even if I have not done> anything unlawful).While you needn't have shared all of this, I wonder then why you have given your name previously as "sanders" when that name could possibly contribute to your getting "in trouble?" (No response requested.)The issue here isn't privacy. I don't care to know Tom's real first name, or his last name, or his e-mail address, or his place of residence, etc. I think Tom is abusing the ability to post under multiple names as part of his plan of deception.> Others might have other reasons. Who are you to> disclose them?Because as I stated earlier, I am sensitive to dishonesty, and so it is a privilege to be an advocate for those who post here in a sincere manner, so that they can be assured (in this instance, at least) that what they read as coming from multiple pseudonyms are in fact coming from one person, and I feel that this is especially important given the fictional and lurid nature of Tom's posts.> Your debating techniques are good. Are you a> politician or a laywer?I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. But if I were truly good at debating, I would have satisfactorily answered your concerns before now. Right?> What I professed, i.e. that I know of well-known> authors who use multiple pseudonyms, does not imply I> approve outing of authors who use pseudonyms. For me,> that privilege is with the user of the pseudonym.That's fine for you, and in other circumstances I might agree, but the overriding factor here is the circumstances surrounding Tom's posting. Had Tom posted his stories in a forum which very clearly invited such stories, it would then clearly be within the bounds of such forum. But the only clearly-defined purpose of Hair Boutique's Hair Bloopers board is as a place to discuss factual stories.Had Tom posted a series of factual stories under multiple handles, then I would have had no interest in "outing" his singular identity. Had Tom posted his fictional stories under a singular handle, then "outing" him would probably not have been an issue. But given the multitude of hoaxes under different pseudonyms, it reeks of a conscious agenda on Tom's part to deceive.> Furthermore, with the use of the double quotes around> the word 'well-known', you seem to want to suggest> that my sources are doubtful. I am quite happy to name> a few respected authors. But I wonder whether those> Dutch writers would ring a bell. Besides, it would> distract the discussion from the issue at hand> (perhaps that is what you're after?).No, that was not my intent. I had quoted "well-known" because it was your allegation, the truth of which cannot be known to me as I don't know about whom you speak. I'm acknowledging your claim as being truthful without my knowledge that it is. My Dutch colleague, Johannes, might know of those authors, but now I'm straying from the issue. :-)> You turn the argument around. I don't regard Natty as> deceitful (remember: multiple handles are not> disallowed).But Natty was deceitful because (1) Natty isn't Natty. Natty is Tom. Unless, of course, the name "Tom" is yet another pseudonym for "the one who posted multiple fictitious and lurid stories," and (2) because he wanted others to believe his stories.> So: yes you should accept, regardless whether you> think Natty is a coward or not.Interesting, given that you earlier said, "I did react because I am sensitive to people telling others how to behave." Likewise, I have difficulty with your suggestion that I silently accept Tom's actions here.> Two??> You and two other people makes three. Me, plus Natty> and JT also make three. That is far from a> statistically significant sample. It is discussion> trickery.> I don't wish to conduct a poll, I wish you to use> arguments that stand up.As I said, I am well aware that three does not a significant sample make. I didn't expect you to accept those 3 voices as conclusive proof. That's why I suggested a poll, and what I was thinking of at the time I made that suggestion was an on-line poll within this discussion forum.> I agree and if the owner of the board wants this, I> think he/she should make this clear. It was not, and> therefor I think you're stepping the line with> imposing your views onto others.The stated purpose of this board leaves open (what seems to be) a very small window for that which is not a factual hair accident. Is it a place for people to post fictional stories -- under one handle? Maybe. Is it a place for a person to post fictional -- and lurid -- stories, under multiple handles, and never admit to the fictional nature of their stories (or their identity) even after others have posted in earnest with the belief that the stories were true? No Frank, I don't believe so. This is a Hair Bloopers board, not a Haircut Fetish Story board.> Again, which concept?The concept of honesty. Tom/Vera/Natty has been persistently dishonest.> Your concerns are not backed up by the policy as> expressed by the board owner; nor for the aspect of> the multiple pseudonyms nor for the aspect of the> fictional nature of the story.I'm concerned about his lack of honesty, integrity, and forthrightness. Dishonesty may be not be specifically prohibited here, but who wants to frequent a board where dishonesty abounds, where people are left to wonder what they read is real or fake, and end up questioning and possibly even doubting the honest recountings of actual hair accidents?Dave

> I always cut my daughters hair and never cut or even> trimmed mine until about two years ago. We both had> very long hair that is exactly the same color, mine> well past my waist and hers nearly so and were happy> with the status quo. I'd give her a trim about 4 or 5> times a year. she is quite a 'tom boy' and used to bug> me about having it shorter.> Two years ago, she had come in from riding her bicycle> and her hair was a real mess. It was particularly> snarly. After brushing and combing for nearly half an> hour I said "Let's just trim these ends and get> rid of the snarls, It's a bit early for a trim but> your hair is a real mess". "Aw mom let's> just chop it all off and be done with it!" she> replied. "Now you know you promised your me that> you would keep your hair long as long as I do" I> said and I really didn't think that she mean it and> proceeded to prep for a trim.> "Remember mom I'm going to Annie's tonight for> supper. Do we have anough time?" "Oh dear -> nearly forgot" I replied. "We'll have to> make it quick". Here is where the first real> mistake came in. I usually tie back my hair so it> doesn't get in the way, but we were in such a rush> that I neglected this detail - BIG mistake!!> The first couple cuts were fine. "Looks like I'll> need to trim 4 or 5 inches" I said. Then the> phone rang. It was my sister - she was in a real stew> with the bank and began to tell me all about it. I> cradled the phone on my shoulder and continued to cut> Sue's hair - Mistake #2. The kettle on the stove> started to whistle so I turned to look just as I> started to cut. Final Fatal Mistake!!> Sure enough a lock of my hair slid unnoticed right> into the jaws of the cutting machine. I didn't see the> 22" piece of hair hit the floor. "Come on> mom! Lets wrap it up" Sue exclaimed. More> comotion - the dog ran thru the kitchen with my> youngest in tow. I bent to watch them run on by and> shouted to slow down. Another 20+ chunk hit the floor.> As I began cutting again, it struck me that it seemed> I had an awful lot of ahir left to cut. That the pile> on the floor seemed awful thick. It was almost like> slow motion - I watched the scissors cut and now> realized that it was my hair that I was cutting.> "Oh my gosh! Damn - Damn - Damn" I> exclaimed. "What's up mom - are you burnt?> cut?" Sue said as she turned around to look.> I'm sure my face was white as a sheet. "Why it's> you hair mom. You have cut off several huge chunks> mom! Wo is that cool!" I ran to the mirror. Three> large chunks were taken out of my left side. It was> somewhat graduated - my hair was still quit long, but> looked very silly - boy did I feel stupid. I looked at> it long time hoping it would somehow immediately grow> back. The whole family had gathered and was waiting to> see what I'd do next.> I lifted up the scissors - "well lets just> straighten this out a bit - right" I said. Sue> responded quickly "I think this was a kind of> sign - I think you should go shorter - how about chin> length. Here I'll do it" I was pretty numb at> that moment and just handed her the scissors. She lit> right into it - The scrunches and crunches of the> scissors cutting through my lovely hair still ring in> my ears.> Looking in the mirror emerged a new person. When the> length fell away so did years off my age. I could not> believe what a new look could do for me. I literally> looked years younger! Why didn't I do this years ago?> "Now me, now me" susie said excitedly.> "Ok I guess the deal was always you wouldn't cut> your hair as long as I didn't cut mine" I> replied. "Alright!! Go for it!!" and so I> did. I cut it right down to a pixi and what a pile of> hair was strewn on the floor that day.> In the two years since, Sue has grown her hair to a> longish bob and mine has gotten much shorter. A change> really did me a lot of good. I wouldn't recomment it> as the way to go but since it happened I'm glad it> did.aaaaawwwww bummer but glad your happy with it.

> When people post messages of a sensationalist nature> on the Bloopers board, it changes the intent of the> board as stated on HB's main page. This board is> designed for describing actual mistakes when working> with hair. It's one of the more practical of the HB> message boards, where people come looking for help> when they've blown it. When phony messages> are posted, and by phony persons, it leaves everything> posted at Bloopers to be suspect. Where then can> people turn for help, when in a hair> "crisis"? This is not a "Creative> Writing" board. However, I've seen posts that> purported to help, but which actually gave damaging> suggestions to people seeking constructive ideas.> The Hair Boutique has won awards for it's excellent> presentation and quality of information. However, if> people persist in posting falsely, those who seek real> help will be pushed away, as will those trying to> help, because they will increasingly realize that> fewer and fewer people will believe them anymore. This> degrades the purpose of the site> altogether, as only the frauds will remain. For the> site, it's not a very high standard to which to> aspire.> Jennifer Eveyes how true Jennifer

> Why should the writer have any concerns? And what kind> of effects are you worried about? In particular with> respect to this story: in which there is no sexual> content, just an accidental haircut which did none of> the parties had any problems with, in fact they> liked??Despite the supposedly "happy" ending, Natty's story, in my opinion, is a fetish that fantasizes destruction, the notion of which seems inconsistent with the Hair Boutique, a website based on hair care.> Why? I tried to locate the house rules of this board,> I couldn't easily find them. If they exist and they> indeed mention that is intended to post under one> name, then I would agree with you.> But even then, not so to protect that one> "innocent and sensitive person" (ai ai,> Accidental haircuts! and that on a Hair Bloopers> board. ai ai), but out of courtesy to the board owner> and its audience.> Again why? Wat is wrong with fictional postings (is it> stated somewhere that they are not welcome, or should> be labeled as such)?> What is wrong with a sensational story once in a> while?> A lot, I hope. The one who goes clicking about on the> Internet and assumes everything he/she reads is true,> is -to the least- a very naive person. Personally, I> don't believe half of the stories posted on this> board.> For some stories, I don't question whether are true> or not: I don't care, I read them and like them (or> not).Here is the stated purpose of the "Hair Bloopers" discussion board, copied verbatim from the main Hair Talk page:"Hair Bloopers: Everyone has funny hair stories. This is the place to share yours. Have you ever gotten your hair caught in a fan, car door or vacuum cleaner? Or maybe you got your hair covered in hair syrup or something else sticky? How did you deal with it? Please share all your hair bloopers from what happened to your hair to how you dealth [sic] with it to any other related topics you would like to share."I agree that posting under multiple names is not presently prohibited. My suggestion that people do so was a request for courtesy.For some time after the inception of this board, people shared genuine stories of accidents, but lately some number of hoaxes has been posted. It isn't clear whether or not posts such as Vera's/Natty's violate the guidelines of the board, but in my opinion, such stories cheapen the spirit of this board.> Your point being? If one of those authors publishes a> new book, I don't expect someone else to go around all> bookstores with a marker, scribbling down all the> known pseudonyms of that author on the cover?Why do you mind if I inform the board's readers that one person is posting under multiple pseudonyms?> Also, the fact that I know that a well-established> author uses one or more pseudonym, does not> necessarily imply that I know or want to know all> his/her pseudonyms. Or that I know or want to know all> other authors and their pseudonyms.You are welcome to ignore the "troll alerts" if you wish and just continue to imagine that Natty and Vera and Tom really are three different people.> Service similar to what?Informing readers of the single source of multiple pseudonyms. Just as you profess to know of same with those "well-known authors."> What you consider a service,> is considered a disservice by others.Just as you see Tom's hoaxes as a service, others consider it a disservice.> Everyone has the right to be a coward.And we should accept Natty's deceitfulness because she's a coward?> If you use statistics to make your point, you should> provide thefigures: how many readers are on this> board; how many share your sensitiveness to posting of> fictional stories and/or under multiple names?I've communicated with two other people who read this board, both of whom are in agreement with me. Not that this is a statistically significant sample, but you are welcome to conduct a poll if you wish.> My guess would be the majority wouldn't care less,> skipping the stories they don't like or don't believe.If posts such as Natty/Tom/Vera's were clearly labelled as fiction, it lets the potential reader know "what they may be in for," and may help them choose whether or not to read the post. I personally am in favor of more information over less, as it empowers the reader to make better-informed decisions.> Yes, I could imagine he is laughing at you, picturing> you> as the modern Don Quichote you've chosen to be. Maybe> he is laughing also at me because I am reacting as> well. Then again: so what?He's welcome to laugh at whomever he wishes. I'd rather be seen as quixotic than as a fraud. Of course, I have shared my real name, first and last, and my e-mail address, product reviews, haircare tips, and more, with this website. How about Tom/Natty/Vera? Oh yeah, that's right. No last name, no e-mail address, and an inconsistent first name (and gender).> Dave, you call upon honesty but you are not true> yourself.Who's not being honest here? Natty/Tom/Vera has displayed utter contempt for the concept.> While you make a fuss about multiple> pseudonyms and fiction vs reality, your real problem> seems to be with the content of the> "sensational", "lurid" story,> "a tale of ... destruction of that which they> both supposedly love".> Why don't you make that point, instead of pressing> home again and again *your views* on how *the rest of> the board* should behave on the board?> Rests me one question: would you have been more happy if> the story had been real and posted under only one name?My "real problem?"While it is true that I dislike his story, my concerns are his use of multiple pseudonyms and his post's title lines that give no clue to the fictional nature of the stories within.Dave

Dave,It's a story, and weather it's true or not under an assumed name or not really doesn't matter. You say you are concerned for the readers who were so blatantly tricked and apparently forced into reading the entire story, yet you seem to be the only one who has a problem. This board has been a great source of information and stories (fiction and non). It would appear the you are the one causeing the sensationalism here and not the person who posted a well written unique story. One which actually isn't as far fetched as your making it out to be. If your really that unhappy and feel a urge to dictate what is or isn't alowed in this public forum, maybe you should find a new hangout.Jeff B

> I like reading fantasy stories and I don't mind that> they are presented as "real stories". There> is a lot of literature that does the same and nobody> complains about that.Frank,I don't believe that the writer has any concern for the effects thathis fictitious stories may have on some of the Hair Boutique's visitors.At the very least, he ought to (a) use one name, real or otherwise,and (b) state up front and very clearly (such as in the title of thepost) that the story is fictional. Doing these things would likelydefuse the sensational nature of his postings.How many people, who clicked on the link to read the Blooper about the"Accidental hair cut," do you think expected to find a fictional (andlurid) story? None, I am sure, meaning that anybody who chose to callup the post and begin reading it was misled as to its true nature.> Also, I fail to see what is wrong with writing under a> pseudonym, and I know of well-established authors that> use more than one pseudonym.Regarding those "well-established authors" you mention, you admit thatyou know that there is just one person behind those many names. I'moffering the same service here to the readers of this board -- to letit be known that Natty, Tom and Vera are one and the same.> The link with> 'high ethics', 'integrity', and 'destructive nature'> is lost on me.IMO, anybody who deceitfully posts such sensational and lurid materialunder a pseudonyn is a coward, and insensitive to the feelings of themajority of this board's readers. Natty/Tom/Vera has abused the abilityto be able to post here in a (mostly) anonymous manner. Somewhere outthere, Tom is sitting in front of his PC, cruelly laughing at the peoplehe upsets through the hoax he perpetrates.Integrity is synonymous with honesty, which is clearly not Tom/Natty/Vera'sforte. And Frank -- are you really unable to see the destructive nature ofNatty's story? He said "[My daughter and I] both had very long hair... andwere happy with the status quo." Natty then follows this with the tale ofthe destruction of that which they both supposedly loved. What kind ofemotional response do you really think Natty/Vera/Tom intends to engender?> In any case, I found the original message much more> enjoyable than the 'troll alert' notice.The "troll alert" notice wasn't meant to be entertaining; its intentwas to inform readers to Tom's use of multiple pseudonyms, and that heposted these fictitious stories without clearly stating that they werefictitious.Dave