I missed where he explicitly made a claim about it one way or the other.
The months went by, and at last on a day of spring Ged returned to the Great
House, and he had no idea what would be asked of him next. At the door that gives on
the path across the fields to Roke Knoll an old man met him, waiting for him in the
doorway. At first Ged did not know him, and then putting his mind to it recalled him as
the one who had let him into the School on the day of his coming, five years ago.
The old man smiled, greeting him by name, and asked, “Do you know who I am?”
Now Ged had thought before of how it was always said, the Nine Masters of Roke,
although he knew only eight: Windkey, Hand, Herbal, Chanter, Changer, Summoner,
Namer, Patterner. It seemed that people spoke of the Archmage as the ninth. Yet when a
new Archmage was chosen, nine Masters met to choose him.
“I think you are the Master Doorkeeper,” said Ged.
“I am. Ged, you won entrance to Roke by saying your name. Now you may win
your freedom of it by saying mine.” So said the old man smiling, and waited. Ged stood
dumb.
He knew a thousand ways and crafts and means for finding out names of things
and of men, of course; such craft was a part of everything he had learned at Roke, for
without it there could be little useful magic done. But to find out the name of a Mage
and Master was another matter. A mage’s name is better hidden than a herring in the
sea, better guarded than a dragon’s den. A prying charm will be met with a stronger
charm, subtle devices will fail, devious inquiries will be deviously thwarted, and force
will be turned ruinously back upon itself.
“You keep a narrow door, Master,” said Ged at last. “I must sit out in the fields
here, I think, and fast till I grow thin enough to slip through”
“As long as you like,” said the Doorkeeper, smiling.
So Ged went off a little way and sat down under an alder on the banks of the
Thwilburn, letting his otak run down to play in the stream and hunt the muddy banks
for creekcrabs. The sun went down, late and bright, for spring was well along. Lights of
lantern and werelight gleamed in the windows of the Great House, and down the hill the
streets of Thwil town filled with darkness. Owls hooted over the roofs and bats flitted in
the dusk air above the stream, and still Ged sat thinking how he might, by force, ruse, or
sorcery, learn the Doorkeeper’s name. The more he pondered the less he saw, among all
the arts of witchcraft he had learned in these five years on Roke, any one that would
serve to wrest such a secret from such a mage.
He lay down in the field and slept under the stars, with the otak nestling in his
pocket. After the sun was up he went, still fasting, to the door of the House and knocked.
The Doorkeeper opened.
“Master,” said Ged, “I cannot take your name from you, not being strong enough,
and I cannot trick your name from you, not being wise enough. So I am content to stay
here, and learn or serve, whatever you will: unless by chance you will answer a question
I have.”
“Ask it.”
“What is your name?”
The Doorkeeper smiled, and said his name: and Ged, repeating it, entered for the
last time into that House.
I simply had not considered the logical implications of AspiringKnitter making the claim that she is not Will_Newsome, and had only noticed that no similar claim had appeared under the name of Will_Newsome.
It would be interesting if one claimed to be them both and the other claimed to be separate people. If Will_Newsome claimed to be both of them and AspiringKnitter did not, then we would know he was lying. So that is something possible to learn from asking Will_Newsome explicitly. I hadn’t considered this when I made my original comment, which was made without thinking deeply.
If WillNewsome claimed to be both of them and AspiringKnitter did not, then we would know he was lying.
Um? Supposing I’d created both accounts, I could certainly claim as Will that both accounts were me, and claim as AK that they weren’t, and in that case Will would be telling the truth.
Oh, so by “Will” you mean “any account controlled by Will” not “the account called Will_Newsome”. I think everyone else interpreted it as the latter.
Nick, it was pretty obvious to me that lessdazed and CuSithBell meant the person Will, not “any account controlled by Will” or “the account called Will_Newsome”—it doesn’t matter if the person would be using an account in order to lie, or an email in order to lie, or Morse code in order to lie, just that they would be lying.
It was “obvious” to me that lessdazed didn’t mean that and it would’ve been obvious to me that CuSithBell did mean that if I hadn’t been primed to interpret his/her comment in the light of lessdazed’s comment. Looking back I’m still not sure what lessdazed intended, but at this point I’m starting to think he/she meant the same as CuSithBell but unfortunately put an underscore betwen “Will” and “Newsome”, confusing the matter.
Oh, so by “Will” you mean “any account controlled by Will” not “the account called Will_Newsome”.
I think everyone else interpreted it the other way.
Well, this was my first post in the thread. I assume you are referring to this post by lessdazed? I thought at the time of my post that lessdazed was using it in the former way (though I’d phrase it “the person Will Newsome”), as you say—either Will lied with the Will account, or told the truth with the Will account and was thus AK, and thus lying with the AK account.
I now think it’s possible that they meant to make neither assumption, instead claiming that if the accounts were inconsistent in this way (if the Will account could not “control” the AK account) then this would indicate that Will (the account and person) was lying about being AK. This claim fails if Will can be expected to engage in deliberate trickery (perhaps inspired by lessdazed’s post), which I think should be a fairly uncontentious assertion.
(Maybe I should point out that this is all academic since at this point both AK and I have denied that we’re the same person, though I’ve been a little bit more coy about it.)
And then he (the person) is lying (also telling the truth, naturally, but I interpreted your claim that he would be telling the truth as a claim that he would not be lying).
This was my initial interpretation as well, but on reflection I think lessdazed meant “ask him if it’s okay if his IP is checked.” Although that puts us in a strange situation in that he’s then able to sabotage the credibility of another member through refusal, but if we don’t require his permission we are perhaps violating his privacy...
Briefly, my impulse was “but how much privacy is lost in demonstrating A is (probably—proxies, etc) not a sock puppet of B”? If there’s no other information leaked, I see no reason to protect against a result of “BAD/NOTBAD” on privacy grounds. However, that is not what we are asking—we’re asking if two posters come from the same IP address. So really, we need to decide whether posters cohabiting should be able to keep that cohabitation private—which seems far more weighty a question.
Why didn’t you suggest asking Will_Newsome?
DIdn’t think about it. He would have to consent, too. Fortunately, any interest in the issue seems to have waned.
Ask him what? To raise his right arm if he is telling the truth?
I missed where he explicitly made a claim about it one way or the other.
--A Wizard of Earthsea Ursula K. LeGuin
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouDidntAsk
If he is AK then he made an explicit claim about it. So either he is not AK or he is lying—a raise your right hand situation.
I simply had not considered the logical implications of AspiringKnitter making the claim that she is not Will_Newsome, and had only noticed that no similar claim had appeared under the name of Will_Newsome.
It would be interesting if one claimed to be them both and the other claimed to be separate people. If Will_Newsome claimed to be both of them and AspiringKnitter did not, then we would know he was lying. So that is something possible to learn from asking Will_Newsome explicitly. I hadn’t considered this when I made my original comment, which was made without thinking deeply.
Um? Supposing I’d created both accounts, I could certainly claim as Will that both accounts were me, and claim as AK that they weren’t, and in that case Will would be telling the truth.
Me too.
ETA: And I really mean no offense, but I’m sort of surprised that folk don’t immediately see things like this… is it a skill maybe?
Wason selection taskish skill, methinks—so a rare one.
But if Will is AK, then Will claimed both that they were and were not the same person (using different screen names).
(Maybe everyone knows this but I’ve pretty much denied that me and AK are the same person. Just saying so people don’t get confused.)
Yes, a good thing to clarify! I’m only speaking to a hypothetical situation.
Oh, so by “Will” you mean “any account controlled by Will” not “the account called Will_Newsome”.
I think everyone else interpreted it as the latter.
(I’m sort of surprised that folk don’t immediately see things like this… is it a skill maybe?)
Nick, it was pretty obvious to me that lessdazed and CuSithBell meant the person Will, not “any account controlled by Will” or “the account called Will_Newsome”—it doesn’t matter if the person would be using an account in order to lie, or an email in order to lie, or Morse code in order to lie, just that they would be lying.
It was “obvious” to me that lessdazed didn’t mean that and it would’ve been obvious to me that CuSithBell did mean that if I hadn’t been primed to interpret his/her comment in the light of lessdazed’s comment. Looking back I’m still not sure what lessdazed intended, but at this point I’m starting to think he/she meant the same as CuSithBell but unfortunately put an underscore betwen “Will” and “Newsome”, confusing the matter.
Well, this was my first post in the thread. I assume you are referring to this post by lessdazed? I thought at the time of my post that lessdazed was using it in the former way (though I’d phrase it “the person Will Newsome”), as you say—either Will lied with the Will account, or told the truth with the Will account and was thus AK, and thus lying with the AK account.
I now think it’s possible that they meant to make neither assumption, instead claiming that if the accounts were inconsistent in this way (if the Will account could not “control” the AK account) then this would indicate that Will (the account and person) was lying about being AK. This claim fails if Will can be expected to engage in deliberate trickery (perhaps inspired by lessdazed’s post), which I think should be a fairly uncontentious assertion.
Yes, that’s true.
And?
And therefore, either one way or another, Will would be lying.
(Maybe I should point out that this is all academic since at this point both AK and I have denied that we’re the same person, though I’ve been a little bit more coy about it.)
And then he (the person) is lying (also telling the truth, naturally, but I interpreted your claim that he would be telling the truth as a claim that he would not be lying).
I suss out the confusion in this post.
Ah! The person (whatever his or her name was) would be lying, although the Will Newsome the identity would not be. I get it now.
Edit: And then I was utterly redundant. Sorry twice.
Absolutely not a problem :) I think I got turned around a few times there myself.
This was my initial interpretation as well, but on reflection I think lessdazed meant “ask him if it’s okay if his IP is checked.” Although that puts us in a strange situation in that he’s then able to sabotage the credibility of another member through refusal, but if we don’t require his permission we are perhaps violating his privacy...
Briefly, my impulse was “but how much privacy is lost in demonstrating A is (probably—proxies, etc) not a sock puppet of B”? If there’s no other information leaked, I see no reason to protect against a result of “BAD/NOTBAD” on privacy grounds. However, that is not what we are asking—we’re asking if two posters come from the same IP address. So really, we need to decide whether posters cohabiting should be able to keep that cohabitation private—which seems far more weighty a question.