Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Ups and Downs of Being a Twitter Fraudster

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other dept.

Social Networks 101

Barence writes "PC Pro has a feature examining the psychology and motivation of people who create fake or parody Twitter accounts. The feature reveals how people behind some of the most popular parodies — such as @MrsStephenFry — have gone on to earn commercial success, while others are altogether more sinister. The man behind @Lord_Credo managed to convince many that he was a personal adviser to British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and wormed his way into political circles. He allegedly conned some out of money, took advantage of the hospitality of others, and left the professional reputation of at least one 'in tatters.' He even fabricated a malignant brain tumor, leaving one young member of the group 'utterly distraught.'"

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's what happens when... (5, Funny)

webanish (1045264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38336926)

...you don't sign each other's gpg keys!

Re:That's what happens when... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38336998)

A very typical nigger thing to do, stealing all that money. I bet the fucking niggers are responsible for all this bullshit.

Re:That's what happens when... (-1, Offtopic)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337080)

Can't you find somewhere else to Troll, you coward?

Re:That's what happens when... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337420)

Jew detected.

Re:That's what happens when... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337478)

Reported to the JIDF. Prepare to die, goyim!

Re:That's what happens when... (-1, Flamebait)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337092)

A very typical nigger thing to do, stealing all that money. I bet the fucking niggers are responsible for all this bullshit.

Niggers aren't capable of portending to be white you fucking dumbass.

Re:That's what happens when... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337168)

Who said anything about skin color? Other than you, I mean.

Re:That's what happens when... (-1, Flamebait)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337748)

Who said anything about skin color? Other than you, I mean.

Those Niggers...

Re:That's what happens when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337494)

Michael Jackson begs to differ.

Re:That's what happens when... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337658)

"portending"

This word ... I do not think it means what you think it means ...

Re:That's what happens when... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337680)

"Niggers aren't capable of portending to be white you fucking dumbass."

Are you that Nigerian Prince whose money I'm waiting for?

Re:That's what happens when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337568)

Moderation -1
70% Troll
30% Insightful

Alright, which one of you did this?

Re:That's what happens when... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38341980)

Yeah everyone knows, if you want a +5 Troll, you get it by adding underrated mods, not labeled positive mods...

Re:That's what happens when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337758)

*sigh* You're not even trying anymore, are you?

Re:That's what happens when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337220)

Is that what kids are calling it these days?

Dangerous (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337600)

If you sign someones key you are actually revealing yours.

Re:Dangerous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38340540)

The horror! They could send me encrypted messages or verify messages signed by me. Really dangerous.

Re:Dangerous (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342252)

If that is really your belief, then you seriously need to go back and RTFM.

Re:Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347758)

If you sign someones key you are actually revealing yours.

You seem to be confused about the difference between symmetric and asymmetric encryption. When you sign someone's key, you are only revealing your public key (which you do anyway if you want to make use of key-pair systems like gpg to send and receive and sign stuff), not your private key.

Fraudsters? (5, Insightful)

Talence (4962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38336986)

Uhm, it doesn't seem very fair to lump actual fraudsters in the same group as relatively innocent parodists. Once you start making people part with their money, it's a completely different situation.

Re:Fraudsters? (2)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337068)

I plan to plan Dutch course in The Hague [taaltaal.nl]

Err, what?

Ok, it's a tagline but it's more entertaining than the story anyway.

Re:Fraudsters? (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337194)

Well to be honest, this is /. where people can't tell the difference between someone being a troll, and someone being funny.

Re:Fraudsters? (4, Informative)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337276)

Poe's Law [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Fraudsters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337376)

#SarahPalin God will get U 4 That!

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337696)

I personally believe it's because people only read the words in front of them, not the context of the entire discussion at hand. Poe's law is fine and all that, but even someone like me who has the sense of humor of a 27,000 year old dessicated corpse can tell the difference.

Re:Fraudsters? (3, Insightful)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338298)

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Church Of SubGenius [subgenius.com]

Re:Fraudsters? (3, Funny)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338230)

Hell, people can't tell the difference between Funny and Insightful, either.

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338754)

Hell, people can't tell the difference between Funny and Insightful, either.

Ha, that was rather funny!

Or insightful?
Are you trying to confuse me? Stupid troll!

Unless it's David Cameron & Friends (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337322)

Then it's a public service.

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337432)

Uhm, it doesn't seem very fair to lump actual fraudsters in the same group as relatively innocent parodists. Once you start making people part with their money, it's a completely different situation.

One guy apparently scammed his former gf for 15k. That's not parody.

On a more remarkable note ...

He even fabricated a malignant brain tumor

Did he submit the plans so other makers can copy it [makezine.com] ?

Re:Fraudsters? (2)

Uhyve (2143088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337476)

That's the point. It seems weird that the article (or just the summary, I don't care enough to read the article) is lumping parodies in with actual fraudsters (such as the one you pointed out).

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338418)

If it's not obviously a parody, it's fraud.

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

Hentai (165906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338510)

Poe's law makes this distinction pragmatically impossible.

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

Uhyve (2143088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338640)

Man, a world without subtle humor, that must be a sad place to live in. And now I just realized that you may be parodying the writers of the original article... hmmm...

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38340172)

There is a difference between subtle humour and trying to impersonate an individual, even if you think it is a joke.

Re:Fraudsters? (4, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338196)

Mind you, it's very much possible to be a parodist and make someone part with their money (such as by buying your wonderful book on a certain noodly heavenly father). It's really a matter of whether or not you do it ethically.

Re:Fraudsters? (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38339982)

From the article:

The man behind @Lord_Credo managed to convince many that he was a personal adviser to British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and wormed his way into political circles.

From the comment:

Uhm, it doesn't seem very fair to lump actual fraudsters in the same group as relatively innocent parodists. Once you start making people part with their money...

It also doesn't seem very fair to lump those in "political circles" with actual people.

Remember, these are folks who probably consider themselves part of the ruling elite and they were taken in by bogus TWEETS. They're smart enough to run the world but not smart enough to pick up the fucking phone and actually confirm before they start writing checks and getting freaked out about brain tumors? Jesus wept.

I really think we ought to keep this in mind when thinking about how much trust we should put in anyone in any position of leadership, or who seeks to be in a position of leadership. They are the caliber of people who will make life decisions based on tweets.

Maybe this should be a question asked at political debates. Make it multiple choice: "You read a tweet from a political leader that you work for saying, "I am dying of brain cancer, please paypal $10,000 to derpaderp69@hotsmail.ru. Do you, a) send the money right away, b) start grieving and pick out a suit with a nice red tie for the funeral since it will be on television, c) do a victory dance and fist pump saying "Good, I hated that fucker" or d) make a phone call to see if it's real?"

Re:Fraudsters? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38341524)

They're smart enough to run the world but not smart enough to pick up the fucking phone and actually confirm before they start writing checks and getting freaked out about brain tumors?

Smart people do not run the world. Democracy ensures that liars run the world.

Sigh (4, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337048)

This is why you shouldn't believe everything you read on teh interwibbles.

Second thoughts, s/everything/anything/

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38346602)

Interwibbles? Ugh. I'm willing to sacrifice karma to voice my objections to seeing that term again.

Anyone else notice (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337078)

Did anyone ese notice that all these mountebanks and devils are Italians? I told you not to allow Italians on America's Internet. Now this is what you get.

Its disgusting (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337084)

Why can't they behave like us on slashdot, where everyone is exactly who they say they are?

Re:Its disgusting (1, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337174)

Why can't they behave like us on slashdot, where everyone is exactly who they say they are?

Would have been a lot funnier if you had posted this AC

Re:Its disgusting (1, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337176)

You forgot to check the AC box.

Re:Its disgusting (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337310)

I'm on to you Chrisq, and my elite team of helicopters will be at your house shortly.

Re:Its disgusting (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337344)

For a moment I thought your reply was of epic proportions, when I misread your account name as "Christ".

Re:Its disgusting (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338144)

You're modded as funny, but sometimes there's a reason to remain semi-anonymous. I signed up for Slashdot a long time ago when I didn't think twice about using my real name in online communications. When I signed up for Twitter, though, I decided to use a pseudonym. Now, I find myself under assault by someone who claims I'm the made-up identity of someone else. I could reveal my real name, but that won't really help. This person claims God told her about my "fraud". You can guess how successful presenting facts would be when the other person is arguing that their knowledge comes straight from God.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to be hidden behind the pseudonym because she won't know my real name and real location. She can't track my family down and take actions in person.

(I'm being vague enough in my post here that I'm comfortable that she won't track down this post and connect the two.)

Re:Its disgusting (3, Funny)

nhaines (622289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38340740)

(I'm being vague enough in my post here that I'm comfortable that she won't track down this post and connect the two.)

Sure, until God rats you out again. ;)

Re:Its disgusting (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344224)

God is too busy providing 4th quarter miracles to Tim Tebow.

u should deceive those u can (-1, Troll)

zugedneb (601299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337132)

from the summary:
"The man behind @Lord_Credo managed to convince many that he was a personal adviser to British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and wormed his way into political circles."

u can not decieve a matematician, surgeon, musicist or any other who work in practical fields that require a rational head and vigorous study... either u know, or u don't and it shows in the first sentence.

u can decieve the trash that live entirely in "people space": many politicians, psycologists, theatre people, generally "social sciences" kind of people... why? because they can not calibrate their mental processes against something that is unyielding about its own thruth, such as it is in tech and science mostly...

i do not feel sorry for those that are decieved...

Re:u should deceive those u can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337216)

You think you're above the "trash" but couldn't write a correct sentence if your life depended on it.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

zugedneb (601299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337248)

yes, that is by default. but in my experience, the trash considers me garbage, so i can't see the problem...

Re:u should deceive those u can (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337280)

The elderly consider you garbage?

Re:u should deceive those u can (5, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337238)

On a somewhat related topic: In the book The Big Short [wikipedia.org] (about the derivatives crash), Lewis describes a fund manager that suffers from Asperger syndrome. A very smart guy, but not susceptible to the back-slapping and other bullshit typically used to push questionable investment products in the industry. He kept asking for numbers to back up the bankers' claims. When note were forthcoming, he did his own research and, as a result, shorted many of the derivative products on the market. He earned billions of dollars for his fund.

Sometimes, a touch of Asperger helps. Or at least one can step back and observe the social interactions*.

*I hang around with a group of behavioral psychologists. When we go out to a bar, its funny to sit and watch them observe and classify social interactions around themselves as if they were watching a cage with a bunch of chimpanzees in an experiment.

Re:u should deceive those u can (3, Funny)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337314)

as if they were watching a cage with a bunch of chimpanzees in an experiment.

Isn't this exactly what a behavioral psychologist is trained to do ?

Re:u should deceive those u can (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337534)

*I hang around with a group of behavioral psychologists. When we go out to a bar, its funny to sit and watch them observe and classify social interactions around themselves as if they were watching a cage with a bunch of chimpanzees in an experiment.

Whoah dude. That's seriously meta, right there.

Re:u should deceive those u can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337888)

When we go out to a bar...cage with a bunch of chimpanzees in an experiment.

Whoah dude. That's seriously meta, right there.

Been a while since you've taken a real hard look at the humanity around you - if you've ever looked at all. Its really not so meta after all - if at all.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344322)

Whoosh. Also does semi-insulting random strangers on the Internet make you feel better about yourself?

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337736)

*I hang around with a group of behavioral psychologists. When we go out to a bar, its funny to sit and watch them observe and classify social interactions around themselves as if they were watching a cage with a bunch of chimpanzees in an experiment.

This is actually more common to people in general, rather than just behavioral psychologists. I love people watching. Go to the local mal or McDonalds early on Sunday, and you will see a bunch of older folk, planted at a bench/seat, doing just that. It also used to be a popular past time at the airports, back when you could do such a thing.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337760)

This is actually more common to people in general, rather than just behavioral psychologists. I love people watching.

So, what do you consider to be a proxy for poo-flinging?

Re:u should deceive those u can (5, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337798)

This is actually more common to people in general, rather than just behavioral psychologists. I love people watching.

So, what do you consider to be a proxy for poo-flinging?

Tweeting

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38338628)

One time a bunch of us software and hardware geeks were sitting in the company cafeteria, and some were rating the ladies going by. One of us remarked, "Hah - I just realized, this is a bunch of 3s and 4s, rating 6s and 7s!" :D

Re:u should deceive those u can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38338126)

... as if they were watching a cage with a bunch of chimpanzees in an experiment.

Umm... I think that's exactly what they're doing.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337296)

u can not decieve a matematician, surgeon, musicist or any other who work in practical fields that require a rational head and vigorous study.

lol Whoever told you that, DEFINITELY deceived you. This is social engineering, not parametric equations.

Re:u should deceive those u can (0)

zugedneb (601299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337342)

wery well then. let me see u "worm ur self" in to a a circle of educated people... yeah, like make me belive that u are a guru on combinatorial algorithms, hmm? make me believe that u are some big military tactician, can u? a botanist? fucking relativistic retard

Re:u should deceive those u can (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337390)

No, I am one of that small, elite, circle of people who knows how to capitalize my sentences. Work hard, and someday you too may enter this elite group.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337464)

Give me access to your keyboard and I'll be able to capitalize your sentences too.

Re:u should deceive those u can (-1, Troll)

zugedneb (601299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337502)

that answer was offtopic.
  that u may not respect me is by my design, but if u care to answer please stay on topic.

now, i am fucking imploring u with this task: pick a fucking field, and make me belive that u are som hotshot in it. this is tha topic, yes?

Re:u should deceive those u can (0)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337550)

that u may not respect me is by my design, but if u care to answer please stay on topic.

Truly I don't respect you, but only because your words aren't respectable. If you chose to write in an unrespectable way, it's probably as a psychological cover for that fact that no one respected you in the first place. So now you can blame that on your method of writing, instead of on the actual words.

now, i am fucking imploring u with this task: pick a fucking field, and make me belive that u are som hotshot in it. this is tha topic, yes?

Maybe I can't, maybe you will choose to believe nothing. Which is sad. But I am in fact, easily in the top 5% of programmers. I can disassemble other programmer's binaries in cases when I can't get the source code, and I can write a compiler, if I chose to. I've worked on high profile projects which you've heard of, but I feel no compunction to brag about those to a person who can't even write a complete sentence.

Re:u should deceive those u can (-1, Troll)

zugedneb (601299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337652)

I will then assume that you are indeed the respectable expert that you claim to be, and speak to you accordingly.

You see, I come to this forum to read the posts of low UID users, mostly on the history of technology and the computational sciences. That are lots of users here, possibly even you, who have been working in the fields since the seventies. I never troll those posts, and are never impolite to those informative users.

As for the rest...

Re:u should deceive those u can (5, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337676)

I will then assume that you are indeed the respectable expert that you claim to be, and speak to you accordingly.

HA! I tricked you! I am not actually a programmer, I just play one on Slashdot.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

PhinMak (630548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345568)

For the win!

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343190)

You see, I come to this forum to read the posts of low UID users

Are you f'in crazy?

Re:u should deceive those u can (4, Funny)

The Askylist (2488908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337564)

Scene: a mathematical conference.

First Mathematician: Who's the spacker in the tin-foil hat over there?

Second Mathematician: Oh, that's just zugendneb, our tame lolcat. We keep him because he can sniff out social engineers and destroy them with his wit and repartee. He can't write English worth a shit, but his texting skills are a legend in his own lunchtime.

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

oreiasecaman (2466136) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347742)

It's been some time since I've actually laughed to tears, thank you :D

Re:u should deceive those u can (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 2 years ago | (#38339832)

Robin Sage

Re:u should deceive those u can (3, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337300)

u can decieve the trash that live entirely in "people space": many politicians, psycologists, theatre people, generally "social sciences" kind of people... why?

Other people can. You couldn't. A minimum level of literacy is required.

Re:u should deceive those u can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38338848)

That's quite likely the reason they said 'u' (colloquial shorthand for 'you') instead of 'I.'

Sorry (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337440)

There have been documented cases of impostors who've been able to pose as e.g. doctors/surgeons(!), airline pilots (etc.) for years and years.

Those are certainly fields which require "a rational head and vigorous study".

The easiest people to fool are those who think they cannot be fooled... such as yourself.

Re:Sorry (-1, Troll)

zugedneb (601299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337726)

well, if u are a pilot, i ask u to teach me. either u can or u can not. the one who is fooled is the one who asks no questions.

Re:Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38338378)

Come on, do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sorry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38339112)

"i ask u to teach me"

"Fuck off, I'm a pilot not a fucking teacher, go back to school you ignorant piece of shit."

So, your plan B to see through my disguise is??

Raise your hand (3, Interesting)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337160)

If you're sick of the verb "tweet".

Re:Raise your hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337224)

*raises hand*

Though, it's a close second to "cloud"

Re:Raise your hand (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337360)

Cloud doesn't actually bother me like it does most people. I think it's years of seeing those boring presentations to clients where the Internet was represented by a little visio cloud. Or at least, it bugs me less than some of the more cryptic little nicknames and acronyms we've used over the years.

Lord_Credo? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337236)

What a pity, he sounded like a guy you could believe in.

Re:Lord_Credo? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337686)

That is the first thing I thought. It looks like, because of his name, that he just started out as a very obvious parodyist. He was probably very surprised when people actually believed him.

Re:Lord_Credo? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342388)

I don't trust him. I just get the feeling he's going to turn into some flying supernatural creature and we'll need to fight with giant swords.

Oblig XKCD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337456)

This just in... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337492)

Most of the people that use Twitter are morons, film at 11.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38337712)

truth, for all antibacterial soap._ was at the same du7ring play, this

Not the best example (1)

dnewt (2457806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38337916)

@MrsStephenFry is possibly not the best example, since it's quite possible that it is, in fact, the great Mr Fry himself. He'd never admit it of course, since that would spoil the fun.

Ridiculous (0)

adockery (2529478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38339290)

It is crazy, all these people posing as someone else. What is the point? I don't get it.

My experience with a parody account (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38340576)

Having seen no comments yet from anyone who's actually done this...

I run a fake twitter feed, lampooning a guy known in several wide social circles known for his... lets say "interesting" personality. He's not exactly widely loved or widely hated (maybe polarizing though), but he can be counted on to have an unexpected viewpoint on basically anything. (It might be Aspergers, we don't know.) The actual guy doesn't seem to mind, because I take care to not say anything mean.

The account has turned out to be a decent hit among the people that know him. The people that love him immensely and hate him immensely both like it similarly. Also, it gives me an outlet for some creativity and humor. Finally, there is a very small rush from "pleasing an audience," even if it is only 80 or so people, and only a small fraction of those 80 knowing it is me on the other end. ...And that's about the extent of it. No commercialization, no defrauding anyone of their money, not even 100 followers. But it makes 80 people's lives, and mine, an iota better.

Re:My experience with a parody account (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38346028)

But it makes 80 people's lives, and mine, an iota better.

Without making anyone else's worse. And that, I feel, is the important distinction.

Re:My experience with a parody account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38354032)

@FakeDanShoop right?

Brain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38340816)

He even fabricated a malignant brain tumor

Guess you'd have to have a brain first - else it would just be a scull cavity tumour.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>