Re: A Very (sur) Real Monica

>>Monica is likely to be Terance
>
>In this I know you are wrong.  All you have to do is search her name on 
>the web and you'll see she's been a participant on other reading lists 
>long before she showed up here

Well Dave,  unless someone meets them in person we can't know for sure. I'm 
pretty certain M is T - not 100% - whoever, 's'he ain't a 19/20 yr old girl 
from Peru. You watch - the mask is slipping. TF is such a religious nut he 
can't help, as he just has, in returning to that focus. "Used to work in 
film..." did she? Busy life so far!
I did look at a couple of the sites you listed - they confirmed my 
suspicions. The older sites I never saw, they further convince me.
In 1998 Monica would have been 15/16 depending on which age you believe on 
the ICQ site. You telling me that Joycean wordstream is a work 
of  precocity - a-and  what modern 15 yr old refers to'fellow-men'?

As for Doug/Barbara - you hate the guy so much you are blind to his 
psychology. He has just isn't a pseudonym sort of guy, except as an obvious 
referential pun. Again, unless 'Barbara' does arrange and attend a meeting 
with one of us who is positively identifiable then it's all just guess work

>.  The only split-personality I see in his posts is between the clear and 
>the unintelligible.

That's coz yr not hip to political positioning. The guy is all over the road.

My intended point stands: the use of female pseudonyms by men on the list 
is deeply reactionary as it invites suspicion to be visited on the 
contributions of any women attempting to join the discussions.

I might be a crap literary detective but I recognise a boys' club when I 
see one

Ciaofernow
The onehanded Weave