Sunday, September 9, 2012

Pseudonymityfail, or the Pseudo-pseudonymity of Coffeeandink

Early in February, 2009, the Feminist SF group decided to record what happened in RaceFail 09. Kathryn Cramer corrected a link there that had connected Coffeeandink to Catherynne Valente's LJ. When told that Micole wished to be pseudonymous, Kathryn accepted the wiki editors' decision, though she continued to argue that shielding Micole was wrong.

To understand Kathryn's concerns with pseudonymity and mobbing:
I think I was the one who coined the term "orcing" in the context of organized trolling by the Little Green Footballs gang circa 2004. They went after me right after their group attack on the John Kerry campaign caused the Kerry campaign to pull all their ads from Daily Kos. I was the next target because I was anti-Blackwater. In essence it involves the use of online discussion boards and platform for organized attack on a blogger. . . . The incident in question (LGF vs. KC) was white-on-white politically motivated Internet aggression involving death threats, threats on children, rape threats, a claimed false report to Child Protective Services, etc. It was back before it was easy to turn off comments. It took a few days (maybe as many as 4 or 5) of serious 24 hr. gang abuse before I figured out that I could edit my Moveable Type template to turn comments off.
Her first use of the term was:
It was very unwise of Charles at LFG to attempt to launch a new attack on my site in reponse to criticism, given that he knows that the first round of attacks resulted in threats to me and to my family. My referrer logs can presumably be compared to the IP numbers of new posts of this nature. As one can see, this behavior from the LGF folks is so far beyond trolling that it needs a new name. Orcing. (Or should we spell it orking?)
On February 6, 2009, she commented twice at Ambling Along the Aqueduct. First:
There is an additional issue, which is pseudonymity. The preponderance of those arguing as representatives of the Other are pseudonymous. This, it seems to me, is a big problem. Pseudonymous people are often not as they claim to be. 
Also, I am confused by the terms of discussion proposed by this mostly pseudonymous Other: Just when and how did it become OK to make broad generalizations about specific people based on race? I have a very hard time with the notion that this kind of rhetoric is a good idea no matter who is it aimed at and no matter what the intended purpose.
Then she refered to Micole:
You know, I just found out earlier this afternoon that one of the LJ combatants, who refuses to allow her alias i.e. false name to be public used to report to and work for people she's flamed and inflamed other to criticize. I think this is wildly unethical. 
Is MORE of that kind of stuff hiding under other of these aliases?

Late in February, when I was writing the first draft of "looking at a few of my critics, champions of the upper class", I wasn’t sure how to spell Micole's last name, so I googled "Micole coffeeandink". Her last name came up immediately. Soon after I posted, I got email from her. (SJ Warriors approve of sharing other people's email, so I’m sure she won’t mind me sharing hers.)

2/26/09

Dear Will,


I do not put my full name on my LJ user profile because I do not wish it to be linked to it by general Google searches.  It's okay to name the owner of the LJ coffeeandink as "Micole", but not as "Micole [redacted]”.


Thanks,


--m.
I laughed when I saw that. Her claim that using “Micole” instead of “Micole [redacted]” on her profile kept her LJ from Google’s notice had to be a joke—at the time, Google clearly disagreed. Her LJ was public. She had nearly a thousand followers who linked to her, using her extremely rare legal name. About “Micole”, themeaningofnames.org says, “The highest recorded use of this name was in 1988 with 39 baby girls.” Her last name is so uncommon that namestatistics.com claims “Very few last names in the US are [redacted] Be proud of your unique last name!” Anyone concerned about being pseudonymous wouldn’t use either on a public LJ.

I wrote back:
Huh. You're very free with my name, and I get Google-searched, too. I realize you use "racist" differently than I do, but still, when you have items like "Will explains how racism doesn't affect middle-class black people" when I said at that post and in many other places that racism *does* affect middle-class black people, I have trouble feeling sympathy for your desire for anonymity. Integrity is hard.

Well. I really shouldn't become the asshole you say I am. I'll delete your last name now.
I removed her last name from my blogs, then posted this:
well, I think it’s funny

My most vitriolic critic wrote me, asking me to remove her last name from my response to her so she wouldn't look bad when Google-searched.

You can't make these things up.

It was a surprisingly tough call. On the one hand, I believe if you don't have the courage to identify yourself, you should shut the hell up. On the other hand, it's nice to be nice. So I snarled and growled a little, then deleted her name.

This seems especially amusing given the number of people in the Great Silliness who criticized friends of mine for deleting information from the web.

ETA #1: I realize that some people's circumstances force them to choose between anonymity and silence. In those cases, which choice is right depends on what they hope to say. There are many kinds of identity. Sometimes an online name is as valid as any name you claim for yourself. It all depends on what you do under the cloak of that name.

ETA #2: I also realize that if I was a nice guy, I would've deleted her name and never said a thing about it. But since I've realized that justice is personal, I'm beginning to think being nice is overrated. I'm not going to say "it's nice to be nice" again. I will say "it's good to be kind," because I deleted her name out of kindness, not niceness. Niceness is never surly or grudging. Kindness is better when it's whole-hearted, but grudging kindness is better than none.

ETA #3: I am petty. She asked me to shield her while she attacked me, and when I did, she didn't even thank me. I've encountered a great deal of upper class entitlement in my life, but hers has managed to surprise me.

ETA #4: I just googled Micole’s first and last name. The second hit connects her to her LiveJournal. Then I googled what she has publicly there, "coffeeandink Micole.” The third and fourth hits brought up her last name. Now I'm totally baffled by her request. Oh, well. We all have our quirks.
On March 1, not yet concerned about her privacy, Coffeeandink made a public announcement about the conventions she would be at, should anyone wish to find her.


But on March 2, Coffeeandink claimed in RaceFail: Once More, with Misdirection:
Kathryn Cramer has been linking my LJ to my full name on wikis and in other people's blog comments and has repeatedly stated that my participation in RaceFail debates was an attempt to smear the Nielsen Haydens in grudgewank.
And, referring to me:
He posted my full name and LJ on his blog, even though I deliberately do not list my last name on my LJ.
Her post about being outed included an excellent list of reasons to be pseudonymous:
  • Because it is a standard identity- and privacy-protection precaution
  • Because they have experienced online or offline stalking, harassment, or political or domestic violence
  • Because they wish to discuss sexual abuse, sexuality, domestic abuse, assault, politics, health, or mental illness, and do not wish some subset of family, friends, strangers, aquaintances, employers, or potential employers to know about it
  • Because they wish to keep their private lives, activities, and tastes separate from their professional lives, employers, or potential employers
  • Because they fear threats to their employment or the custody of their children
  • Because it's the custom among their Internet cohort
  • Because it's no one else's business
But she never suggested pseudonymous people shouldn't use their legal names where they're claiming to be pseudonymous, and she didn't offer her own reason. (Months later, she said, “I am mostly just fighting a losing battle to prevent my mother from finding my LJ via Google.” I confess I have trouble believing her mother didn't know how to type her daughter's name into Google, but perhaps Micole has the most internet-incompetent mother ever.)

As soon as she posted, the social justice warriors attacked, probably because she did not say Kathryn and I had acted in ignorance. They sent angry email, left anonymous comments at our blogs, and played the telephone game that they love, each sharing and exaggerating what outraged them. Cofax7, for example, posted this, apparently forgetting that Coffeeandink had helped out Zathlazip:

The fundamental law in online discourse, particularly in fandom, is that you do not out people. But Will Shetterly (whose writing I used to enjoy) and Kathryn Cramer (who has written meaningfully in the pursuit of government accountability) think it's more important to cast blame, to assert grudgewank, than to analyze arguments. I don't care what you think about RaceFail 09, or if you're tired of it or whatever. But this is the establishment striking back at the online community, this is the frenzy of disparagement by people tied to a failing model. And this is why pseudonymity is So Fucking Important. 
Fuck you, Will Shetterly. And fuck you, too, Kathryn Cramer. I will not link to you.
People like Seperis—who had also helped out Zathlazip—shared Cofax7's version. As the charge that we had outed Coffeeandink burned across the SJverse, I went to the feministsf wiki page and saw how Micole was being shielded while people on the other side were being attacked.

Which infuriated me so much I posted Micole's name deliberately:
Own your shit!

Micole [redacted] is coffeeandink.

Here's why I'm outing her. I originally hadn't known Micole was hiding her last name, because she uses her first at coffeeandink. Last week, I got an email from her asking me to delete her last name from my posts. I thought it was funny that she would ask me to shield her while she attacked me, but I did. What can I say? I guess I'm a bit sexist: I usually protect women when they ask me.

You can read about that at well, I think it's funny.

This morning, I heard about people attacking Kathryn Cramer because she had revealed Micole's last name at the wiki entry for the Great Silliness, aka RaceFail09. So I went to that site, and my hypocrisy circuits overloaded. If the point of the wiki is to preserve the record of who said what, it should record the facts without favoritism.

So I restored Micole [redacted]'s name there. I left this note on the Talk page: “When someone hides Micole's identity again, I won't correct it. I won't begin a wiki war, and I respect the right of site owners to do what they please. But just for the record: If the point of this wiki is to share information, don't censor the truth. Revise it when you have more information, delete what no longer seems pertinent, sure, but feminists should especially know that double standards stink.”

I should've expected this. The editor's response was typical of their side of the Silliness: "Hi Will. You sure won't start a wiki war here, because I just banned you."

Hypocrites love to ban and censor and disemvowel. They fear opposing views, so they silence them. Free speech is not for cowards.

And now there are a flurry of LJ posts about what an asshole I am for outing Micole at the wiki. I'll own that: I'm an asshole for truth, justice, and the egalitarian way.

If you haven't already, check out the XKCD cartoon I posted the other day, or visit it here. It's got my new motto.

And now I'm done with this group of hypocrites. There are greater ones to worry about.
Because Micole had publicly used her full legal name on her LJ for years, I thought everyone would know I was using "out" sarcastically.

Really, do not use "out" sarcastically on the web.

That post got ten times as many hits as any other I’ve made. New visitors were interested in the controversy, not the context—few of them bothered to read what was posted before or after it. Because I wasn't writing for new readers, I didn't clarify that "uses her first name" meant "uses her extremely uncommon first name as her LJ name", and didn't bother to mention her casual public use of her last name.


A little later that day, when friends said I had over-reacted (which I fully agree I had), I took her last name off my site and wrote a flurry of posts amid the flames:

Fuck. That. Shit.
Fine. Let hypocrites hide while they attack others. I’m deleting Ms. X’s last name from my site. Life’s too short to be lectured by people who want to protect cowards.
And:
is hypocrisy in fashion now?

I'm being croggled by the people who defend Micole's position. I've heard, for example, the stock argument that Coffeeandink is a valid identity, so what she does under that name isn't acting anonymously. I suppose by this argument, Superman and the Green Goblin aren't anonymous, either. But would you defend a Klansman's anonymity?

Integrity usually calls for paying a price. That doesn't mean you should be afraid to admit who you are. Make your mistakes in public, apologize for them in public, and keep trying to do your best in public. The coward's way will kill your soul.

As St. Bob Dylan said, "To live outside the law you must be honest."
And:
which is worse, banning or anonymity?

Another painful moment of self-awareness: I usually figure that if you're not an asshole, you're welcome to be anonymous—a handle is a nickname. But I don't much like anyone who bans. Ban others and demand anonymity while you libel folks who are up front about who they are online and off? That's the complete coward's way. Kathryn Cramer and I disagree sometimes—dear God, who don't I disagree with sometimes?—but she knows a basic truth: if you're going to talk the talk, you sure as shit should walk the walk.
And:
is a nickname a pseudonym?

I'm failing at answering no comments, but I'm trying to stay ahead by making new posts to positions that more than one person brings up. I agree that there's a difference between being anonymous and pseudonymous.

But that distinction has limits in both directions.

On the anonymity side: sockpuppets game the gray area by using several pseudonyms to be more effectively anonymous.

On the pseudonymity side: a pseudonym is only an identity that can be put on and taken off with ease. Con artists love pseudonyms.

In the world Behind The Keyboard, nicknames are connected to faces or voices or mailing addresses—they're ultimately legally verifiable, though you may need detectives if someone you only know by a nickname shafts you.

But in Life Online? A pseudonym is just a pseudonym, not a nickname. Log out of gmail, make a new account, and you're a new person, walking free from all the shit you've made. It's tempting to want that freedom.

But real freedom calls for owning your identity everywhere you go. No matter how bad the shit behind you is, find a way to carry it or correct it or simply admit that you're done with it. That's how humans grow. I'm not proud of my online shit, but I made a decision when I went online decades ago that I was going own my shit—especially when I hate having to own it.
The damage was done. People promised to boycott my work and the work of my friends who did not denounce me. I was emailed anonymous death threats. Kynn Bartlett, who I only knew was a close member of their community, posted:
I live in Tucson, and so does he. I've never met him. 
But if I ever do, I'll likely spit in his fucking face.
I had learned a lot about death threats and ostracizing as a boy when the KKK threatened to burn our home, and I had gotten a death threat from a white supremacist for writing Captain Confederacy, but I wasn't prepared for electronic mobbing. I went a bit crazy—when the price of community is conforming to what you reject, the tension between being true to yourself and being accepted is unbearable. It’s why most people who are mobbed online will conform or flee. I wanted to disappear and forget what had happened. I needed to make things better somehow. At the time, I had my main blog on WordPress and a copy at LiveJournal—keeping two blogs had been a nuisance, but now it became a nightmare, so I deleted my LJ and tried to address the outrage with reason at my WordPress site.

Advice for anyone who gets mobbed: there's no room for reason in a riot.


Coffeeandink wrote that I was "equating pseudonymity to belonging to the KKK." She did not say I also equated it to being Superman. On my LJ, someone said it was problematic to compare pseudonyms to Klansmen and cited Publius—a group that included James Madison, who owned about 100 slaves.

People said they couldn't donate to Shadow Unit because they couldn't trust me, so I wrote:
I’m leaving Shadow Unit

Someone expressed doubts about supporting Shadow Unit because of my involvement. My creative role has been slight; people who disapprove of me can simply skip my story in Season One. (People who really disapprove of me should ignore Brady, who has more of me than any other character.) Shadow Unit is much more Emma's and Bear's baby, with enormous help from an amazingly talented group of writers. It'll be fun for me to approach it purely as a reader.

I have been concerned that this would happen. Some writers have conventional approaches to life, and some subordinate their beliefs in order to keep a broad audience. I fear I don't fit in either camp. The Shadow Unit writers are having a wonderful time, and I do not want them to take a hit for me, so it's easy to step down.

Go, team, go!
And then:
about “outing” coffeeandink or anyone

This keeps coming up, so I'm interrupting my internet holiday:

She says here that she briefly outed two fans, then took the information off the public web. I "outed" her briefly, then took the information off my sites entirely. It's not in a "friends only" area. It's gone. She is as safe from me now as those two fans are from her. I will not "out" her or anyone again. Everyone's shit is theirs to live with.

ETA: I've been informed that she hadn't known her brief outing was an outing. Apologies for making it seem like that was my point: my point is that she is just as safe as those two fans are now. She will not be outed. Nor will anyone else.
Then I closed down the LiveJournal copy of my blog, something I'd been wanting to do for ages. Keeping a copy is a nuisance, especially in times of heated debate.

In the furor, there were voices of sanity. Sierrawyndsong observed:
Now there is currently a huge bruhaha brewing between two authors online. One would like to remain anonymous but claims to have been 'outed' by another author. A flame war of massive proportions has ensued, slandering both authors, appearing in numerous blogs and blurring the lines of libel and defamation. Brilliant. Neither author is invisible online, both are published authors, both blog often and have been very vocal in a long drawn out race issue concerning SciFi writers and their writings and blogs have been linked to their real names in published and public forums. Read that again. BOTH. Of them. Period.

By the time anyone bothers to read this, I am sure the name will no longer be linked to the LJ account. However, in December 2007: The article titled Fantasy Roundtable: People of Color in Fantasy Literature, written by K. Tempest Bradford and published by Dark Fantasy, links an author's name to their LJ account. (It is my opinion that if the article published the identity and link without the author's permission, then Dark Fantasy and Bradford owe the author an apology and a retraction.) This same article has been used very often in numerous blogs concerning race issues in SciFi genre and has always contained the link. So, not just there, but in many, many posts, this article has made it very public who that author is in real life. Therefore, it is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. Get it? Got it? Good. 
(I recommend the comments there. Sierrawyndsong made more good points to Tempest and Kynn.)

Elsewhere, Jace pointed out: "The issue isn’t whether or not she wanted to establish a pseudonymous identity online, it’s that she went about doing it so badly she has no right to complain when it failed."


On March 4, Coffeeandink escalated the situation with Guess who managed to escalate the situation again! I posted:

• a reply to Coffeeandink


Coffeeandink says, “You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension.”

True. Reading How the internet is rewiring our brains, I thought, “Yep. Uh, huh. That’s me. Damn. I need to work on this.” But there’s been a lot of reading fail on both sides. I’m still getting charged with crap I never said.

She says, ” You encouraged your commenters to seek out my name…”

Where did I do that?

She says “You posted my full name again and took it down again several times.”

To give her the benefit of the doubt, having information on two blogs makes correcting them in both confusing. This has created problems before: Teresa Nielsen Hayden once charged me with doing something I hadn’t because she confused my LJ with my main blog. Serious advice to anyone thinking about having more than one blog: Don’t. Anyway, Micole may be confused here, or I might be. Really. Don’t keep two blogs.

She says, “You claimed I had suggested a boycott of Tor.”

I claimed that her last name was relevant to the wiki because Tor was cited in RaceFail and people in RaceFail had discussed a boycott. I never claimed Coffeeandink suggested it.

She says, “[you] encouraged many of your commenters to believe I had suggested or encouraged that you be forced to leave Shadow Unit, even though I had never commented on it.”

Leaving Shadow Unit was entirely my idea. I do not let friends suffer for my shit. I walked away.

She says “You tried to out me once again on the feministsf wiki, based on the argument that no one on the antiracist “side” was “forced” to reveal their full name…”

My belief all along: Either all legal names should be on the wiki to have an accurate account, or anyone mentioned there should be able to delete any information they wish. I don’t care that some people on her side are willing to own their shit. When they mock people on the other side for deleting information from the web and shield people on their side, they are simple hypocrites.

Which is their right, of course.

She says, “You outed me having been warned it could expose me to physical violence, sexual abuse, personal harassment, and professional and personal hardship.”

She never warned me of anything. Had she done so, I would never have made my mistake—but I would’ve wondered why her name and her LiveJournal were so high in the Google rankings, and why she used her uncommon first name on her LiveJournal instead of a handle.

She says, “You have offered several different explanations…”

True. I have more than one, and I don’t always cite all of them. If anyone has a full list of my quotes, I’ll own all of them.


On March 5, I did an Advanced Google Search for public appearances of Micole's last name on her LJ and found it appeared 162 times. Now, that would not be 162 unique times, because Google counts summary pages as well as unique posts, but that increased my astonishment that anyone could consider her pseudonymous.

On March 7, Micole wrote, "I may change my userprofile name to "Mely" again." That's the day she acknowledged her "very identifiable first name" in a post addressing Kathryn Cramer: “Please also explain how I was hiding my identity from you or the Nielsen Haydens in a LiveJournal pnh friended a few years ago*, with a user profile that lists my very identifiable first name, in a post that is signed with my very identifiable first name.”

On March 9, Micole acknowledged that she was revising her past: “I have locked down or edited some posts with identifying information in them." She did not explain why,
 if she truly believed she had been pseudonymous, she was changing anything.


When she changed her LJ user profile to “Mely” and removed her last name from her LJ’s public pages, she asked her readers to change their blogs to conceal her past. Because I wanted to make peace, I asked mine to do the same. 
How many posts she made friends-only or edited, only Micole knows. Whatever the number, it took her a few weeks to finish retconning her history.

And then the connection between Coffeeandink and her legal identity slowly sank in the search engines.

But a post I had made and deleted about Micole's many self-outings would not disappear from Google's cache. I tried deleting it. I tried restoring it and changing it. The damn thing would not go away. I felt like the Ancient Blogger, and it was my albatross. Though my main blog was on WordPress, I had been blogging since 2003 at Blogspot. To nuke the offending post, I deleted my WordPress blog, planning to recreate it back on Blogger. But the archived copy was unusable. I restored as much of my blog as I could at the new/old location, but some posts were lost and others lost their comments.

Which, I decided, was my karma for getting into a flamewar. At least the offending page was gone.


2010

Continuing effects of violations of Internet pseudonymity

After Racefail 09, wherever I mentioned anything about class, a warrior would derail the conversation with the claim I had outed Micole or cite her "do not engage", because she had left the charges against me public while hiding the evidence that she had changed her public record.

The story of Micole's pseudonymity was further complicated on June 30, when someone created an account and left several comments at Jane Austen's World that hotlinked Micole's name and LJ. I came across them a few months later and added them to the examples of her habit of using her name and LJ in public.

In 2010, in the comments at Charles Tan's blog, someone claimed I had outed Micole. Robert N. Lee replied using her name and LJ. Micole wrote “Continuing effects of violations of Internet pseudonymity” and claimed " since Mr. Sh*tt*rl* is publically discussing this issue and ONCE AGAIN linking my name to my blog..."

James Nicoll, a great lover of gossip, shared Micole's charge.

Tan deleted the post and comments, but Robert left this public comment on his Buzz site: "So, uh, actually I "outed" her, slyly. Because that whole "outing" thing is a bunch of bullshit. But anyway, this is what (a) liars or (b) poor readers or (c) star fucker/haters or (d) all of the above these people are."

Because I'd been banned from their LJs, I couldn't ask Micole or Nicoll to check the facts. Eventually, friends of friends interceded. Nicoll deleted the charge without explanation and Micole changed her post to "since Mr. Sh*tt*rl* is publically discussing this issue and ONCE AGAIN linking[encouraging other people to link] my name to my blog..."

Naturally, she didn't bother to cite me encouraging anyone to link her name to her blog, because I hadn't.

In her post, she denied making the account at Jane Austen's World, saying, "I have never commented in any blog listing both this URL and my full name." It may well be that someone made the account in her name. In every fail, there have been trolls who decided to add to the fun. But her statement is only true if "blog" doesn't include her own LJ or doing things like publicly posting a story with her legal byline on it for International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day and linking to it at Jo Walton's LJ.

Sometime after that, a commenter at my blog said, "coffeeandink should really take the "Do not engage" post down. Because every time someone links to that post and dredges up the issue yet again, her name and identity come up again as well. And if she really wants to remain anonymous (though half the internet knows her name by now), constantly dredging up her "outing" again and again doesn't help."


Which was when I realized that acquiescing to her demands was playing her game.

2011

The Coffeeandink Countdown

In the summer of 2011, I began playing by my rules with the Coffeeandink Countdown. I gave Micole a week to decide whether she wanted to make all her posts using her name public again or to make her charges against me private. When she didn't respond within four days, I decided against dragging it out and posted this:
Dear Micole, go in peace 
I've restored your name to the posts where I used it before and I added it to my account of Racefail 09. I suggest that you restore the many posts where you used your name in public on your LJ, but that's entirely your decision, of course.
If you ever truly wish to be pseudonymous, let me know, and I'll delete your name again. Ain't no big.
If you're content with things as they are, go in peace.
But nothing is ever over on the internet. Soon after, K. Tempest Bradford and one of the Julias brought it up, so I posted this:
One irrelevant point, one lie 
At Why The Argument That People Using “Real Names” Are Better Behaved Online Rings False | The Angry Black Woman, K. Tempest Bradford makes a true, but irrelevant, point: using my real name doesn't stop me from doing what I do. Nor does it stop her from doing what she does: helping in the outing of her opponents, decrying racism while ignoring the possibility that factors like class prejudice might be at work, etc. 
But I do sometimes wonder about the reasoning of Micole [redacted] and Julia Sparkymonster when they decided to make their obsessive page about me. Did Micole honestly believe she was pseudonymous then? Did Julia? Would they have attacked so many people over the years deliberately using their own names? 
I suspect not. It's easier to attack when you believe you can hide. I suspect that's why Micole is claiming retroactive pseudonymity and Julia refuses to say whether she's pseudonymous. 
As for why Bradford's point is irrelevant, no one's claimed that using legal names will eliminate disagreement online. We're only saying that reduces it. 
In the comments there, Julia says, "...when they do things like post people’s phone number and/or address (which Will Shetterly has done) ..." I realize that to failfans, I "outed" Micole by noting that she had not been pseudonymous since at least 2006, but saying I posted her phone number or address is a simple lie.
I left Micole's last name on "the Pseudo-Pseudonymity of Coffeeandink" for about a year. But once I’d reclaimed the right to share what she had originally made public, I found myself pitying her. I still don't understand how she can believe she was pseudonymous, but she's clung to her story so tenaciously that perhaps she now believes she was. People can believe impossible things. So I’ve deleted her name from my sites again, and stand by what I said before: Micole, go in peace.