Sophia's Identity Crisis

Anyone who reads Mt. Blogmore is sure to have come across the postings of commenter "Sophia." In fact recently, she's been posting in a flurry on the abortion topic over there. For example:

Friday was the final day of the task force’s life, and the day to create the final report. The right-wing Regressives had the majority of votes from the moment the task force was created, so they never had to consider science they didn’t agree with. Those Reegressives who were present included Benson, a twitchy little bug-eyed suit; Duenwald, senator from Hoven; Greenfield, about as bright as a white glow stick in a blizzard; Kraus, who has all the dullness of a butter knife. She can cut through soft butter, but nothing of substance. I swear there is not an ounce of creativity or energy or imagination in her entire body; Miles, who only spoke once, but was always sure to vote with her fellow men; Stransky, whose odd remarks you’ll read later; Unruh, from whom a scent of ill-defined but pervasive ickiness wafted; and Wachs.

As opposed to laying things out on philosophical grounds as to why she disagrees, Sophia from time to time resorts to the time honored tradition of personal insult, while remaining under cover of anonymity, other than her screen name. She disagreed with the people as in the passage above? Well, they are "dull," " dim" and "icky." Even though I don't care for Rush Limbaugh, deriding him as "Rush Limpballs" was another "sophism" I could have lived without.

Recently, until it was pointed out by a friend and colleague on Mt Blogmore, I hadn't noted this little passage. I found this interesting, intriguing, and I thought it might hold the answer to why this poster is propagandizing across the Internet and SD Blogosphere so much on the Abortion Task Force.

Remember, all these proposed measures were voted down, everyone of them. Makes you wonder what the regressives real priorities are.

Sophia: Since you were on the task force and understand the minority report so well, it would have been great if you could have summarized it for us. I think that is always more effective, for most people’s understanding, than a deluge of information. K.W.

Comment by Sophia — 12/18/2005 @ 10:44 pm

Whooaaaa. In responding to this post, Did Rapid City Journal Reporter Kevin Woster let slip a clue to who (the somewhat anonymous Mt. Blogmore poster) “Sophia” is?

It could have been an inadvertent slip of the typewriter, but “on the task force” is much different from “attended the task force.” So I looked at the task force roster.

Based on Kevin's comment, my initial suspicions were that it was entirely possible that "Sophia" might be Kate Looby ghostwriting. Tons of information on Abortion. A general dislike for conservative pro-life Republicans. And the rest.

So tonight, I did some research.

But my theory just didn’t jibe up with any evidence. Something was wrong here. Was I wrong about the identity of our mystery commenter who seems to hate conservatives with such a passion? Is our mysterious insulter someone else? The conclusion - Yup. I was dead wrong.

It’s not anyone who was on the committee. Not Kate Looby. Not Stan Adelstein. Not Brock Greenfield. Not Dr. Bell. That comment by Kevin only served as a red herring to throw me off the track..…

So the mystery deepened. Who is “Sophia”?

How could something this simple stump me. You know, “Me.” ‘PP’, sometimes referred to as “Professor PP”. The guy who calls himself a crack researcher. The guy who held a job as an investigator for about 5 years. The guy who unlike everyone else in the SD Blogosphere figured out who SD Blog Watch Man was. And I’m still kicking myself over doing it. (Come back SD Blog Watch man, come back).

So, I said to myself, "Self, I can’t be stumped so easily."

Going back and reassessing my assumption that Kevin spoke the gospel truth, I now started under the assumption that he meant “at” when he typed “on.”

I did a little research, and remembered some writings from Sophia on another weblog in the SD Blogosphere. I continued my research on Mt. Blogmore for clues to her identity. (Like Blue and Steve from “Blues Clues”). “Grew up on a farm”… "On earliest postings, listed home as Newell, " etc… And then, actually from information filed away in my head, and confirmed by another blogger, I came across it.

Originally, the information had been on the Internet for just a moment. It was there only briefly before anonymity was chosen. Through powers of deductive reasoning (despite being dimmed and abused by too many late nights in college) I’ve divined who it is. I’ve figured out the identity of “Sophia” on Mt. Blogmore.

I was actually a little surprised at the identity of this person who flings such disdain on conservative Republicans. Who calls Republican Legislators "Dim" and "Dull" for having a position which differs from her own.

At least when I give someone heck, I at least make the attempt to base it on a specific ignorant action. And those who feel my momentary scorn know who's scourging them. I don't go to any lengths to hide my identity. My screen name is about as un-anonymous as they come when coupled with my description about myself.

Ask anyone in Pierre who the PP is with six kids whose wife & kids are living in Brookings. I'd almost guarantee you won't have to go past asking three people. My name has often appeared in my comment sections, and other blogs have use my name from time to time, and it's no big deal. I use PP mainly to keep the crazies from calling at 2am, and also so new people will read this blog without being pre-prejudiced as to what it says. (Wait until afterwards to think I stink)

But anyway...... Because I think debate is what brings two opposing sides closer to an understanding, and I'm under no compulsion to release my evidence (which is there for anyone to find if they know where to look) , I'll just keep the Identity of Mt. Blogmore poster "Sophia" to myself. I still feel bad about SD Blog Watch Man, whom I might not have always agreed with, but he made me laugh. When I figured it out, he dropped his blog, and it only made myself and others suffer for my curiosity.

So, for those of you wondering, the information won't be released today. But let's leave it with a thought.

Today's "Jerry Springer parting thought?" You're never as anonymous as you might think you are on the Internet. So, argue, debate, and discuss. But try to leave personal insults out of it unless you're willing to publicly stand behind them. At least then people will see you have the strengths to stand behind your convictions.