---
id: 2026-02-27T17:48:43-0500
title: 2026-02-27 17:48:43
tags:
  - status/draft
  - topic/hobbies/writing
daily: "[[2026-02-27]]"
date-created: 2026-02-27T17:48:43-05:00
---
# 2026-02-27 17:48:43

I've meant to ask my peers who read these notes
how they feel about my using "my peer"
rather than their names,
even when my paraphrasing is so specific
as to leaves no doubt of authorship.

I'd figured I'd respect their wishes on the matter,
but thinking about what my reasoning must have been
(before it became consistency)
I'll probably keep doing it anyway,
however I feel I owe them an explanation.

These peers sound like you, but they are not.
They are characters of my imagining,
their actions and beliefs
subject to the whims of the narrative.
You'll find that they tend to reinforce my own beliefs
more often than you would.
Ambiguous attribution is how I hint that an interaction is embellished
without harshing the whimsy.

And another thing:

The people that I do this for, I _think aloud_ with:
speaking with the understanding that I will say things
that are ill advised or poorly reasoned.
I've said before I'd rather not be credited for my ideas,
not least because ideas are free and I am nothing if not frugal.
If y'all properly cited me
on some of the dumb shit I say in implied confidence,
I'd cry.

In conclusion:
You could call it plagiarism, but I'd disagree.
_Intellectual dishonesty_ I'll grant,
so long as you agree it's tasteful, or at least fun.
