User talk:Sashanan

I got your message and I've voted accordingly. At the risk of breaching Wikiquette, I'm more than a little bit miffed at what I view as your apparent attempt at trolling. At least I was able to vote to delete this thing. Sad part is, it's well-written and believable. Please consider using your skills to improve this site rather than to disrupt it. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to use my skills to improve this site, by hopefully increasing knowledge of a little-known subject. It's a pity that you are miffed by such attempts to illuminate - maybe the entire site offends? The reason that it is believable is merely because it is based in as much direct testimony from Dutch people as I can gather. Admittedly, not all accounts agree with each other, but there is a common enough theme throughout. I hope that you will change your mind about the relevance of direct testimony from people who wish to remain anonymous, and will understand that it is not meant to offend anyone. Merely to educate people about a little-known aspect of Dutch culture. Sashanan 18:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're saying is true, then I'll gladly change my vote, offer my sincerest apologies for accusing you of trolling and even work to expand the article. I basing my decision on the "sockpuppet" votes and a complete lack of relevant Google hits. Please show me proof. That's all. I know Google isn't the beat-all-end-all of info. It's the best we have until someone comes up with something better. - Lucky 6.9 19:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that everything in my entry is true. I have a number of Dutch sources, who provided me with first-hand accounts, but some of them need translation. It is a pity that you are so suspicious about such myths, but understandable, since they are difficult to believe without evidence. I guess that it will be a while before any direct evidence will be available, or even exists, but this doesn't mean that such myths are "false" or whether any myth can be described in any other way? Or that it will ever be possible to prove or disprove a definition such as this. Hopefully, you will accept that the reports I have received are genuine? Sashanan

I want to believe you. I really do. You must admit, however that if you were looking at it from the point-of-view of other users, your claims seem kind of sketchy. I certainly can't prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, but plenty of verifiable stories about them abound. I once rescued a story about a Filipino mythological creature called Nuno. It was written by a non-native speaker and was so convoluted that I started to tag it as vandalism. A quick Google search uncovered a wealth of information on the myth. None exists for yours. Can you point me toward an online source? - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some myths never gain enough currency to get any online attention. I first heard about the myth directly from someone in Holland, and many of the stories have conflicting reports about how the creature appears and so on. There are enough similarities to warrant further research, and I have collected enough material (drawings, diary entries, first hand accounts and so on) to make an interesting chapter in my book about the field, already. Admittedly, it may look suspicious that a lesser-known myth is so little known, but hopefully the Sashanan will soon be as well-known as the other mythic figures you mention - and this will change online. I hope you will give me the benefit of any doubt which might exist? Sashanan 11:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and looked your article over yet again. "Fudge-packing?" "Pedophilia?" If this isn't an attack page, I don't know what is. I refuse to fuel this any further. OK? You got us. Joke's on us. Ha, ha. This "article" will be gone in a couple of days. However, one more sockpuppet vote or one more plausible-sounding explanation that isn't more than a waste of time means that I will report this matter to the "vandalism in progress" page, likely leading to your user name and/or IP being blocked. You're obviously an intelligent person. Please consider doing some good here. - Lucky 6.9 20:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that everything you read is genuine. The myth has been extensively researched, even if you do not accept that (for instance) the original Red Riding Hood myth had its roots in such paedophilic ideas. If your existence here is to censor those whose only attempt is to illuminate, then that is a matter for your own conscience. I have had two accounts on Wikipedia, this one and another which is now deleted. You may report me for whatever offences you feel I have committed. Telling the truth, and trying to illuminate seem to have been at the forefront of this site's ideals, once. Sashanan 21:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of the Sashanan. I used to work in Holland - 'Sash' was described to me as a bloated man sized baby that sexually defiled real children in their own homes. He was supposed to have big idiotic eyes and very small genitalia, so as to fit.