From: obrien@netcom.com (No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB)
Subject: Re: Oxymorons, and other important trivia
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:21:23 GMT


O.K., fine.  I finally feel like taking a shot at what this has become.


In article <76314@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>In article <27754@sybase.sybase.com> tim@sybase.com (Tim Wood) writes:
>>One can't excuse an obnoxious personality with the plea that "it's only
>>the net, we're just playing with our computers here, aren't we?"  I
>>expect to be held to what I post (and email and say and do) and hold
>>others to the same standard.  A lot of hostility could be avoided if
>>people would act as if what they said and did and wrote mattered.
>
>I disagree, and I stand by what I said.  Here's why:  While it is true that
>the net is a meeting of minds, it is also more anonymous than a face-to-face
>meeting with someone.  Things are said and done on the net that would never
>even be imagined in person.  For example, if someone walks up to you and says
         ^^^^^^^^   
	I disagree with this 100%.  If one would not even imagine it
	in person, I don't believe one will think of it to post.

>"You are a boring twit, and I don't want to have anything to do with you.
>Leave me alone!" in public, they would likely get a lot of strange looks and
>probably be considered rude and obnoxious by others.  Yet this same behavior
>is tolerated, even encouraged, on the net.
>
	Gee, that's funny.  I've said essentially the same thing
	to someone in person and in public, and I meant it.  And 
	the more I read the net, the more I think it likely this
	will happen again someday.  Not likely to Ed, though, since
	I do not consider him boring.

>Another example:  Suppose you meet some MOTAS on the net, and things get,
>um, "steamy", either in email or on the phone.  You finally meet, and the
>reality doesn't match what you have built up in your own minds.  Shit
>happens, as they say.  The fact is, on the net, you get to see only a very
>small part of a person's personality, while in person, you get to experience
 ^^^^^^^^^^

	Aha!  Now we're getting somewhere.  You are beginning to 
	recognize that this material that may offend some *must*
	originate _somewhere_ within the person who posts it.  We've
	all got parts of what make up our personality that we would
	prefer not to be judged by, and in most cases do not deserve
	to be judged by, but those traits are PART of what we are.
	If one is unable to control these impulses or decides not to,
	one must be willing to accept the consequences.

>the whole person.  IMO, expecting to hold others to what they post and write
>is somewhat naive.  Things are written in the heat of the moment that would
>never be said in person.  I have finally met several people on the net with
>whom I had had an adversarial net relationship, yet we ended up becoming good
>friends after meeting in person.  So, no, the net isn't real life, and
>anyone who imagines otherwise is, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, "living in a
>dreamworld".

	No, the net is not identical to "real life" but it is
	undeniably a facet of it.  In my opinion, expecting NOT
	to be held to what one posts is the naivete.  The net is
	a *less* immediate form of communication than in-person
	speech.  One *can* retract or delete anything after 
	entering the words, up to a point.

	I must take exception strongly to the quote "Things are
	written in the heat of the moment that would never be
	said in person."  I think someone who believes that
	to be quite foolish in the presumption that the return
	key presses itself.  Yet in speech, the words are 
	often received by others even before the mind composing
	them completes the phrase.  Anyone actually posting
	"in the heat of the moment" deserves every BTU they
	recieve in response.

	There is a well-established net convention for when one
	posts something one does not want to be held to,
	but gee, what might that be?  ;-)

	So, while I agree that it would be foolish to reach
	a conclusion about a person based on that person's 
	postings (some exceptions can be made), it is even
	more foolish to ignore the fact that the person's
	postings constitute data which should be integrated
	into an eventual conclusion, if one is needed.

	In closing, the communication media we are discussing
	is bidirectional.  What one brings to it, gets out of
	it, and/or understands from it is dependent on a set
	of conventions and protocols employed by the users.
	The interpretation Ed suggests would be perfectly
	valid if it were in common use.  I think it is not.


	Bob "I hate it when you drive me to this" O'Bob