pete@stc.co.uk (02/18/86)
Having been a subscriber to USENET for about a year or so I
have had the opportunity to read many messages, to post a few and to
send and receive e-mail. Each time I see an interaction, or take part
in one, I find myself wondering about the other part[y,ies].
How do we _see_ each other? There are not the clues from
intonation of voice that I get as a radio amateur when having a
conversation with someone whom I have never seen. During a QSO it is
possible, due to the faster interaction plus voice clues, to form a
mental picture of the other party which, if it doesn't correspond to
reality, can match the image that he is presenting.
(I'm going to say 'he' and 'him'. Firstly, that's normal English.
Secondly, the greater proportion of radio amateurs and USENETters are
male.)
The only clues in this medium are contained in the content of
the message and the signature. Both may be deceptive.
(Is this the same Peter Kendell? It's coming from the same site. How
do you know I'm not pirating his account?)
I try to form a mental image of a net contributor, but there
are very few indicators. Does Gene Spafford really have horns and a
forked tail? Are the Leepers really the same person (hermaphroditic)?
Is Keith Petersen a Nordic blond giant with huge pecs and a surfer's
tan? I dunno.
What am I like? (Flames to /dev/inferno!) Here are some
physical descriptions:
a) Fair hair, 5'8", 21, 130 pounds, studious type,
no sexual interest, single, liberal.
b) Red hair, 6'1", 25, 180 pounds, outdoor type,
homosexual, single, liberal.
c) Grey (alas!) hair, 5'10", 48, 150 pounds, plays golf,
heterosexual, married, conservative.
d) Mid-brown hair, 6'2", 33, 170 pounds, goes
hill-walking, heterosexual, married, liberal.
e) Dark-brown hair, 5'7", 37, 180 pounds, keen on cars,
heterosexual, single, apolitical.
f) No hair, 4'6", 99, 280 pounds, violent, bisexual,
single (12 mistresses/slaves), Fascist.
Guesses/deductions are welcome. I'll let anyone who asks know
the truth. While we're at it: am I male or female? (vide George Eliot)
The tendency of the net to encourage slanging matches may be
nothing to do with the personalities involved; although that in
itself is an interesting question. The radio amateur is often
portrayed as an introspective, shy, non-social character who can only
conduct a relationship over the air - I've seen one TV play where
this point of view was put forward and I've met one or two amateurs
who are like that. There may well be a 'net type' (would we admit to
it?)
It is more likely that the nature of the medium itself
encourages poor interpersonal communication. The :-) may not be
enough.
What's the answer? (do we need an answer?) I don't think that
every posting should sound like 'The Dating Game' (I'm twenty-one,
have brown hair and blue eyes and just _love_ children!). But there
must be room for telling each other more about ourselves than we do
now, else we're not communicating, only swapping data.
--
Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP>
...!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete
`When your achievements match your expectations,
it's time to move on.'