> Is there good reason to be arrogant on the net and not in person, when you
> are ashamed of that behavior?
Heres a different spin: the reason is because... *we dont really have a
choice!* We really *cant* be exactly the same in the flesh as we are
online, because of deep seated social programming since the time we
were zero to *be nice* and pleasant. Thats just what we do. It
would be damn hard to overpower those instincts, and furthermore,
its a good thing.
Consider: suppose Queene, you and I met at one of Natasha's lovely
gatherings and I acted or said some goofy thing like what I sometimes
write online, something that *if you read online* in the safety of your own
home, you wouldnt think anything about. Suppose I said, "Hey, that
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Id like to finger her wattle." You, sitting
there now, safe and alone, might just laugh or say "Silly person." If
we were face to face and I said that, you might be thinking "Uh oh,
if he comes another step closer, Ill kick for the groin, scream and run
for that exit..."
My point: online behaviour should be *allowed* and *expected* to be
a bit wackier, more open, more expressive, more free of the societal
taboos we have all been carefully programmed to observe. It isnt just
freedom to be arrogant: one is freer online to lavish inappropriate
complements and blatant flattery. Its all part of the fun of it. We
cannot and should not even *try* to match in the flesh our online
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:27 MDT