Personally, I think half of why so many flamewars happen around here is people who think they can psychoanalyze others based upon their writing, or, like you said, think they can determine motivation as well as meaning. The information simply is not there.

There are, of course, ways to add some clues. But it requires conscious effort to add those clues, and they may or may not be sincere.

Most nonverbal clues are also unconscious--and interpreted unconsciously--which makes them so much more valuable aids in furthering a relationship. Through text, there is no way to judge imminent conflict/unhappiness/whatever unless the person is self-conscious enough to add clues deliberately.

In short, the texture, depth, and context of a relationship are absent online. Unless you live in a shack surrounded by miles upon miles of wilderness, it's far better to seek companionship in the real world.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Those who know a little about communications will realize that nonverbal clues make up the majority of information in a conversation. Such things are utterly lacking in any kind of online relationship.

While online is undoubtedly a perfectly valid place in which to meet people, how can one honestly claim to be in any kind of real relationship when, by definition, one is missing most of the information in each communique?

There are a lot of people in the world, and it seems silly to me to settle for a relationship in which most of the communication is missing.

---

I disagree 'Sage. True, being several hundred miles away from each other, there is an amount of communication missing; but I wouldn't call it "most". Amanda and I talk on the phone a lot; especially on weekends. Last Sunday we talked about everything and nothing for the better part of an hour. She and I both noticed we talk differently over the phone than we do over EQ/YIM.

True, we can't kiss and hug and comfort each other physically, but by using emotes we can get our point across, and make the emotions we're feeling plain. I actually think I talk "Better" over EQ/YIM than I do over the phone. A good imagination helps both of us to imagine one person has the other in a warm hug, for example. She knows I'm not there, but she knows what I'd be doing if I was.

It's a question of "making the most of the situation". But I wouldn't say "most" of the communication is missing.

Personally, I think half of why so many flamewars happen around here is people who think they can psychoanalyze others based upon their writing, or, like you said, think they can determine motivation as well as meaning. The information simply is not there.

There are, of course, ways to add some clues. But it requires conscious effort to add those clues, and they may or may not be sincere.

Most nonverbal clues are also unconscious--and interpreted unconsciously--which makes them so much more valuable aids in furthering a relationship. Through text, there is no way to judge imminent conflict/unhappiness/whatever unless the person is self-conscious enough to add clues deliberately.

In short, the texture, depth, and context of a relationship are absent online. Unless you live in a shack surrounded by miles upon miles of wilderness, it's far better to seek companionship in the real world.

{This one may be a double post--internet's being strange today}

quote:

---

Mightion Defensor spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I disagree 'Sage. True, being several hundred miles away from each other, there is an amount of communication missing; but I wouldn't call it "most". Amanda and I talk on the phone a lot; especially on weekends. Last Sunday we talked about everything and nothing for the better part of an hour. She and I both noticed we talk differently over the phone than we do over EQ/YIM.

True, we can't kiss and hug and comfort each other physically, but by using emotes we can get our point across, and make the emotions we're feeling plain. I actually think I talk "Better" over EQ/YIM than I do over the phone. A good imagination helps both of us to imagine one person has the other in a warm hug, for example. She knows I'm not there, but she knows what I'd be doing if I was.

It's a question of "making the most of the situation". But I wouldn't say "most" of the communication is missing.

---

I didn't ask whether you agreed with me.

It's a fact, as anyone with even a small background in communication theory knows. More information is transmitted and processed nonverbally than many people assume.

Really.

quote:

---

Bloodsage impressed everyone with:

There are a lot of people in the world, and it seems silly to me to settle for a relationship in which most of the communication is missing.

---

I do partiall agree with this however. Not that any of the communication is lacking, but the settling part. In order for it to flourish, or become something more. You can't settle for a digital association. Eventually, at some point, physical associations have to happen. If it doesn't, it's a friendship, and nothing more. Which isn't a bad thing, but the extra step has too be taken to validate a completion of the relationship.

quote:

---

Faeth Es'Braewyn obviously shouldn't have said:
What Suddar said.

And I happen to be very good at picking up on personal quirks and misnomers. And I can usually tell how someone is feeling, possibly with a natural empaty. And Im usually about 90% correct in my assumptions, which my friends around here can probably vouche for. I know when and what they are feeling more often than not, and it's not all that hard to adjust to it. I connect really well with people sometimes, it just works out that way.

---

So now you're psychic?

Strange you should pop up with that assertion, since you're batting .000 applying those skills to me, though you've tried on several occasions.

Nor did I claim it was impossible to get to know someone over time. The fact remains, however, that more information is received nonverbally than verbally in any given conversation.

Really, though...you're right, it takes conscious effort to give "nonverbal" clues over the internet. But, while we (I) decide to put them there, we (I) do so because any other way wouldn't fit how we were feeling. Or something.

And you're right, again, that the interpretation online usually isn't unconscious. But I think that between two people who've "connected" on that level, it...is. I never tried to see how whoever was feeling or how whatever was happy or how they were depressed. It just...happened. You get this...gut feeling, and you do know that something's wrong or something's good or when you've got one of those moments that you'll never forget on your hands.

Really, it can happen. I know from experience, it can happen. And it can work. It's just harder on people and I really don't think it's for everybody, or even the vast majority of the population. But I do think it's out there.

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Suddar Williams ]

It's simply a trick of memory that you remember the few times they happened to coincide with reality, rather than the many times they didn't.

That's why it seems bread always falls butter-side down: it doesn't, but you tend to remember the times that it does better than the times it doesn't.

I'd have to say... nothing comes close to actually seeing her. Hearing her voice over the phone helps alot, and text online does its thing so we can still talk because we cant just goto each other's houses at a whim and it is an alternative to racking up a $500 long distance or cellular bill. You CAN still feel emotions from the text on the screen, it does become very real, trust me. I mean, You still feel things from a letter right? So what is to say that you couldnt from something digital. Especially when you can instantly respond back. You can see emotions in the text, and they are fairly easy to pick up when talking to someone you care alot about.

Online IS a great medium to help fuel the beginnings of a relationship, and also to spend the time together when other things prevent meetings for real. But still... Absolutely Nothing replaces seeing the person.

Once more, I guess that depends on who you're asking. Personally, I do need those missing parts. Others may not.

I do see the merit in what Bloodsage is saying in that an online-only relationship cuts out some important personality aspects. Things like personal hygene, social conduct, or sexual behaviors don't often just "pop up" in a conversatoin.

The same thing could be said about two people who date but don't live together, however. Does that make thier love any less legitimate than two people who do live together?

What are grounds for legitimacy in love anyways? Does legitimacy even really matter?

quote:

---

Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
So now you're psychic?

Strange you should pop up with that assertion, since you're batting .000 applying those skills to me, though you've tried on several occasions.

Nor did I claim it was impossible to get to know someone over time. The fact remains, however, that more information is received nonverbally than verbally in any given conversation.

---

Your also not someone Ive tried to get to know either. And I said usually about 90% on top of that. If I dont care enough to get to know you then I'm not trying to establish a relationship to begin with, which means it has no basis here.

People do convey a lot more information online when you become close to them, or form an attachment. Because they MAKE the concious effort to convey that.

I've said what I wanted to say. I'll be stepping out of this thread now, because I really have nothing else to add and going in circles would be pointless.

I will, however, say this:
Online relationships can't replace the real thing, ever. As Pesco said, nothing, at all, can top being with somebody in person. I would never claim otherwise, even though I've never experienced it myself. But I don't think you're giving us enough credit. I don't think you're giving anybody here enough credit, really.

I know you probably don't buy into any of the romanticized crap about love, because I really don't either. But you've been in love, haven't you? That's probably why you think the way you do, so I'll assume yes. Well...there's something there, and I'd hope you notice that. It's not all to be taken at face value. When you're in love, you're in love, no matter what the method of communication may be. Some methods are harder to work with than others, but they're there. I firmly stand by and believe that, naive as it may seem to you. That underlying emotion is not something I really feel would be limited by text. I've felt it through text, and I'd really rather not argue about whether or not it was real or fake, because I'm sure both of us are very set in our beliefs and that's fine.

You're not giving us enough credit, or you aren't giving the human capacity to love enough credit. Not everything is logical and not everything goes by the rules. I think love is one of those things, personally. One of those things that can't break the rules, but at least bend them. If you don't...well, that's your thing. But this is mine.

So yeah.

If someone consciously makes an effort, and if that someone is being honest, there are ways to communicate such via text.

But it has nothing to do with any innate ability to "connect" with people, or to read their feelings via subtle clues in their text.

The entire point is that there's a wealth of nonverbal interaction which is simply impossible to duplicate online. You may fall madly "in love" with someone in a chat room, but meet only to find the way she twirls her bangs and chomps gum whenever she talks infuriating.

Real, in-the-flesh relationships are so much richer than online relationships that there is no comparison, much less equivalency. Reality > online in every way.

So why seek the diet, nonfat, caffeine-free, very low sodium, sugar free variety when the real thing is one aisle over?

quote:

---

Suddar Williams said this about your mom:
*shrugs*

I've said what I wanted to say. I'll be stepping out of this thread now, because I really have nothing else to add and going in circles would be pointless.

I will, however, say this:
Online relationships can't replace the real thing, ever. As Pesco said, nothing, at all, can top being with somebody in person. I would never claim otherwise, even though I've never experienced it myself. But I don't think you're giving us enough credit. I don't think you're giving anybody here enough credit, really.

I know you probably don't buy into any of the romanticized crap about love, because I really don't either. But you've been in love, haven't you? That's probably why you think the way you do, so I'll assume yes. Well...there's something there, and I'd hope you notice that. It's not all to be taken at face value. When you're in love, you're in love, no matter what the method of communication may be. Some methods are harder to work with than others, but they're there. I firmly stand by and believe that, naive as it may seem to you. That underlying emotion is not something I really feel would be limited by text. I've felt it through text, and I'd really rather not argue about whether or not it was real or fake, because I'm sure both of us are very set in our beliefs and that's fine.

You're not giving us enough credit, or you aren't giving the human capacity to love enough credit. Not everything is logical and not everything goes by the rules. I think love is one of those things, personally. One of those things that can't break the rules, but at least bend them. If you don't...well, that's your thing. But this is mine.

So yeah.

---

Of course I've been in love. I am in love. Been married 13 years this June, as a matter of fact.

If one is already in love, most of what you say is true.

Real love, on the other hand, is something that can only grow and flourish in person. The seed may be planted online, but it only flowers in person.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Bloodsage stammered:
So why seek the diet, nonfat, caffeine-free, very low sodium, sugar free variety when the real thing is one aisle over?

---

Yea... but it isnt an aisle over for some, such as myself. It is down the street, around the corner, and 500 miles north.

THAT is the tough part. All other "speed bumps" of a relationship that started online are nothing compared to distance. But.. it is sort of a blessing in its own right, as it makes every second spent with your partner just that much more special. And if you are in the right sort of relationship, it will help fuel it along. But it's still hard... very very hard

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
Real love, on the other hand, is something that can only grow and flourish in person. The seed may be planted online, but it only flowers in person.

---

Then we agree.

I never argued that point. The online world can only take you so far, and if you ride the wave out it may just stall. The "real world," as they call it in these parts, is indeed superior to the online world in almost every way, you're right.

But you mentioned...

quote:

---

So why seek the diet, nonfat, caffeine-free, very low sodium, sugar free variety when the real thing is one aisle over?

---

And..well, sometimes it's all we have. You'll have to accept that not everybody is as articulate, socially adept and...well, there, I can't even think of the word. So we'll use a second-class substitute for now...direct, as you certainly seem to be. And we can't just walk into a bar or dance or whatever is appropriate for us and pick up somebody to date. I know I can't, and I'm not proud of that and I do work to change that, but until I do I have to stick to the diet, nonfat, caffeine-free, very low sodium, sugar free variety. And someday that will change. And maybe I'll meet somebody. REALLY meet somebody. But I do think the internet provides a valid temoporary solution. Do we agree there?

quote:

---

Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
Which is my point.

If someone consciously makes an effort, and if that someone is being honest, there are ways to communicate such via text.

But it has nothing to do with any innate ability to "connect" with people, or to read their feelings via subtle clues in their text.

The entire point is that there's a wealth of nonverbal interaction which is simply impossible to duplicate online. You may fall madly "in love" with someone in a chat room, but meet only to find the way she twirls her bangs and chomps gum whenever she talks infuriating.

Real, in-the-flesh relationships are so much richer than online relationships that there is no comparison, much less equivalency. Reality > online in every way.

So why seek the diet, nonfat, caffeine-free, very low sodium, sugar free variety when the real thing is one aisle over?

---

Sometimes it's not a question of what one seeks; but rather what one finds.

This may come as a shock, 'Sage; but some of us lack finely honed social skills!

Including me. I've told Amanda so much in text that would have come out a stammering, confusing mess in person.

I will meet her in person when conditions allow. That doesn't make our relationship any less real.

In-person relationships are not only richer, but much easier. And in-person relationships are quite hard enough as-is.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Distance also increases the chance of ultimate failure approximately a zillion-fold.

In-person relationships are not only richer, but much easier. And in-person relationships are quite hard enough as-is.

---

Also agreed. But again, sometimes it's all we have.

I don't think anybody here is especially happy with an online-only relationship, but then again they are, because it's all they have...and much, much better than nothing.

quote:

---

So quoth Bloodsage:
Distance also increases the chance of ultimate failure approximately a zillion-fold.

---

Only for people that lack patience.

quote:

---

In-person relationships are not only richer, but much easier. And in-person relationships are quite hard enough as-is.

---

I wont argue that point as I know it is true.

quote:

---

Mightion said:
Sometimes it's not a question of what one seeks; but rather what one finds

---

Amen, Brother.

For now, I will slowly chip away at the distance issue in my relationship until it vanishes. I can live with a little less then a year of monthly visits and vacations spent with her, I mean hell... I've gone longer then that without seeing her

No, a relationship to the level we speak of cant last forever online only. But making a slow transition from online to "reality" doesnt give it any more chance of failure then a "normal" relationship. There are still the same basic rules of a relationship that must be followed no matter how it is executed.

But the point is that interpersonal skill can only be learned through practice, oddly enough.

It's quite possible to meet someone online and have everything work out. But I would never, ever recommend that as a place to seek a relationship. If it happens, go with it and see where it leads.

But if you're looking, I'd recommend looking IRL--for all the reasons we've discussed.

Well, now don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

(for the record, in both online relationships I've had I've not been "seeking"--they just sorta happened. and I'm still not looking for a relationship, online or off, but it still may happen.)

[edit: also, I realize that social "skill" can only really be gained from actually doing something social. I've found, as I've meandered through my teenage years, that being social isn't nearly as hard as I'd always painted it out to be--it's just fear, and if you can fight that fear long enough to feel like you fit in, you're set. I'm still trying, though.]

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Suddar Williams ]

Secondly: I am in love. In fact, I'm in love with someone online. This person lives 24 hours away, by PLANE. I have, however, seen this person, and he's seen me. How? We both have webcams. Also, I have heard his voice. How? Over the phone.

While you may not have two senses availble to you, you still have three. And I can tell form the look on his face when he's upset, or when he's happy, or when he's confused. I can tell from his voice if he's trying to hold back laughter, or trying not to get upset.

I'm going to try and study abroad the next year I'm in college. If it works out, I will be so very immensly thrilled. If it doesn't... I'll heal and move on. It's what happens. It's the risk you take in all relationships. And if it does work out? Then what, you want me to invite you to the wedding?

.... You talked about Fae being psycic. You know what, Sage? Neither are you. You have no idea if it will work, if it won't work. You don't know Chris, you don't know me, you don't know Matt, or Tori. You havn't talked to any of us about our long distance relationships. How is this different then meeting via' letter?

... You aren't psychic. So don't go tlkaing about other poeple's lives unless you know everything about them, personally. I don't talk about flying a plane, or having mastiffs is impossible. Why? Cause I have no experience in either.

Have a good day.

quote:

---

[edit: also, I realize that social "skill" can only really be gained from actually doing something social. I've found, as I've meandered through my teenage years, that being social isn't nearly as hard as I'd always painted it out to be--it's just fear, and if you can fight that fear long enough to feel like you fit in, you're set. I'm still trying, though.]

---

That's probably the most profound, useful statement I've seen in weeks.

You've earned the Bloodsage Seal of Approval! Remember to keep him moist, and consult the care and feeding instructions pinned to his collar.

And Gikk...you're late. The conflict has been defused.

Oh, well.

Then I shall gleefully bounce thorugh this thread!

BOUNCEBOUNCEBOUNCE

quote:

---

Gikkwiny had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
... First off.... Sage, who in the hell lit a match under your tail?

Secondly: I am in love. In fact, I'm in love with someone online. This person lives 24 hours away, by PLANE. I have, however, seen this person, and he's seen me. How? We both have webcams. Also, I have heard his voice. How? Over the phone.

While you may not have two senses availble to you, you still have three. And I can tell form the look on his face when he's upset, or when he's happy, or when he's confused. I can tell from his voice if he's trying to hold back laughter, or trying not to get upset.

I'm going to try and study abroad the next year I'm in college. If it works out, I will be so very immensly thrilled. If it doesn't... I'll heal and move on. It's what happens. It's the risk you take in all relationships. And if it does work out? Then what, you want me to invite you to the wedding?

.... You talked about Fae being psycic. You know what, Sage? Neither are you. You have no idea if it will work, if it won't work. You don't know Chris, you don't know me, you don't know Matt, or Tori. You havn't talked to any of us about our long distance relationships. How is this different then meeting via' letter?

... You aren't psychic. So don't go tlkaing about other poeple's lives unless you know everything about them, personally. I don't talk about flying a plane, or having mastiffs is impossible. Why? Cause I have no experience in either.

Have a good day.

---

Are you stupid, blinded by emotion, or simply unable to read?

Point to where I was speaking of any particular online relationship and predicting an outcome. I dare you.

Hate to break it to you, but testimonials mean exactly dick when discussing the efficacy of a product or course of action. That's why infomercials rely almost exclusively upon testimonials, in case you hadn't realized.

Just because someone tells you, "I won the lottery, and so can you!" doesn't mean you should invest your paycheck in lottery tickets. True, it worked for them, but your odds are still on the order of 100,000,000:1.

If you can't help but take an abstract conversation personally, you've no business participating, so go away. Consider this your warning not to flame Bloodsage if you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

You know, reading the thread in its entirety would help. I dunno, but I agree with Bloodsage when he says that the real thing is better than an online relationship. And he agrees with me when I say that an online relationship is better than nothing. Okay?

quote:

---

Densetsu got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Yep, since Bloodsage doesn't agree with it, it has no basis in reality! Do I get brownie points for sucking up?

---

*Hands Densetsu a brownie*

Stops bouncing.

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Gikkwiny ]

When I was a sophomore in college I was introduced to IRC and newsgroups, this was in '92, when the net was still somewhat new, (but never innocent heheh).

I met a woman online, she was sweet, we talked on the phone, I was very interested, she had a masters in psychology, and had her own place. I'm in Boston and she was in St. Louis. In college I was poorer than poor, so I took a greyhound from Boston to St. Louis to meet this woman. I rode on for 36 hours to St. Louis.

Here's where all my rl friends start to really laugh....I never got a picture. 36 hours on a greyhound with some wierd people, totally uncomfortable the whole trip. When I finally met her, let's just say I wanted to get back on the bus

Ok, was she not attractive to me? Yes. Did I want to be a super mean ass and leave her on looks alone no.

But her personality was even worse than her appearance. She had several mental and physical disorders that she had NOT shared. Plus, I was instructed on what to do should she be cut, cause she was a hemophiliac. And in the middle of conversations, she would stop and stare off into the distance, mid sentence.

Just make sure you get a picture if your going to go down the net romance route. For some it has meant incredible happiness, but I warn you, everyone wants to put their best foot forward on line, you'll never hear about the bad stuff till you see it yourself.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
*Hands Densetsu a brownie*

---

Joy!

...wtf?! You're one of those morons that puts ALMONDS on their brownies, aren't you? FUCK YOU!

quote:

---

nem-x Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Almonds rule! You heathen!

---

FUCK YOU TOO!

quote:

---

Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Point to where I was speaking of any particular online relationship and predicting an outcome. I dare you.

---

Predict the outcome of an in-person relationship. I dare you.

Same thing applies.. you cant

I am now going to lunch, anyone want a Frosty?

MEN RUNNING AROUND NAKED.

does so.

quote:

---

Pesco wrote this then went back to looking for porn:

I am now going to lunch, anyone want a Frosty?

---

MEMEMEMEME!

... please.

quote:

---

Pesco's account was hax0red to write:
I am now going to lunch, anyone want a Frosty?

---

Please.