QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Accidental Community - Email Gone Wild

12
Christa
04-22-2017
09:59 AM ET (US)
Many thanks! This a amazing web page.

Here is my page - เช็คเบี้ยประกันร–ยน•์ชั้น1
Edited 04-22-2017 09:59 AM
  Messages 11-7 deleted by author between 07-27-2006 10:03 AM and 07-21-2006 08:58 AM
6
Wasted InkPerson was signed in when posted
11-04-2003
08:35 PM ET (US)
A similar event happened on the mailing list for the Gates Foundation (yes, Billy’s). The foundation sends out press releases by email announcing new projects it funds. It is supposed to be a read only list. However, people were able to respond to one of the posts. Subscribers seized the opportunity to talk about the projects they were working on, realizing they had a worldwide audience of “like-minded individuals.”

Posters assumed that everyone on the list had the same motives for receiving the press releases. But this is not the case. Our interests are varied, including people working in the medical field, people working in/for developing countries, fundraisers who keep tabs on many foundations, people interested in knowing how Mr. Gates is spending his money, etc. These are not necessarily all “like-minded individuals.” Depending on the perspective, a reader might have found the extra messages a nuisance or of interest.

I also found it ironic that Bill Gates’ foundation couldn’t manage to send out an email without screwing it up.
Edited 11-04-2003 08:36 PM
5
La_NuiTPerson was signed in when posted
10-27-2003
10:45 AM ET (US)
I found another term from McLuhan that better describes what is happening with spams, emails and blogs. Spam I think is a symptom of the "overheated" medium of email. Some blogs are saying that email is dying (McLuhan would say it is "reversing") and that people will switch to domains instead. Blogs are one of these intriguing "hybrids" that McLuhan tries to inform us about in Chapter 5 of "Understanding Media". He says that when we get hybrids (interprenetration of one medium by another), the violent release of energy (either by explosion or implosion, fusion or fission, this I am not so sure if I understand) snaps us out for a brief period from the Narcissus-narcosis numbing effects of media, which I think is why it leads us to question about the nature of reality. (The "numbing" effect" is like the fish not knowing it is swimming in water.) Did I understand this correctly, Mark?

I think the fact that we are constantly coming back to the discussion of whether cyberspace is real or not, is what McLuhan describes in his intriguing Chapter 5, a symptom of the linear, "visual, specialist, fragmented" western mind struggling (and maybe resisting) to understand the "new" aural, acoustic, interdependant tribal space that electronic media has brought to the world. McLuhan, sees it so violently that he calls it "civil war" in media.

For people of the east, who easily accepts different modes of realities, like in dreamtime, like in spirit worlds, which actually are just expressions of their understanding of our interdependence with our environment, there is no need to argue about whether it is real or not. So it exists, it's an experience, it affects us, fullstop, end of discussion about its reality. It's interesting to also note that only in the west do they passionately go about trying to proof whether God, ghosts, or UFOs exist or not. Isn't it more constructive to discuss about how it affects us, or even better to take action in preventing its adverse effects?

Excuse me for any offenses taken, I really don't mean to offend. This is a demonstration of how cultural differences do exist underneath the stream of seemingly communicated communication going on in the internet and other fora. I am still learning how to do it differently without a clash or without swinging to the other extreme of "non-engagement", and am trying to build "constructive engagement" here. (Those were terms borrowed from Thai-Burmese or Thai-Cambodian bilateral relationship, during its war period, which is an ongoing disagreement within Thai-US relations.)
4
La_NuiTPerson was signed in when posted
10-25-2003
02:21 PM ET (US)
This discussion has left me with many points to ponder upon. My husband passed me an article this morning (because I don't like to read the newspaper), "Guess What? I don't have email". And I was already thinking that maybe spams and email is what McLuhan would call the "break boundary" caused by "cross-fertilisation" (between what exactly still needs to be explored) and that maybe blogs are reversals of emails. The above article on email, I think, also strengthens Mark's teaching the other day with the case of "Rape in Cyberspace", that maybe complete freedom is not what we want. But I don't agree with Valgardson (the article writer), that putting a charge on email will solve the problem, and he cut himself off from any meaningful dialogue that could be issued by his article by closing his public email account, who's going to pick up a phone and call Victoria (esp. with Bell-charged phones)?
3
TammyBPerson was signed in when posted
10-22-2003
01:53 PM ET (US)
This article reminds me of the time when email went wild on a listserv I am subscribed to.

Some folks went on holidays and activated their "out of office" (OOO) autoreply message but forgot to "unsubscribe" or turn off their membership in the listserv. You can imagine the chaos that ensued. Each time someone posted a message to the listserv (30 posts/day on average overall), each one of us also received several OOO msgs. Compound that with individual replies to each post and the subsequent annoying OOO messages to each reply...well I'm amazed the server didn't shut down. Forget 14 hours, it took several days before the problem was fixed since, as it turned out, the listserv administrator was also on holidays.

An interesting self-regulating effect emerged from that e-nightmare. Everyone is super careful now to remember to unsubscribe from the list when they go away after witnessing the wrath of fellow listserv community members. Periodic reminders are also sent out by the administrator (which didn't happen before) to inform any new members of the "new rules".

Personally, I see digiSpace as very real, so much so that perhaps many of us consider it to be so real that it should also be infallible, secure and impenetrable. Even though a little voice at the back of our heads keeps nagging us that there's no such thing...
2
Mark FedermanPerson was signed in when posted
10-22-2003
10:17 AM ET (US)
I believe the disconnection that occurs in most people regarding the realty of digiSpace has a lot to do with people's visceral reaction to spam and junk mail - the reaction often mimics that of a physical violation. With any thought at all, one could easily conclude that the intensity of the reaction is considerably greater than what the actual trespass of violating the sanctity of the inbox would merit. Thus, something else is happening psychologically. My working hypothesis (ie. marginally educated guess) is that we are reacting not to the appearance of the inbox item, but to the realization that digiSpace, that we took to be "virtual" or ephemeral or simply not real, is indeed very real. This is a deep ground effect, so it will not at all be obvious, nor consciously admitted by most people, except in retrospect once they have indeed accepted the reality of digiSpace, and all its implications.
1
mindyfm
10-22-2003
09:13 AM ET (US)
interesting article.

the immediate nature of the internet/email is probably one reason for the immediate reaction of the people involved. also, for some reason, spam seems more personal than junk mail (in your mail box). maybe we think it is (or should be) harder to find us via the world wide web than it is through a phone book?

how big/small is this university? i think that may have also contributed to the sense of community. nationalism on the university level. plus they were suddenly on joined by being on this list. it doesn't take much (obviously) for people to identify themselves as part of a group or collective.

Print | RSS Views: 4284 (Unique: 1725 ) / Subscribers: 0 | What's this?