NationStates Jolt Archive

I have made a terrible mistake, and I suspect a lot of other people have too. Over the last three or four years, I have spent a hell of a lot of time surfing the internet. I haven't spent very long at all hanging around my local area or talking to my neighbours. A lot of my instincts to be social are probably satisfied by the internet where previous generations would have gone outside and chatted over a fence. In doing this, I always assumed that being on the internet was being part of a great global dialogue, a brilliant exchange of ideas that would lead to creativity and blossoming friendships with different people.

Local people can often be unpleasant, and when they talk rubbish or disagree with me, it's awkward. Over the internet, I can ignore these people, and it's fun to watch stupidity from the safety of my own home. Because of this, I never talk to people who disagree with my beliefs. Sure, I might run into them every now and again, but the dialogue is missing. I reckon that I'm a worse person because I don't talk about things that matter face-to-face with someone who will disagree with me.

With the whole web2.0 thing starting, I'm also worried about the attempt to apply a process analogous to democracy onto the exchange of ideas. I read de Tocqueville's essays about early America last year, and feel that although there isn't a better idea for government, allowing a dictatorship of the majority to determine what we look at on the internet is a terrible idea.

Therefore, I put it to you all that although the internet may be satisfying our social instincts, and valuable friendships can arise here, it is crucially missing true dialogue and the exchange of ideas between people with different beliefs or cultures. Further, we shouldn't be spending so much time discussing politics on these boards and should instead go outside and discuss it with our neighbours.

What about the people who can multitask socially, and use the internet to do one thing and who often go out into the big wide world? I feel you're lumping everyone on this site together, in your own problem.

I don't like my neighbours :P

What about the people who can multitask socially, and use the internet to do one thing and who often go out into the big wide world? I feel you're lumping everyone on this site together, in your own problem.

Righty-ho. You win.

no fucking way, I hate my neighbours, and internet is a useful tool to overcome sosializing issues.

My neighbors speak Luxembourgish.

I always assumed that being on the internet was being part of a great global dialogue, a brilliant exchange of ideas that would lead to creativity and blossoming friendships with different people.

Ah, no. Being on the internet is wanking over porn and giggling at cat pics.

Oops, eh?

Therefore, I put it to you all that although the internet may be satisfying our social instincts, and valuable friendships can arise here, it is crucially missing true dialogue and the exchange of ideas between people with different beliefs or cultures.

your neighborhood is comprised of people currently living in a dozen different countries? your town has a healthy portion of everything from anarchist communists to liberts?

..."allowing a dictatorship of the majority to determine what we look at on the internet is a terrible idea."

Lucky no one had that idea then.

Even if, which it isn't, it's better than allowing a dictatorship of the minority to determine what we read in the papers or watch on TV.

What about the people who can multitask socially, and use the internet to do one thing and who often go out into the big wide world? I feel you're lumping everyone on this site together, in your own problem.

There's lumping, yes, but people as social creatures tend to have the same problems if you take a large enough slice of their populous. Making every thought a personal conflict of the author's a cheap way to file someone away in your mind.

I'd continue, but it's too early in the day to make a thorough pointless rebuttal...

So, you're(the OP) saying we should go and talk to people we know we don't like, rather than stay here and talk to people we know we do like?



Why?

I talk to other people at school, but I meet most of whatever social needs I have from online. It's not like I socialized much before I started using the internet, anyway...

What about the people who can multitask socially, and use the internet to do one thing and who often go out into the big wide world? I feel you're lumping everyone on this site together, in your own problem.

Sure, I talk to people outside, but I do so less than our ancestors did. Consider the kinds of intellectual societies where ideas were discussed during the enlightenment - that doesn't happen very much today, but it should.



Lucky no one had that idea then.

Even if, which it isn't, it's better than allowing a dictatorship of the minority to determine what we read in the papers or watch on TV.

I thought the main idea of web 2.0 was that links and user views were used to spread a video or blog or whatever and get it watched loads more. Even google's pagerank will throw the most clicked item to the top of a search. I would prefer to trust, say, the editor of the guardian to pick important stories for me to read than get whatever was popular on the internet. Or even worse, get google news feeding me only the news that I've demonstrated a previous interest in.

I chat with various people here on Nationstates and all my RL friends are on Myspace and I may open a Friendster account soon too

Sure, I talk to people outside, but I do so less than our ancestors did. Consider the kinds of intellectual societies where ideas were discussed during the enlightenment - that doesn't happen very much today, but it should.
Why?



I thought the main idea of web 2.0 was that links and user views were used to spread a video or blog or whatever and get it watched loads more. Even google's pagerank will throw the most clicked item to the top of a search. I would prefer to trust, say, the editor of the guardian to pick important stories for me to read than get whatever was popular on the internet. Or even worse, get google news feeding me only the news that I've demonstrated a previous interest in.

The editor of the guardian is going to publish stories that he thinks will make people buy the newspaper, i.e. stories that the readers will have an interest in. How is that different from google news showing you news you've already demonstrated an interest in?

I have made a terrible mistake, and I suspect a lot of other people have too. Over the last three or four years, I have spent a hell of a lot of time surfing the internet. I haven't spent very long at all hanging around my local area or talking to my neighbours. A lot of my instincts to be social are probably satisfied by the internet where previous generations would have gone outside and chatted over a fence. In doing this, I always assumed that being on the internet was being part of a great global dialogue, a brilliant exchange of ideas that would lead to creativity and blossoming friendships with different people.

Local people can often be unpleasant, and when they talk rubbish or disagree with me, it's awkward. Over the internet, I can ignore these people, and it's fun to watch stupidity from the safety of my own home. Because of this, I never talk to people who disagree with my beliefs. Sure, I might run into them every now and again, but the dialogue is missing. I reckon that I'm a worse person because I don't talk about things that matter face-to-face with someone who will disagree with me.

With the whole web2.0 thing starting, I'm also worried about the attempt to apply a process analogous to democracy onto the exchange of ideas. I read de Tocqueville's essays about early America last year, and feel that although there isn't a better idea for government, allowing a dictatorship of the majority to determine what we look at on the internet is a terrible idea.

Therefore, I put it to you all that although the internet may be satisfying our social instincts, and valuable friendships can arise here, it is crucially missing true dialogue and the exchange of ideas between people with different beliefs or cultures. Further, we shouldn't be spending so much time discussing politics on these boards and should instead go outside and discuss it with our neighbours.


heh anybody else see the irony here?

I thought the main idea of web 2.0 was that links and user views were used to spread a video or blog or whatever and get it watched loads more. Even google's pagerank will throw the most clicked item to the top of a search. I would prefer to trust, say, the editor of the guardian to pick important stories for me to read than get whatever was popular on the internet. Or even worse, get google news feeding me only the news that I've demonstrated a previous interest in.

I thought the main idea of Web 2.0 was a change from a bunch of websites to a fully interactive computing platform.

To the second point, you can choose you know. If Google just put one link up then you may have a point. It's also not just the most clicked, it's the most relevant content to the search term entered (in theory at least).

Finally, how many friends do you have that you violently disagree with? There's plenty of people on this message board alone that have far greater conflicting views than my social circle, who tend to be fairly like-minded people.

No really finally finally... in some sense, the anonymity of the Internet means we can say things that we might not say in public for fear of retribution, cuts the b******t to some extent.

Sure, I talk to people outside, but I do so less than our ancestors did. Consider the kinds of intellectual societies where ideas were discussed during the enlightenment - that doesn't happen very much today, but it should.

/me diagnoses nostalgia.

How many people in the 18th century really did much discussing of intellectual matters, do you think? At least nowadays the overwhelming majority of people (in developed countries) can read and write, even if they choose not to because it's too geeky and only boffins do that stuff.

Edit:
heh anybody else see the irony here?

Not until you pointed it out, no ><

*Drinks more coffee*

So, you're(the OP) saying we should go and talk to people we know we don't like, rather than stay here and talk to people we know we do like?



Why?

No idea. But I for one am not going to listen to them.

no fucking way, I hate my neighbours, and internet is a useful tool to overcome sosializing issues.

I talk to other people at school, but I meet most of whatever social needs I have from online. It's not like I socialized much before I started using the internet, anyway...

Seconded

Why?

Because you are wrong about many things (this is true for most people through history, don't take it personally!). The way we advance culturally and intellectually is through individual genius and open dialogue in a society that supports good ideas.


The editor of the guardian is going to publish stories that he thinks will make people buy the newspaper, i.e. stories that the readers will have an interest in. How is that different from google news showing you news you've already demonstrated an interest in?

That's not true. The editor may pick stories in part for sales, but he is also a human being who uses his judgment to decide what is important and what isn't. For example, I don't think The Guardian ran stories about Blunkett's affair, for moral reasons, even though they were popular.

lol benorim...posting on the internet that we shouldnt post on the internet isnt exactly convincing ;)

For example, I don't think The Guardian ran stories about Blunkett's affair, for moral reasons, even though they were popular.
I'm sure they did, but I can't say I remember because it was quite a long time ago. Not many newspapers, especially the nation-wide ones, will stop a story for moral reasons. If anything, they'd trump about how good they were for not running it for moral reasons.

Because you are wrong about many things (this is true for most people through history, don't take it personally!). The way we advance culturally and intellectually is through individual genius and open dialogue in a society that supports good ideas.
All of which is perfectly possible on the internet. It doesn't have to happen in real life in order for it to be dialogue, and using the internet is not mutually exclusive with being a genius.


That's not true. The editor may pick stories in part for sales, but he is also a human being who uses his judgment to decide what is important and what isn't. For example, I don't think The Guardian ran stories about Blunkett's affair, for moral reasons, even though they were popular.

And because it looked good, it went towards giving the paper a good reputation/maintaining the good reputation it already has by showing off how moral they are. Something they wouldn't do if it didn't appeal to their consumers.

I think I'm going to spend one of these days answering solely in film quotes.

Do what must be done, do not hesitate, show no mercy.

Because you are wrong about many things

The Emperor: Oh no, my young Jedi. You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things.

I think I'm going to spend one of these days answering solely in film quotes.

I'm sure they did, but I can't say I remember because it was quite a long time ago. Not many newspapers, especially the nation-wide ones, will stop a story for moral reasons. If anything, they'd trump about how good they were for not running it for moral reasons.

This was kinda a secondary issue, but it occurs to me that it's quite symbolic. I get the impression that the internet thinks ideas will best be spread and developed by allowing any and everything to get everywhere chaotically, and trusting that out of the chaos, the good ideas will come to the top. The popular 'memes' idea said something like that I think, just less optimistically. Someone mentioned kittens and porn in a joke earlier - I think the fact that this is what dominates the internet shows that this trust has failed.

The guardian editor is symbolic because you're being excessively cynical about human agents spreading ideas. Ideas aren't just memes that get randomly passed around; human judgment and values are a crucial part of the process.

I'm away for an hour or so - I challenge you to think of a time when you have ever changed your mind about anything important because of an internet discussion.

I'm away for an hour or so - I challenge you to think of a time when you have ever changed your mind about anything important because of an internet discussion.

You obviously haven't been here very long

I get the impression that the internet thinks ideas will best be spread and developed by allowing any and everything to get everywhere chaotically, and trusting that out of the chaos, the good ideas will come to the top.

What, like evolution?

I'm away for an hour or so - I challenge you to think of a time when you have ever changed your mind about anything important because of an internet discussion.
I can't say I have, to be honest. But then I can't say I've ever really debated issues that much on the internet, primarily because any debate tends to go rather badly. I tend to do sort of thing more face-to-face with people I know, and generally when we've had a few (I'm a student :P)

This was kinda a secondary issue, but it occurs to me that it's quite symbolic. I get the impression that the internet thinks ideas will best be spread and developed by allowing any and everything to get everywhere chaotically, and trusting that out of the chaos, the good ideas will come to the top. The popular 'memes' idea said something like that I think, just less optimistically. Someone mentioned kittens and porn in a joke earlier - I think the fact that this is what dominates the internet shows that this trust has failed.
*points at evolution*

The guardian editor is symbolic because you're being excessively cynical about human agents spreading ideas. Ideas aren't just memes that get randomly passed around; human judgment and values are a crucial part of the process.
You are aware that everyone using the internet, everyone preading ideas on the internet, is *theatrical gasp* human? With human judgement and values?

I'm away for an hour or so - I challenge you to think of a time when you have ever changed your mind about anything important because of an internet discussion.

It was the internet that kicked me out of my "gays are icky, get rid of them" stage of adolescence.

heh anybody else see the irony here?

just thinking the same thing...

I bet Smunkee still wishes she could simply put her neighbors on an ignore list...

I have made a terrible mistake, and I suspect a lot of other people have too. Over the last three or four years, I have spent a hell of a lot of time surfing the internet. I haven't spent very long at all hanging around my local area or talking to my neighbours. A lot of my instincts to be social are probably satisfied by the internet where previous generations would have gone outside and chatted over a fence. In doing this, I always assumed that being on the internet was being part of a great global dialogue, a brilliant exchange of ideas that would lead to creativity and blossoming friendships with different people.

Local people can often be unpleasant, and when they talk rubbish or disagree with me, it's awkward. Over the internet, I can ignore these people, and it's fun to watch stupidity from the safety of my own home. Because of this, I never talk to people who disagree with my beliefs. Sure, I might run into them every now and again, but the dialogue is missing. I reckon that I'm a worse person because I don't talk about things that matter face-to-face with someone who will disagree with me.

With the whole web2.0 thing starting, I'm also worried about the attempt to apply a process analogous to democracy onto the exchange of ideas. I read de Tocqueville's essays about early America last year, and feel that although there isn't a better idea for government, allowing a dictatorship of the majority to determine what we look at on the internet is a terrible idea.

Therefore, I put it to you all that although the internet may be satisfying our social instincts, and valuable friendships can arise here, it is crucially missing true dialogue and the exchange of ideas between people with different beliefs or cultures. Further, we shouldn't be spending so much time discussing politics on these boards and should instead go outside and discuss it with our neighbours.

All to true.
Every moment wasted online is a a moment one could have spent in genuine human interaction.

However as many of your responders have demonstrated, the belief now is that Internet Social interaction and physical social interaction are often believed to be equal.

This ignores a great many things, the fact that interaction with real in the flesh people actually causes a chemical change in the body, an brain chemistry during said interaction where this does not occur during online socializing.

The internet allows us as you state to filter what inputs we are receiving and to easily avoid genuine confrontation while being act with words that are completely socially retarded when placed in a physical face to face enviorment.

Disassociation, and depersonalization of human interaction is very authentic reality of the world wide web, a reality all too often ignored.

However if you really think its a problem, you shouldnt be reading this, you should be away from your G_d-Box and out actually doing something.

No really finally finally... in some sense, the anonymity of the Internet means we can say things that we might not say in public for fear of retribution, cuts the b******t to some extent.

That ability to act in a socially retarded manner without fear of social consequence is bad.

Because the internet offers you a place to disassociate yourself from the person you are communicating with.

Someone could post that their mother just died of cancer and she had been a life long smoker...
Reponse to that person face to face would fairly predictable, and would include sympathy and empathy.

Responses online would surely include "That's what the stupid woman gets, she knew the stuff would kill her" and I am certain other simple minded---TRUE---but socially retarded commentary.

Being able to do anything with no form of consequence is not good.
Being forced to look a person in the eye and face them as you belittle them, berate them, insult them, even simply disagree with them, is healthy for you.

Internet communication is, in my personal uninformed opinion not ever more healthy or productive.

People should be forced to choose their words wisely, regardless if the consequence is a punch in the nose or injuring someone elses feelings.

How correct is it, if being correct or rather ...being "Right" is more important then compassion and kindness to your fellow human beings? To me it seems hardly correct at all.
That is of course just what I think.

That ability to act in a socially retarded manner without fear of social consequence is bad.

Because the internet offers you a place to disassociate yourself from the person you are communicating with.

Someone could post that their mother just died of cancer and she had been a life long smoker...
Reponse to that person face to face would fairly predictable, and would include sympathy and empathy.

Responses online would surely include "That's what the stupid woman gets, she knew the stuff would kill her" and I am certain other simple minded---TRUE---but socially retarded commentary.

Being able to do anything with no form of consequence is not good.
Being forced to look a person in the eye and face them as you belittle them, berate them, insult them, even simply disagree with them, is healthy for you.

Internet communication is, in my personal uninformed opinion not ever more healthy or productive.

People should be forced to choose their words wisely, regardless if the consequence is a punch in the nose or injuring someone elses feelings.

How correct is it, if being correct or rather ...being "Right" is more important then compassion and kindness to your fellow human beings? To me it seems hardly correct at all.
That is of course just what I think.

Face-to-face discourse can lead to homogeneous views that can be as wrong as they are right. Homogeneousity (??!!) is static and leads to entrenchment of opinion not change. It's change that allows us to grow.

Disassociated discourse allows the complete variety of views to be put forth.

The Internet allows for that.

It's not one or the other you know, I've taken ideas that have been put forward here and discussed among friends, I've seen stories from different countries that I might never have seen if I stuck to my papers.

The Internet allows for greater dissemination of information among a greater amount of people.

That can only be a good thing, plenty of bad things can and do come from it as well but the overall effect is good.

*points at evolution*

You are aware that everyone using the internet, everyone preading ideas on the internet, is *theatrical gasp* human? With human judgement and values?

It was the internet that kicked me out of my "gays are icky, get rid of them" stage of adolescence.

I think Richard Dawkins came up with the meme idea because it's analogous to genes. But it's a flawed idea for the reasons you give.

What we read and the ideas we listen to shouldn't be determined by clicking on the youtube video at the top of 'most watched' etc. because we are just reinforcing the dominant ideas of the time. Although real conversations can do this too, real life interactions lend themselves much better to allowing new ideas to emerge and to spreading good ideas.

Skibereen: I'm not sure I'd say internet communication is necessarily worse than face-to-face, although you make good points. My problem is more with how we pick and choose what ideas to listen to.

Also, I thought I'd mention a point that should go without saying, but maybe is being ignored. You have to live in your local community, and what people nearby believe has an immediate impact on your life.

I'm throwing this out there but...

Could it be that anyone with a speech impediment, anyone with a disfigurement, anyone socially awkward can actually find genuine respect and friendship on the Internet, without people prejudging them on looks, sound, colour or creed?

Does it not give everyone a voice?

What we read and the ideas we listen to shouldn't be determined by clicking on the youtube video at the top of 'most watched' etc. because we are just reinforcing the dominant ideas of the time. Although real conversations can do this too, real life interactions lend themselves much better to allowing new ideas to emerge and to spreading good ideas....

Why do you think it's determined like this? I feel that you're straying into intellectual snobbery here.

...You have to live in your local community, and what people nearby believe has an immediate impact on your life

No one's saying they don't. Why does the Internet change this? In effect it simply extends your neighbourhood across the entire world.

Face-to-face discourse can lead to homogeneous views that can be as wrong as they are right. Homogeneousity (??!!) is static and leads to entrenchment of opinion not change. It's change that allows us to grow.

Disassociated discourse allows the complete variety of views to be put forth.

The Internet allows for that.

It's not one or the other you know, I've taken ideas that have been put forward here and discussed among friends, I've seen stories from different countries that I might never have seen if I stuck to my papers.

The Internet allows for greater dissemination of information among a greater amount of people.

That can only be a good thing, plenty of bad things can and do come from it as well but the overall effect is good.

...
You know I apologize.
I gave a nice response deserving of this discussion but Jolt timed out, so what I said...never happened. I simply can not retype it.

So I am left with "I disagree".

...
You know I apologize.
I gave a nice response deserving of this discussion but Jolt timed out, so what I said...never happened. I simply can not retype it.

So I am left with "I disagree".

Yes, Jolt can be like that - certainly no apologies needed - when Jolt's acting up I copy and paste my replies onto my Google scratch pad to save me your pain - hope that helps

I think this glorification of personal communication is a bad idea. The 'net gives people better chance to communicate and also to meet others who have rather different opinions. Of course you sometimes post and run... but sometimes you zone out in a conversation. And IMHO online communication has the advantage that people far more seldom fake interest just to keep up the talk. I hate that. My mother asked me some things about this weekend and about why I was there and when I explained to her in great detail why this is my sort of movement and why I am involved there, she seemed not to be interested. there would be less guessing about that if it was a thread in a forum!

The worst part is that i worded it soundly, precisely, and it was written how i said it.

It wasnt long, it was simply clear.

I find clearity to be difficult.

I am not saying internet communication is bad, I am saying it is inferior, and does not promote healthy socialization. Dissemination of information is not connected to that, in my opinion it isnt anyway. Facts are merely small talk and unimportant in social interaction.

As for prejudices, the internet reenforces those, because one can conduct themselves in the most homogenized way...alone.

Walking out your door and dealing with people face to face forces you at some point to at least risk an encounter with your prejudices, bigotries, and fears...that nevers occurs on the internet. I might tell I am something but psycologically all you encounter is text.

The worst part is that i worded it soundly, precisely, and it was written how i said it.

It wasnt long, it was simply clear.

I find clearity to be difficult.

I am not saying internet communication is bad, I am saying it is inferior, and does not promote healthy socialization. Dissemination of information is not connected to that, in my opinion it isnt anyway. Facts are merely small talk and unimportant in social interaction.

As for prejudices, the internet reenforces those, because one can conduct themselves in the most homogenized way...alone.

Walking out your door and dealing with people face to face forces you at some point to at least risk an encounter with your prejudices, bigotries, and fears...that nevers occurs on the internet. I might tell I am something but psycologically all you encounter is text.

I understand what you're saying.

Actually not all...

As for prejudices, the internet reenforces those, because one can conduct themselves in the most homogenized way...alone.

(Are you saying that 'you' are the most homogenized of things because 'you' represent a single view, that is 'your own' - or are you saying something else?)

However...

Given a debate between 2 people with opposing views, what generally happens? Both those people tend to walk away with exactly the same view, sometimes civilly, sometimes with one laying in a bloody heap. Or, one person submits (but not really) because the other is more forceful in their argument than the other.

Now on the Internet, the effect is the same except....

...many thousands of people can read those 2 opposing views calmly and rationally and form their own opinion.

I agree that facts are not the be all and end all of discussion but if you're saying that personal interaction is, well, more personal then I agree with your tautology.

That's why I say that it doesn't mean one exists without the other, take what's learnt from a multitude of different opinions and talk to your neighbours.

Homogeneousity (??!!)
Homogenity.
I think Richard Dawkins came up with the meme idea because it's analogous to genes. But it's a flawed idea for the reasons you give.

What we read and the ideas we listen to shouldn't be determined by clicking on the youtube video at the top of 'most watched' etc. because we are just reinforcing the dominant ideas of the time. Although real conversations can do this too, real life interactions lend themselves much better to allowing new ideas to emerge and to spreading good ideas.
Clearly false. The internet has masses of content from people of every political/social/whatever persuasion. In order to experience that variety in real life you would have to travel all over the world.


Also, I thought I'd mention a point that should go without saying, but maybe is being ignored. You have to live in your local community, and what people nearby believe has an immediate impact on your life.
But how is that relevant?
I'm throwing this out there but...

Could it be that anyone with a speech impediment, anyone with a disfigurement, anyone socially awkward can actually find genuine respect and friendship on the Internet, without people prejudging them on looks, sound, colour or creed?

Does it not give everyone a voice?

Excellent point.

Therefore, I put it to you all that although the internet may be satisfying our social instincts, and valuable friendships can arise here, it is crucially missing true dialogue and the exchange of ideas between people with different beliefs or cultures.
Uh, so everyone on the internet has the same beliefs and cultures? :confused:

3000th post!

snip

I'm away for an hour or so - I challenge you to think of a time when you have ever changed your mind about anything important because of an internet discussion.

Sometimes daily

From my religous outlooks to my view on "paper" abortion I have changed because of well formed arguements from people like bottle

Does it not give everyone a voice?

What use is a voice if no-one can hear you?

I know there exists more variety of opinion and culture on the internet than on my road, my point was that people don't access and interact with opinions different to their own.

Perhaps I underestimated how effective online forums were - I'm surprised how many of you have examples of changing your mind. However, I don't believe that you read blogs and look at websites with very different viewpoints to your own. Or do you?

It matters more what people nearby believe, so it's a good idea to spend your time persuading them that nationalism/racism etc. are bad rather than arguing with some guy on the other side of the world.

Further, we shouldn't be spending so much time discussing politics on these boards and should instead go outside and discuss it with our neighbours.

Because everyone out there is totally welcoming and accepting of the beliefs of others...

Well, three years ago I moved from a big city where I had many friend to a small shithole. Actually, my mother moved in with her boyfriend without my approval. Since then I've literally spent all my days in my room, comletelly lonely, or in school. So in my case the internet isn't responsible for making my life the way it is right now, it's just a way to while away the time. Without my computer, TV, VHS and DVD I would probably sit in a corner and shake like a mental case the whole day.

I find that time spent on here is time I would be doing some other anti-social activity anyway. When it comes to posting on NSG and heading out with friends, I choose the RL friends. Having said that, even my best RL friends don't offer quite the level of philisophical debate and discussion as is expressed on this forum, and I like to exercise my mind a bit, and reflect on a lot of the views and opinions of those here.

It's true, sometimes discussing negative taxation and proportional representation might make some people's eyes glaze over, however, what you learn here, occasionally helps to spark conversation 'out there'.

I had that problem until it solved itself. If you want to solve it, just get rid of your laptop, wireless connection or switch back to 56k. As soon as I left home and lost all the goodies my techie father had accumulated to give me a great online experience- I found myself outside more often.