The Internet is a Place

[PeriodThree]

Frank Robinson and Shepherd Bliss each wrote letters to the editor in the last edition of the Sonoma West paper supporting giving local governments the power to restrict Cell Phone facilities based on local theories of 'health.'

I am frankly deeply ashamed and embarrassed that my very well liked eight-year next-door neighbor, Guy Wilson, sponsored this measure. I tried to remain silent, but the letters from Frank and Shepherd in which they advocated an all out attack on my way of life forced me out of my apathy.

I think that something which Guy and Frank and Shepherd do not yet understand is that WiFi and Cell Phone Towers are part of what creates a place and a community, as real and as important as the natural world or the local communities which they so promote.

I spend my times in two physical communities, plus in the place of 'online.' A decade ago it was almost reasonable to speak of 'communications' as a technology. Modems and cell phones and routers are technology, little boxes which send bits of data hither and yon, and nothing more.

But that view is dated. 'Online' is now a very real place. It is a place which, with respect for those followers of the cult of nature, is every bit as real and as rich and as complicated as the 'miraculous world' which Frank would prefer us to stay in.

My lover is physically 3000 miles away, but in this online place she is right with me through most of the day.

Guy and Frank and Shepherd would literally tell me where I can have my relationship with my love.

I can not say this with sufficient emphasis: you do not get to do this.

The reason why our United States prohibits local governments from regulating cell phone towers is that we do not trust local governments to determine where other people get to Work, Live, and Love.

We have ample evidence of the abuse which local governments engage in when given the power to restrict less popular groups.

Shepherd ended his letter with a call for "an open, cordial, and respectful discourse on cell phones and towers."

I am deeply sorry, Shepherd, but you do not get to have 'respectful'
discourse based on limiting where I work, live, and love. This is literally as absurd and frankly evil as would be telling a gay couple where they could live, who they can marry, and where they can hold hands.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Sure, the internet is a place. But that place is not completely separate from physical space. The question is how they interact and whether the interaction causes a health problem.

In yesterday's NYT there was a discussion of distracted drivers, "Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks," (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html) that cited a study that "estimated that cellphone distractions caused 2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 accidents that result in moderate or severe injuries."

The (staged but realistic ) photo that went with the article showed a 16-year-old driver texting with a friend as a 17-year-old takes the wheel while the car goes 60 miles an hour on a Missouri highway.

https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/19/business/distracted.600.jpg

Some nonlocal governments have now set limits to being in two worlds simultaneously.

If there is good evidence that cell phone radiation causes long term problems I don't see a reason why we can't weigh the pros and cons of this technology. Finding out more about this issue seems the reasonable thing to do.

[DynamicBalance]

If cell phone towers and WiFi do indeed cause health risks, then there does need to be "an open, cordial, and respectful discourse on cell phones and towers."

Another person could just as easily say that cell phone towers infringe on their right to live, work, or love in a place that is free from invisible waves of harmful radiation. It is innappropriate to compare gay rights to the right to use a cell phone. Most gay people would say that they don't choose to be gay, and being gay is not harmful to anyone else. It is your choice to use a cell phone and the internet, and if there is a possibility that these activities could be harmful to other people, then it needs to be looked into.

[PeriodThree]

It is your choice to use a cell phone and the internet

With a great deal of true respect, I would ask you to seriously reconsider those words.

You are explicitly and literally telling me that it is okay to have a discussion about where it is okay for me to express my deepest love in the world.

If you want to have that particular battle than great, let's bring it on, but I suspect that you don't yet really consider the internet as a real place.

My life is real. The attitude that local governments get to interfere with my universal human rights is unacceptable to me.

Very best case you want to tell me where I can love in order to respond to a 'possible' risk.

By comparison, we know people did because they are paying attention to conversations with real people in their cars. Would you ban intimate conversations in cars?

Do you really want to tell me where I can love? Again, if so, if you are fully informed and you want that battle than bring it on! I am hoping that the 'progressive' community of Sonoma County is just a bit late at realizing that the way other people choose to live and love is _just as important_ as the way they choose to live and love.

It is not 'my choice' to use a cell phone. It is my right.

Cell phones are a right, not a privilege. I know this is not yet the view of everyone, but it is true.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental human right.

However, to express yourself through wireless communication, wherever and whenever and however: I can't see that yet as a fundamental human right. How do you support that idea?

Texting behind the wheel should certainly be outlawed, just as drunk driving.

Just calling being intoxicated as being in a special "place" does not make an argument for me. :):



With a great deal of true respect, I would ask you to seriously reconsider those words.

You are explicitly and literally telling me that it is okay to have a discussion about where it is okay for me to express my deepest love in the world.

If you want to have that particular battle than great, let's bring it on, but I suspect that you don't yet really consider the internet as a real place.

My life is real. The attitude that local governments get to interfere with my universal human rights is unacceptable to me.

Very best case you want to tell me where I can love in order to respond to a 'possible' risk.

By comparison, we know people did because they are paying attention to conversations with real people in their cars. Would you ban intimate conversations in cars?

Do you really want to tell me where I can love? Again, if so, if you are fully informed and you want that battle than bring it on! I am hoping that the 'progressive' community of Sonoma County is just a bit late at realizing that the way other people choose to live and love is _just as important_ as the way they choose to live and love.

It is not 'my choice' to use a cell phone. It is my right.

Cell phones are a right, not a privilege. I know this is not yet the view of everyone, but it is true.

[PeriodThree]

I assume that our rights to be in this place are subject to "reasonable time place and manner restrictions." Restrictions on cell phones while driving seems reasonable to me. OTOH I am deeply angered by the sign at the library demanding that I turn off my phone.

They do not have a right to demand that I leave my community in order to use my library. I feel that sign as a deeply personal blow. An explicit attack on the legitimacy of my life and of my community.

Cell phones are not 'communications tools'. They literally help create a space where people live.

I consider my online life to be every bit as real and as important as my offline life (and the physical distinction between the two is shrinking).

What reasoning justifies priviliging offline behavior over online? You may enter the library talking softly and holding hands with your lover. By what theory of human rights am I to be denied the same rights with my lover?

Because I might talk louder on a cell phone? You and your lover could certainly start talking loudly. And besides that, the demand is to turn off my device, including my near silent text and email.

Policies which privilige your off line conversations with your lover over cell or chat conversations differentlyare deeply suspect.



Freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental human right.

However, to express yourself through wireless communication, wherever and whenever and however: I can't see that yet as a fundamental human right. How do you support that idea?

Texting behind the wheel should certainly be outlawed, just as drunk driving.

Just calling being intoxicated as being in a special "place" does not make an argument for me. :):

[tomcat]

Hummm, the library is supposed to be a quiet place for people to read and research. I can understand the library not wanting cell phones ringing and people having conversations on them as it disturbs most other people using the library.
Perhaps they could reconsider and change the sign to "turn off the ringer on your electronic device and go outside for conversations". That's probably what they mean anyway... I can't imagine they would not want you to silently text or e-mail, unless your 'sounds' are too loud.
Tom


I assume that our rights to be in this place are subject to "reasonable time place and manner restrictions." Restrictions on cell phones while driving seems reasonable to me. OTOH I am deeply angered by the sign at the library demanding that I turn off my phone.

They do not have a right to demand that I leave my community in order to use my library. I feel that sign as a deeply personal blow. An explicit attack on the legitimacy of my life and of my community.

Cell phones are not 'communications tools'. They literally help create a space where people live.

I consider my online life to be every bit as real and as important as my offline life (and the physical distinction between the two is shrinking).

What reasoning justifies priviliging offline behavior over online? You may enter the library talking softly and holding hands with your lover. By what theory of human rights am I to be denied the same rights with my lover?

Because I might talk louder on a cell phone? You and your lover could certainly start talking loudly. And besides that, the demand is to turn off my device, including my near silent text and email.

Policies which privilige your off line conversations with your lover over cell or chat conversations differentlyare deeply suspect.

[PeriodThree]

Hi Tom,

You wrote "Perhaps they could reconsider and change the sign to "turn off the ringer on your electronic device and go outside for conversations". That's probably what they mean anyway..."

And this points strongly to my point. Whether or not they have the right to limit who may have a conversation in the library based on their being on a cell phone, they absolutely have no right to even ask me to turn off the device.

It is not up to me to navigate what people 'really' mean when they ask to restrict my basic human rights.

I think even asking me to turn off the ringer, without asking loud people to also be quiet, is legally suspect.

I am making the case that our rights to be in this new place are basic rights, and as such require that the actions of the state which limit those rights are subject to the 'Strict Scrutiny' Constitutional Standard.

Wanting to create a quiet space is potentially a reasonable goal. And having phones ringing seems like at least a minor intrusion on that goal.

OTOH, the library is currently home to many many conversations. And so this restriction specifically allows you, for example, to look at books with your friends and lovers and to work quietly together, but it prohibits me from doing the same thing based solely on my relationships being in this other space.

It does seem true that many people are more disturbed by someone talking on a cell phone than two people having an equally loud conversation face to face.

But I argue that this reflects a specific prejudice that many people have against the online place. We are bothered to see someone talking apparently 'to themselves.'

This is perhaps similar to the way many people, even loving kind people, 'tense up' a bit when they see a gay couple in public holding hands or being appropriately publicly affectionate.

It may be reasonable to have an absolutely silent library, but that is not what we have. We have a library where teenagers play over books - mostly doing good things in my personal view - but I can not have a quiet conversation asking my lover and professional colleagues about books.

Cheers,
Rich




Hummm, the library is supposed to be a quiet place for people to read and research. I can understand the library not wanting cell phones ringing and people having conversations on them as it disturbs most other people using the library.
Perhaps they could reconsider and change the sign to "turn off the ringer on your electronic device and go outside for conversations". That's probably what they mean anyway... I can't imagine they would not want you to silently text or e-mail, unless your 'sounds' are too loud.
Tom

[PeriodThree]

Barry moved the post to the censored category, but the user 'someguy' just posted a response in this thread. He quoted my full message and added this lovely note:

"My lover told me to tell you to "shut the f*ck up.""

It is fun to see the power of hate and prejudice!

I want to have the same rights as anyone else.

[tomcat]

Rich, good luck in your quest to not be denied what you feel are your basic rights and to use your electronic device where ever you feel is right.
Tom


Hi Tom,

You wrote "Perhaps they could reconsider and change the sign to "turn off the ringer on your electronic device and go outside for conversations". That's probably what they mean anyway..."

And this points strongly to my point. Whether or not they have the right to limit who may have a conversation in the library based on their being on a cell phone, they absolutely have no right to even ask me to turn off the device.

It is not up to me to navigate what people 'really' mean when they ask to restrict my basic human rights.

I think even asking me to turn off the ringer, without asking loud people to also be quiet, is legally suspect.

I am making the case that our rights to be in this new place are basic rights, and as such require that the actions of the state which limit those rights are subject to the 'Strict Scrutiny' Constitutional Standard.

Wanting to create a quiet space is potentially a reasonable goal. And having phones ringing seems like at least a minor intrusion on that goal.

OTOH, the library is currently home to many many conversations. And so this restriction specifically allows you, for example, to look at books with your friends and lovers and to work quietly together, but it prohibits me from doing the same thing based solely on my relationships being in this other space.

It does seem true that many people are more disturbed by someone talking on a cell phone than two people having an equally loud conversation face to face.

But I argue that this reflects a specific prejudice that many people have against the online place. We are bothered to see someone talking apparently 'to themselves.'

This is perhaps similar to the way many people, even loving kind people, 'tense up' a bit when they see a gay couple in public holding hands or being appropriately publicly affectionate.

It may be reasonable to have an absolutely silent library, but that is not what we have. We have a library where teenagers play over books - mostly doing good things in my personal view - but I can not have a quiet conversation asking my lover and professional colleagues about books.

Cheers,
Rich

[PeriodThree]

Tom,

It is not 'where ever I feel is right.' It is 'where ever the same actions done without an electronic device are allowed.'

You can't privilege offline life over online life without satisfying Constitutional strict scrutiny.

This is not about 'your electronic device' it is about our basic freedom of association.

Rich


Rich, good luck in your quest to not be denied what you feel are your basic rights and to use your electronic device where ever you feel is right.
Tom

[tomcat]

Like I said, Good Luck.


Tom,

It is not 'where ever I feel is right.' It is 'where ever the same actions done without an electronic device are allowed.'

You can't privilege offline life over online life without satisfying Constitutional strict scrutiny.

This is not about 'your electronic device' it is about our basic freedom of association.

Rich

[Zeno Swijtink]

There is a basic freedom of association but not a basic freedom of association by any possible means.


To illustrate: Suppose two friends live on opposite banks of a river, would like to associate, but visiting each other is difficult since the nearest bridge crossing is far away.

They decide to use loudspeakers to talk with each other. They claim that use is justified because they have a basic right of association. Their neighbors object since their means of communication causes a major nuisance. Environmentalists object since the loudspeakers disturb the natural environment.

The friends counter that they live in Loudspeakernet, and that Loudspeakernet is a Place and that one can't privilege offloudspeaker life over onlouspeaker life without satisfying Constitutional strict scrutiny.

The neighbors explain that Loudspeakernet is not separate from the real world and to call it a Place is just a metaphorical gimmick. They suggest that the friends meet in their dreams, which is really a separate space.

Similar with the Internet. The Internet provides just new ways of communication. To call it a Place where one can live is just a metaphor that was interesting in the past but now does not clarify anything anymore.

Wireless internet communication uses physical electromagnetic waves that may affect natural systems including humans.

The Internet has led to all kinds of changes in the way people relate to each other in real life.

The Internet uses massive amounts of energy and materials, from cooling the servers (https://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html) to materials to create the infrastructure, and produces massive amount of waste, including waste water.

There exists no fundamental, basic right to communicate through the Internet, wireless or not.

The importance of this way of communicating has to be weighed on a case by case basis.




Tom,

It is not 'where ever I feel is right.' It is 'where ever the same actions done without an electronic device are allowed.'

You can't privilege offline life over online life without satisfying Constitutional strict scrutiny.

This is not about 'your electronic device' it is about our basic freedom of association.

Rich

[someguy]

There is a basic freedom of association but not a basic freedom of association by any possible means.


To illustrate: Suppose two friends live on opposite banks of a river, would like to associate, but visiting each other is difficult since the nearest bridge crossing is far away.

They decide to use loudspeakers to talk with each other. They claim that use is justified because they have a basic right of association. Their neighbors object since their means of communication causes a major nuisance. Environmentalists object since the loudspeakers disturb the natural environment.

The friends counter that they live in Loudspeakernet, and that Loudspeakernet is a Place and that one can't privilege offloudspeaker life over onlouspeaker life without satisfying Constitutional strict scrutiny.

The neighbors explain that Loudspeakernet is not separate from the real world and to call it a Place is just a metaphorical gimmick. They suggest that the friends meet in their dreams, which is really a separate space.

Similar with the Internet. The Internet provides just new ways of communication. To call it a Place where one can live is just a metaphor that was interesting in the past but now does not clarify anything anymore.

Wireless internet communication uses physical electromagnetic waves that may affect natural systems including humans.

The Internet has led to all kinds of changes in the way people relate to each other in real life.

The Internet uses massive amounts of energy and materials, from cooling the servers (https://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html) to materials to create the infrastructure, and produces massive amount of waste, including waste water.

There exists no fundamental, basic right to communicate through the Internet, wireless or not.

The importance of this way of communicating has to be weighed on a case by case basis.

Stop using logic to tear me and my lover apart! Anyone who would do so is evil and the inherent threat that you are implying will not go unnoticed. So if you want to avoid engaging in battle I suggest you throw away all of your precious logic and admit the only thing left to admit, which is that my lover is the internet.
:smooch::makeout:

In fact, If my lover and I want to get naked and pretend that were penguins in your house, on your couch, in front of your kids, well, that is our right as LOVERS! No child, no property line, no basic human decency will ever distance my lover and I!!!!!! EVER!
:usflag:

[C Tut]

Ok, I normally avoid jumping into these frays, but this is just too silly. The internet is not a place, it is a tool. Back in the ol days before internet and cell phones, lovers such as yourself would have to write letters by hand, and then send them off via horseback and sometimes wait months for a reply.
The internet is no more a place than that letter was. We should feel fortunate that modern advances have allowed us tools that help us feel closer and keep in touch with those who are dear yet not near. However good this makes us feel, it is no excuse to be disrespectful towards your fellow beings. We do not have any intrinsic right to use tools at the expense of others. I may use a leaf-blower in my yard, but not a 5 am. That would be disrespectful towards my neighbors. Therefore, by law, there are times that are considered inappropriate to use that tool. I can drive my car, but emission standards must be met lest I endanger the health of fellow beings. I can drive my car, but not on the sidewalk, again, lest I endanger my fellow beings. Aside from whatever health risks cell phone towers and wireless waves may or may not cause, I believe that the reason restrictions on this technology exist in certain places (like the library) is because it tends to enable people to be completely self-absorbed, and instills a feeling that whatever reality or "place" they are in is more real or important than the communities and world in which we physically reside (and therefore more important than the other individuals that we share that physical space with). :2cents:

[PeriodThree]

Zeno,

Thanks so much for replying. I am deeply pressed for time, but wanted to give you the respect of a timely reply.

I think you and I can agree that 'fundamental' or 'basic' rights or freedoms does not mean 'absolute' or 'unlimited.'

The question, to me, in deciding what restrictions might be reasonable is to ask how the behavior facing the proposed restrictions compares with the privileged behavior.

For example we allow men and woman to hold hands and kiss in public, so is it reasonable to restrict that behavior when a same sex couple do it?

We allow married people to live wherever they want, is it reasonable to restrict unmarried people?

(By this extension, we do allow for a limited restriction allowing 'senior only' mobile home parks)

For your argument I will argue that that is exactly right: you can't privilege non-loudspearkerland without satisfying strict scrutiny.

But strict scrutiny can be satisfied by a compelling state interest in peace and quiet.

I further argue that there is no such compelling state interest in protecting people from seeing people who are talking on a cell phone.

I'll answer the rest of your post in line (deleting the parts I have addressed). Forgive the broken quoting.

<hr>{ The post below is part of a thread, click here (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/general-community/55517-internet-place.html) to view. }
In WaccoBB.net, Zeno Swijtink wrote:

>Similar with the Internet. The Internet provides just new ways of >communication. To call it a Place where one can live is just a metaphor >that was interesting in the past but now does not clarify anything >anymore.

I continue to believe it is a Place, and that this truly does extend beyond metaphor. (OTOH, if we get into the discussion I sort of think that everything that we think and experience is done via metaphor, the brain is something of a machine for creating metaphors from sensory data) But that discussion, and the general possible adoption of that belief, is the sort of thing which will take time.

In any event, I assert that it is observably true that people act as though the internet (and cell phones) were a 'place.' Part of the objection to allowing those of us who are in that space equal rights is that it can bother people to see people in 'their' public space who are not fully in their public space.

> Wireless internet communication uses physical electromagnetic waves > > that may affect natural systems including humans.

This needs to just flat out be countered. A person holding a cell phone to their head _may_ be affected, but I deeply challenge that assertion. But a person near a person holding a cell phone is getting less EMF exposure than they are getting from the sun.

The inverse square law of EMF propagation is important. Really.

There is almost no evidence of any affect to the participants and there really is no evidence of an affect on bystanders.

And the evidence which does exist does not raise to anything like the level required for a 'Compelling State Interest.'

>The Internet has led to all kinds of changes in the way people relate to >each other in real life.

Sure, but what is your point? The move towards acceptance of equal rights for woman, minorities, and GLBT people has also led to all kinds of changes. Are you arguing that there is a compelling state interest in managing the way people choose to relate to each other?


>The Internet uses massive amounts of energy and materials, from cooling >the servers (https://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html) to materials to create the infrastructure, and produces >massive amount of waste, including waste water.

That can not be a compelling state interest until or unless you treat all other activities which use 'massive amounts of energy and materials' the same way.

Plus the internet does not use particularly massive amounts of energy. The economic cost of all of the energy and materials used in providing your internet access are contained within your ISP bill, and that is not a massive amount.

I would like to do more research here, but I am pretty sure that the internet is a net saver of the energy which would be used in transporting real goods and people. It takes much less energy to send an email than even bike riding across town. And it takes far less energy to spend time online than it does to drive somewhere.

Is there any call to restrict other legal uses of energy in a serious way? Are you really arguing that the local community gets to decide where I am online based on how much energy it uses?


>There exists no fundamental, basic right to communicate through the >Internet, wireless or not.

Really? I deeply suspect that in a few years that there will be a general acceptance that internet access is a basic fundamental human right.

In a world which contains the Internet the right to communicate on it is a fundamental right.

Our right to communicate through the Internet is as basic and fundamental as our right to freedom of speech and freedom of association - both of which also can create a substantial cost on non-participants.

Are you really arguing that I have less right to online, and cell phone, speech and association than I do to face to face speech and association? If you are than I really think you are missing something important, and we should talk more on that. If you are simply saying that online speech is, like offline speech, not absolute than I can agree with you.

>The importance of this way of communicating has to be weighed on a >case by case basis.

I am pretty much bothered by this sentence. You are using language which implies that my communicating in this way is a privilege which is subject to case to case judgment. And that this is based on how important my communication is.

My speech, and my life and associations in this space, are not subject to someone's examining how important I am, or how important what I am doing is.

Most use of basic human rights would not survive a 'case by case' analysis!

[PeriodThree]

Hi,

I think that this is perhaps your core argument, so I am addressing it. Let me know if the other points are more key and I will address them as well.


I believe that the reason restrictions on this technology exist in certain places (like the library) is because it tends to enable people to be completely self-absorbed, and instills a feeling that whatever reality or "place" they are in is more real or important than the communities and world in which we physically reside (and therefore more important than the other individuals that we share that physical space with). :2cents:

Lots of activities enable people to be self-absorbed. And to be honest, I have trouble thinking that we have any right to regulate whether a person is allowed to be self absorbed.

And going with that, yes, the place I am in, the "reality" I am in online is, at times, more real and more important than the communities and world in which I physically reside.

And yes, I absolutely agree that the people I interact with in this virtual place really are often more important to me than the individuals that I share physical space with.

Yep. So from my perspective, the reason cell phones are restricted in the library, and why there are signs telling me to not use my cell phone in some stores or when I approach the counter, is that the people in those spaces are demanding that I value them more than I value my friends, professional colleagues, and lover.

And you know what? I do not value the surly clerks at Bradley Video more than I value my friends.

When you go into a store with friends do you stop talking with your friends? When you walk up to the counter to pay do you completely stop talking? Or do you pause your conversation the slightest bit in order to hear what the clerk says?

We have, especially in Sebastopol, cultured the attitude that 'real' people are infinitely more important than our 'virtual' connections. But that is just bunkum.

It is not 'simple courtesy' to not talk on a cell phone in a place bustling with face to face conversations. It _is_ simple courtesy for businesses to accept their customers the way they are, and to work with their customers.

So yeah, I absolutely agree with your reasoning: one reason people want to ban cell phones in certain places is to specifically promote their bias towards face to face interactions. It is simple prejudice.

Cheers,
Rich

[theindependenteye]

>>Stop using logic to tear me and my lover apart! Anyone who would do so is evil and the inherent threat that you are implying will not go unnoticed.

I don't really want to get involved with this thread, as free speech is a vital issue with me and somehow I don't feel this is the most critical example to focus on.

But I'm in wonder at the vehemence and the sense of personal threat. My lady and I have been together 48 years, and our courtship was entirely without the Internet: people did actually mate back there in the 60's. And while it was damned difficult to find a place to shack up in Evanston, IL, as undergraduates in the days before co-ed dorms, we managed to do it without resorting to the library.

Yes, I'm sounding kinda sardonic, and I understand this must be an extremely emotionally-felt issue with out, but it honestly alarms me a bit (as much as one can be alarmed at the experience of a total stranger) for you to put this in such personal, do-or-die terms. Why not just stand in the lobby and really concentrate on talking to your beloved?

Seems to me there's much worse shit to worry about in the world.

Respectfully, but with some bafflement—
Conrad

[Tars]

Let us sing lamentations for the demise of telephone booths. They were useful in public places, to sequester oneself away from the noise of the local environment, to take care of a personal conversation in privacy. Wish they were still around, so cellphone users could slip inside to have their personal discussion in private, thus saving the rest of us from the irritation of having to listen.

Hopefully future versions of cellphones will have a Cone Of Silence feature.

[PeriodThree]

I am confused because I replied to this message the other day. Oh well.

Conrad,

You are replying to 'someguys' attempt to parody my very real feelings.

But why do I need to 'stand in the lobby?' Is there a reason why my love should be considered second class?

Regards,
Rich


>>Stop using logic to tear me and my lover apart! Anyone who would do so is evil and the inherent threat that you are implying will not go unnoticed.

I don't really want to get involved with this thread, as free speech is a vital issue with me and somehow I don't feel this is the most critical example to focus on.

But I'm in wonder at the vehemence and the sense of personal threat. My lady and I have been together 48 years, and our courtship was entirely without the Internet: people did actually mate back there in the 60's. And while it was damned difficult to find a place to shack up in Evanston, IL, as undergraduates in the days before co-ed dorms, we managed to do it without resorting to the library.

Yes, I'm sounding kinda sardonic, and I understand this must be an extremely emotionally-felt issue with out, but it honestly alarms me a bit (as much as one can be alarmed at the experience of a total stranger) for you to put this in such personal, do-or-die terms. Why not just stand in the lobby and really concentrate on talking to your beloved?

Seems to me there's much worse shit to worry about in the world.

Respectfully, but with some bafflement—
Conrad

[PeriodThree]

I argue that online relationships deserve the same respect, tolerance, and rights of face to face contact.

Tars would like me to stay in a separate space. Barry, among others, thinks that separate, and unequal, treatment is fine.

I've had 'good and tolerant' people make a point of walking out of their way to come and harangue me for talking on my cell phone in the plaza.

Barry expresses gratitude for the idea of having our online contact isolated in special glass booths, and did basically nothing to someone telling me to shut the fuck up for having the temerity to claim that I have a right to live my life in the way I choose.

I'm honestly a bit puzzled by how this is 'respectful.' But whatever.

It is okay I suppose to have my thoughts mocked. Considering the forum. A place where questioning the moon landing is 'mainstream' is, to say the least, not a place for particularly meaningful discussion.





Let us sing lamentations for the demise of telephone booths. They were useful in public places, to sequester oneself away from the noise of the local environment, to take care of a personal conversation in privacy. Wish they were still around, so cellphone users could slip inside to have their personal discussion in private, thus saving the rest of us from the irritation of having to listen.

Hopefully future versions of cellphones will have a Cone Of Silence feature.