Uromania

[Paul Mackin]

Internet discussion lists are such a strange media. We type  words into
the computer with the hope we are somehow magically talking to others but
what we are actually doing much of the time (I fear) is talking to
ourselves. If we could only see whom we are addressing. It would be so
much easier. Are we speaking to a college sophomore, a corporation
executive, a professor emeritus,  somebody's grandmother, or possibly a
prematurely released lunatic? All of the above of course. But if only we
could make assumptions about what needs to be included and what may be
left out. What can we safely joke about and what can we not? But the
unseen target here is potentially as wide as the ocean and there is no way
to control it whatsoever. In novel writing, say, it is possible to make
the person addressed (the reader) accept certain parameters of
thought--just as it is possible to control the voice of the narrator. Not
here though. We are stuck with each other in our totally natural state, in
all our uncontrollable  diversity. It's a wonder it all works as well as
it does.  

					P.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Dave Monroe wrote:

> Not "negatively," not in this instance, at least, but was genuinely interested in
> just what you might (or might not) be referring to.  Not me, I don't
> think--again, not only am I in no position to make use of anyone else's so-called
> "intellectual property," not only, as perhaps my "bibliographic exhibitionism"
> (like that one, actually ...) might demonstrate, am I pretty responsible about
> acknowledging my sources, showing my work, but I do think I've been droppin a few
> Balls which someone else might indeed pick up and gain a little yardage on.
> Wouldn't mind a little mention, but ... but, well, am working on Gravity's
> Rainbow for the first time in a Long time, and perhaps working it out for the
> first time.  But, well, I'm not in on the in-jokes here, so ...