Hi!

[James Harbeck]

>Is it not somehow creepy that somebody gets so shook over
>some e-mail list to essentially e-stalk somebody, but
>thanks for looking, I'm sure your IP address will be safe
>with me. I'm still curious as to how one's myspace has
>anything to do with my academic record. I was unaware you
>had to be boring, plain and reserved in your private life
>to be considered intelligent.

Ah, now _that's_ an interesting issue. We are now in the habit of
putting information about ourselves in very public postings all over
the internet, and yet should someone actually be interested in who
this or that person is, it's often called "stalking." Before the
internet, if we wanted to know who this or that person was, because
they were interesting or obnoxious, we would ask people who knew
them, and this was known as finding out about the person. Normal
enough. "Stalking" meant -- and, I think, for many still means --
following a person around and focusing on their lives in great
detail, typically to the particular detriment of the person and at
the very least with a certain amount of threat implied. But now, when
we make incredible amounts of information available about ourselves
to the great anonymous public, in the clear hopes that it will be
seen by a lot of people, actually looking at it is referred to as
"stalking" -- and this is certainly not the first time I have
encountered this. Does this count as a question of usage, or is it
merely social psychology? Either way it's a fascinating social
hypocrisy.

Your myspace has nothing in particular to do with your academic
record, of course. But neither do your previous comments to this list
have anything to do with the ostensible subject of the list. When
there is a gross infraction of etiquette, various attempts at repair
are made (I expect you may remember this from whatever
sociolinguistics or similar course you may have taken), and the
tactics used are typically best informed by additional knowledge
about the person committing the infraction; addressing the
motivations and therefore the personality of the person in question
is one common means of renormalization. For all I know, of course,
this all may be part of a term paper project for an anthropology
course you're taking, wherein you present a gross social infraction
-- an assault on an individual's face entirely out of proportion to
whatever minor slip the person may have made -- and see what response
it gets. If so, you've been diligent with your supporting material.
(The photographs, on the other hand, are very good, but I suspect
that you are quite sure of that anyway and don't need or want anyone
to tell you that.)

Nor did anyone say you have to be boring, plain and reserved to be
considered intelligent. On the other hand, some kinds of behaviour
will naturally cast your judgement in doubt.

Ciao,
James Harbeck.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org