Hi!

[Paul Johnson]

The profanity in the original complaint intrigued me, when the myspace
location was posted, my curiousity got the best of me.  The photos are
semi talented but the comments and subjects took me back  to the
50/'60's.   I remember; that feeling of greatness to be, so common at
that age, combined with the need to shock, they  brought back lots of
memories, many of them embarrassing. Nice to know that things haven't
changed that  much.

James Harbeck wrote:

>> 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
>
>

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