3 ms·

> I'll quote from the 1993 paper "Gender Swapping on the Internet" ...for which I was interviewed and quoted BTW. I was present for many of the other events Br

> I'll quote from the 1993 paper "Gender Swapping on the Internet" ...for which I was interviewed and quoted BTW. I was present for many of the other events Bruckman has written about, and was a principal target/victim/whatever in one. Ditto for Turkle. > "How well did you understand what was happening with other people back then?" See above.

eesmith 8y ago
Now that we have established our bona fides, let's get back to kadenshep's comment. You originally wrote: > People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from making statements about how it was different, just as people who weren't actually at a company, in a battle, etc. should refrain from making statements about how it was for the participants. To whom was your comment directed? To the author of the article? But the author clearly states "I was there in 1993, too, equal parts young, naïve, and shy, but so damn excited about the idea of suddenly communicating with people around the world." The author also brings up the concept of 'gatekeeper behavior', saying: > ... his esteem rests on the fact that he knows certain things that others do not. Like all gatekeeper behavior, it was ostensibly a check on the credibility of the target. Also like all gatekeeper behavior, it wasn’t really about whether or not someone passes the test, but rather the gatekeeper feeling like they can control what is true and not true about the subject. Alas for him, I was there in 1993, too, equal parts young, naïve, and shy, but so damn excited about the idea of suddenly communicating with people around the world. I read kadenshep's comment "I think your view point is directly addressed in the article." in that context. That is, it's easy to interpret what you wrote as gatekeeper behavior. This of course can also be poisoning-the-well sort of argument, as it is hard to address by simply saying "From my own experience". Which is all that you did. You still have not pointed out some of those facile generalizations about the past that kadenshep made.

eesmith 8y ago

Now that we have established our bona fides, let's get back to kadenshep's comment. You originally wrote: > People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from making statements about how it was different, just as people who weren't actually at a company, in a battle, etc. should refrain from making statements about how it was for the participants. To whom was your comment directed? To the author of the article? But the author clearly states "I was there in 1993, too, equal parts young, naïve, and shy, but so damn excited about the idea of suddenly communicating with people around the world." The author also brings up the concept of 'gatekeeper behavior', saying: > ... his esteem rests on the fact that he knows certain things that others do not. Like all gatekeeper behavior, it was ostensibly a check on the credibility of the target. Also like all gatekeeper behavior, it wasn’t really about whether or not someone passes the test, but rather the gatekeeper feeling like they can control what is true and not true about the subject. Alas for him, I was there in 1993, too, equal parts young, naïve, and shy, but so damn excited about the idea of suddenly communicating with people around the world. I read kadenshep's comment "I think your view point is directly addressed in the article." in that context. That is, it's easy to interpret what you wrote as gatekeeper behavior. This of course can also be poisoning-the-well sort of argument, as it is hard to address by simply saying "From my own experience". Which is all that you did. You still have not pointed out some of those facile generalizations about the past that kadenshep made.