I agree. This sterile electronic communication is very fickle - people will be there, then suddenly not. I've found that something like twitter is very poor in

I agree. This sterile electronic communication is very fickle - people will be there, then suddenly not. I've found that something like twitter is very poor in building any kind of proper relationship, as mostly it's about people who want something from the other person. One could say that twitter is good as a way of introducing people, but I most certainly could not identify enough with the people in any twitter or facebook collection to join in a battle with them. Let's say it were the 40s and we made a facebook group called "resistance against the german occupation forces". Now, we all have the same interest in mind, but if we actually meet together, it's very likely there will be varying levels or intensity, varying agendas, varying personalities. We could not form an effective resistance group. If, however, I would do this with my existing friends, we would have a cohesive and trustworthy group with which we could organise things and make things happen. Offline inviting of people to the group would go through a kind of vetting process where you actually get to see the whole of the person, and not just a single sterile attribute like "dislikes the occupation." My experience with twitter and other boards is that the relationship you think you are building is very weak and fleeting. Most of the time, it's based on what one person wants from the other - for example, entertainment, connections, money, information. It's not based on shared interests or the ability to connect on a more fundamental level.