By Uncle Abdul

I still shake my head when others mention that they spend a couple of hours going through their e-mail list posts. I'm on a couple of well known of such that famous for two things: 100+ posts per day and flame wars. For me it just takes me a couple of minutes on each to go through my mail. Fastest DELETE button in the West you know.

But wait... Actually there are some threads that I do browse more closely--just in the interests of sociological research of course (especially if it mentions cute blond masochists writhing and screaming... but I digress).

What I find interesting are the topics of threads that occasionally (???) appear on these lists. Some relate to definitions (such as 'submissive' or 'bottom'), burning questions of the age (such as "...is there such a thing as 'top drop'?"), or the rare (???) rant over injustices then prevalent. For the current list constituency these are questions of currency and tremendous import. For me it's an exercise in de ja vu.

Not to diminish the specifics of these topics of today, but many if not all of these topics have been discussed before. There are differences however.

For one there is the proliferation issue. With the advent of things online, more words can fly across cyberspace on issues at the drop of a hyphen than in my earlier days in the scene. (You young whippersnappers. Why-Y-y-Y-y in my day, I had to trudge through six feet of snow--in August--uphill both ways to debate an issue. Yes siree bob!) Now days all it requires is a few tippity-taps on the keyboard and your thoughts are winging their way for... others to delete. So one of the differences is the apparent size of the audience and the fact that this encourages participation.

In pre-cyber days you had access to no more than the people about you and that was limited to venue and the size of your phone bill. This limited the extent of the discussion, but not necessarily the consequences. While fewer people may have been involved in an argument/discussion, it was all face-to-face. Therefore it was easier to make enemies that way. There is an advantage to (at least in this regard) to the faceless anonymity of the computer.

And that's another difference. With the facelessness of the computer connection, discussion participants seem less inhibited to exaggerate their words or perceived feelings. They feel freer to blurt out things that they'd feel self-conscious about if the discussion was happening in the street.

As for the vitriol in the discussions, in pre-cyber days, some of the neck-vein bulging bru-haws that flew about then put some of the so-called 'flame wars' of today to shame. Back then, there was real gut wrenching drama, pathos, yelling, screaming, tearing of hair (kindda like a heavy 'take-down' scene). And real long-term enemies were made. (In fact, one of my contemporaries noted that about 85% of the BDSM Clubs were formed out of anger.) It used to be that your reputation increased dependent on the list of your enemies. (Fortunately there were exceptions--thank heavens.)

Now days there's almost a certain unreality in calling someone a 'rat-assed bastard' online, and laughing with them at the next munch.

I wonder if it's the face-to-face that is the key element here. Perhaps 'flame wars' will disappear when video conferencing cost pennies a minute.

But these arguments/discussions seem to serve a necessary and real purpose to a subculture such as ours. It helps defines issues and definitions for members within the group as a way of cohesion. This was true in pre-cyber as well as post-cyber days.

Boy, I give almost anything to read a future Old Timers' column (Why-Y-y-Y-y in my day, I had to trudge through six feet of snow--uphill both ways--to get to my keyboard. Yes siree bob!) to see them talk about their da ja vu.

Chao-4-Now

Unc'