INTERNET FORUMS ___________________ Why do people join Internet forums? A Forum is basically a public meeting of some kind or an assembly of people for open discussion. The type of forum I am discussing here, is that of the Internet forum. In a sense, I suppose, they are similar to chat-rooms, although I have no wish (personally) to pursue these, even (or especially!)  if the results are similar. So, why do people join forums on the Internet? A bit of history One of the basic functions of Man as a species (including women, of course) is to be able to communicate with each other. Man lost many of his survival skills (I believe) when he came from the forests to the plains, upon which his survival depended on more advanced skills than living in the jungle. Man (in physical strength), is no match for many of the other animals that vied for their own survival (even the smaller ones!). He therefore developed the skills of art/verbal-vocal communication better (for the purpose) than some of his other cousins for his survival (i.e. land animals). That development led to articulated sounds and later, pictograms (art) and writing (a symbolised version of his sounds). Let us call, for my purposes, the whole kit and caboodle of these sounds/art/writing: language. Language has passed muster as a prerequisite of Homo Sapiens (or Man) or even Hetero Sapiens (Woman). As Man developed in different parts of the globe and at different times, his language developed along with this. Language became another survival mechanism. The languages peculiar to a people/group/clan/tribe (group) and so forth, developed according to the necessities of that survival. It is therefore that languages can never be translated into others at certain levels, since the reason for the language was developed for a particular purpose. Language was/is a tool towards some form of communication for the survival of the individual as well as the group. There are still many 'natural' ways of communication, even if you do not know or understand a particular language because we all have many common roots as Homo/hetero Sapiens. Thus sign/body language may suffice in many instances (although this may not always be true as cultures have developed also their own interpretations of these!). The main problem with languages, even those which appear similar, is that they are open to interpretation, as are all things. If we do not accept that these interpretations exist, then we will fail in communication. Failure of interpretations will lead inevitably, to discontent, rivalry, misconstruction, failure of communication, and so forth. These are all pretty negative. Communication proper relies on the positive. One might philosophise otherwise but that would be tortuous and would not get us very far (in this essay). So why do people join forums? The above was meant to explain how language (crude, historically) has been a means of communication and how it affects an Internet forum. An Internet forum is designed to bring people together to discuss thing of like. At least, that is how I see it. What interests me, is the notion behind wanting to join one. What sort of people join Internet forums? (Remember people need to communicate at some time, whatever their reason) The lonely. The self-opinionated. The friendly. The searchers for truth or different ideas. The moaners/whingers. The happy souls who want to make friends. The bullies. The love-lorn. The researchers. The anti-social of direct communication. (This is not a negative aspect) For 'fun' (whatever that term means in their own vocabulary). Information on a problem. Any other reason. My major criticism of forums, whatever they are, they seem to degenerate. Anybody still with me, here? Even the most erudite beginnings of what they apparently call a 'thread', seems to degenerate into misunderstandings, misinterpretations, back-stabbing, vociferous argument, slanging matches, name-calling, racist comments, bad spelling/gammar and so on and on. Many people who reply to threads also deem it in their favour to comment on other's way of writing. This is very important. I am a qualified teacher of English to English students. I am a writer, poet, artist, musician and so forth. I never claim to be any good but I love the language I was taught and have a high regard for its continuance in as pure a form as possible. The last phrase is very important. What I personally dislike is the corruption of language for its own sake. It's the number '4' for 'for' syndrome that I object to. This may be fine for certain communications but not for more formal ones, even on a 'chatty' forum. There is also the use of lower case letters instead of UPPER CASE letter. There is also the vague use of punctuation. There is also the use of 'words' like 'lol' and so forth, which are meaningless to the uninitiated (and I don't want to be, thank you). There is also the use of capitals to SHOUT AT PEOPLE!! There is also the use of 'smilies' and other graphics, which make the whole idea of trying to communicate ridiculous. There are some standards to be adhered to. I suppose what I am saying is that there are languages for every reason, which I said above relating to language development. Language, like everything else must be matched to the audience. The difficulty with forums as that this language is not always adhered to. The other problem is that some people do not have the language skills of others. There can be no 'fault' here. We are not all tarred with the same brush. We all make mistakes in our typing (and our way of expression when the mood takes us and the 'juices flow'). If you can type 'properly' then you make few mistakes. You proof-read your work and if professional, you let some-one else proof-read its for content and correctness. Most Internet forum writers do not have this advantage. They 'write-on-the-fly'. We all make mistakes (even joining some forms). This is where the bully comes in. Not only will the bully will make a mockery of the writer (for reasons of spelling/ideas and so on) but will presume that the writer is inarticulate or whatever he/she wants to think. Thus the thread degenerates into something which it is not (a study of the language, not its content). Instead of asking for an explanation, the reader is only concerned with the way in which it was said, without the knowledge or experience of perhaps 'reading beyond/behind the lines' (written). This is a failing of the reader, not the writer, unless explanation is asked for. Thus may we all learn about all things. Why is this? I believe it is because people who join Internet forums (and any other such thing) may always have some sort of axe to grind (however else they may describe it). The Internet is a communication-at-a-distance affair. You do not actually have to confront even an opposer or a friend. Those the other side of the typing finger/s, are basically anonymous (non vis-à-vis), therefore there is a personal safety in imagining some-one a foe, or even a friend. Of course, being a 'friend', one can meet another fellow forum surfer ('friend') to a positive end. I did. On the other hand, you do not have to meet an adversary. Pretty safe! No survival problems here! Like all human activities (as global) nearly everything is racial. By 'racial' I mean to encompass any/all differences amongst every individual on the planet. Sexual reproduction demands that every individual is an individual.  Whilst there will/may be many similarities, every individual is really on his or her own. Whatever the mores of the 'society' they live in (even as a recluse), people are still individual. Our reproductive behaviours have given us the abilities (or non-abilities) to either survive or not survive. This essay would not be accepted for the members of any forum that I could conceive of (mainly because it is far too long!). This brings us to another problem. Most people seem to have lost the ability to read longer passages of anything. All they seem to require of sometimes complex issues is a trite phrase which says nothing. This is followed by an equally trite rejoinder and, especially on forums the addition of some mindless (although sometimes humourous) icon (Smilie/emoticon, or whatever). This is communication at its worst, especially when some perhaps important issue is being 'discussed'. These things may be appropriate at certain times, but what galls me is that these trite phrases and/or 'emoticons'/icons are often used in what is supposed to be a serious discussion, especially when one is trying to elicit data for the solving of a problem. The use of short, trite sentences does not address the issue/s nor give the responder adequate length to make a reasoned point. This leads to more 'reading between/behind the lines' than is fair on a respondent. The ensuing (possible/probable) misunderstanding of what one person might say in answer to an issue, then degrades into some sort of slanging match, totally inappropriate for anything. The fact then that a 'moderator' is required makes the whole issue of forums suspect as to their real worth except the egoistic scribblings of forum members. Women's 'problems' Some of these problems are gleaned from a woman's perspective. Here, we seem to have even a more flagrant example of stereo-typing. Stereotyping is the 'cause' of most aspects of modern life, in my view. Women seem rarely to relate to those of their gender who are obviously 'different' from what they see as that which a woman should be and how she should react (as far as they are concerned). The reaction seems to bother terribly. As an example, a woman who posts a picture of her new child/grandchild and so forth, expects that others will coo in the same way perhaps as her visible friends and relations. This is a stereotyped expected 'norm'. The fact that another (invisible) forum member may have different views is regarded as a form of anarchy. The problem here is that of stereotypes; personally wanting some sort of credit for the event, the pursuance of the myth of child-bearing, and so forth. Any dissenter, for whatever reason may be severely ostracised in some way or other (ignoring a 'post' or making some other comment). It's all a game. Some-one who doesn't play the game is a loser and should be punished in some way. So, we assume that women want others to agree with what they say/show. This is not communication, it is non-communication. There is a divide which cannot, will not be broached for common agreement/disagreement. Forums, therefore, are not generally positive, they are mainly negative (unless you 'play the game'). As a form of communication in a real sense, they are a non-starter. People continue contributing because they feel that they may eventually get heard as they want/need to be heard. The sad things is, that they rarely, if ever, do. The Persistence of Forums is as obscure as Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory for most of us. Probably there is as much 'art' in writing to forums as there is in Dali's excellent (in my view) work. Peter K. Sharpen

Return to CONTENTS page