In a much less organised fashion, I had been wondering along similar lines myself.
It is somewhat ironic that a medium which allows me such freedom of identity nevertheless leaves me with a feelnig that something of my identity is lost in it.
Whoever I am at this keyboard is what determines what I will write, but whoever
you are at your screen determines how I will be perceived. If I write that Jesus was just a man and you are a Christian then you might consider me to be a mean-spirited person, or simply someone who is lost from the lord. An athiest, on the other hand, might view a perceptive and clever fellow who's done his homework well.
Of course the same is true of direct, person-to-person communication. Is there any real difference, save that the medium is in writing instead of sight and speech?
Obviously there are limitations as to what can come across in the written word, but anyone who expresses themself well, and is a good communicator, should be able to transcend these difficulties.
I suspect there are also benefits. I write the things I write in a manner which suggests authority, that I know what I'm talking about. I also write in style that suggests, I hope, intelligence, and generally I come across as being a good deal older than I am.
And that's when this medium becomes beneficial. People expect to hear certain things from certain classes of people, and don't like to recognise them when they come from someone who seemingly should not hold such views.
That's why people don't like to hear love songs by 17 year old boys, no matter how good their voice. That's why we don't want to hear a convicted rapist tell us about forgiveness, or a white-boy tell us about life in the ghetto!
On the whole, I feel this is a very wonderful medium that has added a whole new dimension to human existence. Everyone wants to express themselves, and now we can express ourselves to anyone, anywhere, anytime, and in any way we please, largely without consequence.
~ Org
