I rarely find qroupthink interesting other than as a phenomena, and I'll rarely just pile on in an informational answer to a question, unless there is some nuance that could or should be flushed out further or added to discourse. i don't think everyone comes here for companionship, but don't begrudge those that do, until that gets in the way of real, good, and whole information that may involve confrontation and debate. The difference between in-person and on-the-net is the amount of inter-personal relationship sought by engaging in the activity. Some seek more of a relationship on the net, but that usually is what leads to more in-person relationships like going on a ride together or something. You can certainly swap info either way, but the goodness of online(and written) communication is that it minimizes the ego content even if it appears to heighten it at the same time, by keeping the focus on the info rather than the personality. In other words, I've seen a lot of gurus out on the trail, but as soon as they get online, their egos and experience have to be backed by good ideas. Some of the issues people have with attitudes are due to the fact that online interaction is in the form of written word, which is inherently sharper and matter of fact. This is what led to the use of smileys since the inception of the medium. But if you're on a forum, it's a back and forth discussion format, not just an encyclopedia or bulletin board, dating site, etc.

In both face-to-face and online conversation, I try to make my points clearly, whether I am making a serious point or making a joke. I try to word things in ways that will not have unintended interpretations and I try not to say things that that would offend a reasonable person. I expect my ideas to be challenged, but not attacked.

In both, I try to understand what the other person is really trying to say and try to avoid being offended, whether or not I think that was their intention. If I need clarification, I will ask follow up questions. If I think something being said is in error and is important enough to be corrected, I will respond.

I am not always successful in not offending or being offended unnecessarily, but I try. I am not alone in this.

*standing up and applauding*

Paragraphs, please.

PS: I did read your post, in its entirety. FYA, I previously wrote about the interpersonal aspects of these communications:

I see.

Here's my interpretation, paragraphed only:

At first I thought I would string this out with one "Giant California" and we are all "Dudes". But I think the real point is we are all individuals on line or off line. We do better communicating with people that lean in our direction. We tend to give people of like mind more of a break than people that are too different. And it also depends on how anchored we are to one subject. There are also hot points that people should know about. Helmets, saddles, clipless or not, frame material all are dead end subjects. Because face to face is instantaneous those debates don't last long and hardly ever pop up in a group setting. But on line it can take days before all interested parties get in their opinion on a first pass basis.

The things I don't like or care for related to cycling in these forums are the same things I don't care for in the real world. Once a debate between two of us takes place on those issues we have no need to address the issue again. Plus I have found in real life there is less of a debate on such issues are recumbents, Steel, Aluminum, Ti or CF or components. In a forum on line we feel like someone has asked our opinion and once expressed we tend to feel we have to defend it. No we don't have to defend it but why else would we be posting in a bike forum? Passion for cycling is my guess.

dueling theories and opinions, tiny pictures at best, here..

In the Bike shop we speak of will it fit , will this work and can see the work in front of me..

and can we get it ? (if not in-stock).


plus no one asks about their Prostate , like a bike mechanic has an MD in Urology ,

LOL. Congratulations, that's one of the more entertaining posts in this forum for some time. And you are absolutely entitled to your opinion ... though I must say I think it decidedly odd that you should even remember an outdated signature of mine. Much less odd that you should misinterpret it.

You make the mistake that many make here, namely that you think you can know the poster from their posts. This is at the heart of the repeated discussions, in 50+, about how it isn't as cosy as some people want.

I'm not interested in who you are. i'm not interested in whether I'd like you in real life. You may be absolutely delightful, I can't possibly know and therefore I don't care. I am only able to read your posts, and those of others, and respond to waht interests me. I do not imagine that by reading what you post here I can have any grasp whatever of how you might be as a person. Nor, when I disagree with you, am I making judgments about you as a person. If you take disagreement personally, thatis your problem, not mine.

By the same token, I am simply indifferent to your opinion of me. In the first place, what people think of me is their business, not mine, and reflects their personality rather than my qualities or lack of them. In the second place, people who encounter me solely in a digital environment cannot possibly know anything about me beyond what I choose to share, and mostly what I choose to share are my views about their opinions. It's remarkable how many people are so insecure that they cannot stand their opinions being interrogated.

It hasn't much to do with erudition. It has to do with being uninterested in the illusion that in a place like this one is actually forming relationships.

Your posts read like a something Jane Austen might have written if she dropped acid.

I'm sure in person you are delightful.

Dont be bothered by what others think of you when they seldom do.

Until this post I've agreed with a fair amount of what you have said in this thread as I really don't have much of a problem with pointed, challenging discussions. I may be biased though because you have given me helpful advice over the last few months. But, it is about relationships. Forums are human interaction. You may never meet a person from the forum but you still can have a relationship with them. You may get to know them and have a feel for what they are like. I have met people from bike forums and I have met people from other forums. For the most part it has been what you see is what you get.

I wouldn't spend near as much time with you in person, let alone stop for paragraphs. ****, I might even let go of punctuation in person, except when you feel the heel of my boot hit your chin.

I seldom encounter a troll face to face. When I encounter one on a forum I try not to feed him, and when possible advise others not to as well.

You may have a point here. Just because a contributer's posts make them look like an annoying, argumentative, supercilious man or woman, that doesn't necessarily mean they are. On the other hand...............

Again a feasible proposition but, ad absurdum, I doubt that people's dislike of Pol Pot just reflected their personalities. It may have been something to do with his qualities or lack of them.

I am quite prepared to accept it is nothing to do with you being erudite.

True, if you believe that relationships can only be formed person to person. IMO a very narrow interpretation, particularly in the 21st century with the developments in communications, but then again it's only my opinion and open to question.

This is an interesting point.

Forums are, of course, human interaction. But they are an extremely limited form of human interaction. All you have to go on is the blocks of text that those humans enter into the discussion. If you choose to form an opinion about the likely nature of the person who is entering that text, you have to understand that you are proceeding on the basis of very little data.

To put it another way, the "me" that you have in your mind exists only in your mind. That person is your construct, based on your reaction to my posts, not on your knowledge of me as a person. Your reaction to my posts has tended to be positive, therefore you tend to be prejudiced in favour of the idea that I am OK. Others have reacted negatively, and are therefore inclined to believe that I am not OK. What I am actually like is moot, however. I could be Albert Schweitzer, I could be Hannibal Lecter - you are all proceeding on similar evidence but drawing utterly divergent conclusions. It is the classic example of how we see the world not as it is, but as we are.

To be fair, this isn't only true on-line. Being on-line accentuates the phenomenon, because we have so little to go on and it is so easy to dissemble. But if one thinks about one's reactions to people in real life, it takes very little thought to determine that those reactions owe more to our prejudices than to any objective assessment of their merits. We all have friends who are annoying in one way or another. When they behave badly we shake our heads and excuse them, affectionately saying "don't mind Harry, he has always been a bit of a jerk but he has a heart of gold". But when a stranger behaves in the same jerk-like way, we recoil and say we can't imagine liking such a person.

The scope for subjectivity and misinterpretation is huge in real life, and simply vast in a place like this. I therefore don't bother speculating on what the people behind the posts might be like, I merely respond to what they post. When those posts seem to me to be interesting, I react accordingly. When they seem to be stupid, I react accordingly. It is often the case that the same poster can be interesting and stupid, by turns. In that way, at least, this place resembles real life. It is the human condition.

I usually lurk in the shadows and attempt to absorb the smarts generated by the many knowledgeable members. Very seldom do I feel that I can make a useful contribution. Infrequently, however, someone makes a comment that goes against the grain. Even when I know that my remarks are too confrontational, I can't help myself. I know that the right thing to do is not to beat someone about the head and shoulders with my remarks but to keep silent or at the most, suggest sweetly, ever so sweetly that they are dumb asses!

You know what they say about dumb-asses.........

Thanks for clearing that up.

No, I have no idea. What?

Thread has pretty much run its course, so....