[Superchicken]

I've realized something that I've known for a while but that I've realized lately more heavely than before but I think I always knew it... internet friendships are the least reliable of friendships, and friendships themselves while useful, you know how everyone tells you "a really good friend will stick with you through..." they're lying.
I have lots and lots of friends, when we all get together we have to plan for months just to get everyone together, and I know that right now... if I told any of them half the stuff I go through none of them would care...

But yeah I think I'm gona kill most of my internet friendships.

[Zimphire]

[OwlBoy]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:


But yeah I think I'm gona kill most of my internet friendships.

hmm, I dunno, I have had great friendships with people online. Even met them.

Though I would not look so hard at them being moral support, or people that are always there for you.

Many people are lucky to find one person who will be there when you need them. So I would not cut off the relationships, but rather just realize that they are just part of a large group you can go to sometimes. And that one or 2 best friends (often your girlfriend/boyfriend) are another group. Be strong buddy

-Owl

[voodoo]

Whoa! I didn't know you could have friends on the net. I'd consider those I know best here as acquaintances. But that is just me. I'm a face to face person really.

[OwlBoy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Whoa! I didn't know you could have friends on the net. I'd consider those I know best here as acquaintances. But that is just me. I'm a face to face person really.

Thats why many of us love sigs.

It is our "face" on the boards.

Think about it that way, and they are closer to real friends

Though I would agree it is harder to define it as friends through a message board. With IM or email, or another direct chat/connection it could be defined as that.

-Owl

[boots]

You're lucky if you have three or four good friends in a lifetime.

Most of those you meet (especially on-line) are just acquaintances.

You need to work on the Faulkneresque stream of consciousness sentences too. You're very hard to understand sometimes.

[SOLIDAge]

I disagree chicken!
i think Internet freindships are great. I keep in touch with so many people i've met over the years on board, some we used to work together on a website, to IRC chat rooms from lonnnng time ago. I feel like they are my friends and what not, and they're great people.

if you need a good loyal internetfriend IM me i'll talk to ya!

[Sealobo]

Originally posted by boots:
You're lucky if you have three or four good friends in a lifetime.

Yes.

But most people have problem identifying, and it's particularly true for women.

"Hey this is my best friend whoever!"

[OwlBoy]

Originally posted by SOLIDAge:
I disagree chicken!
i think Internet freindships are great. I keep in touch with so many people i've met over the years on board, some we used to work together on a website, to IRC chat rooms from lonnnng time ago. I feel like they are my friends and what not, and they're great people.

if you need a good loyal internetfriend IM me i'll talk to ya!

same here, owlboydotcom.

and check out chat.macnn.com

-Owl

[boots]

Don't take my above comments as a diss on anyone. There are a lot of really cool people I know and hang around with. But most of the cool people will fade in and out of your life over time. Only a very few will you ever really keep close contact with.

Many of the people I've met on the internet are cool. I'd love to meet a few of them. Some of them could become friends, but I doubt many of them will. That's just the nature of relationships. Precious few of them last.

[CMYKid]

you cant really BE friends with people you've not met and don't acquaint with on an ongoing basis...it's easy to feel like you are tho.

[Lerkfish]

there is an instinct when you meet people face to face that helps determine whether you will be friends with them, or not. You can go against that instinct, or your particular instinct that particular day may be wrong, but its something we all unconsciously rely on in face to face dealings that allows us to discriminate those we consider friends from those we do not...right or wrong, we establich these unconscious criteria and use them to tailor who we spend time with.

on the internet, your instincts are more easily fooled. you do not have body language, inflection, input from others, access to the entire personality of the person in various situations. More than face to face, the internet is an even slimmer tip of the iceberg...with even less information to go on than in real life.

Add to that that many people consciously or unconsciously project a very different image of themselves when they than when they talk. You also have the ability to edit a post, whereas in real life you do not. A completely bereft person socially in real life might shine on the internet, and vice versa, because they are either more or less comfortable than face to face dealings.

I once thought it was a good idea to try to be friends with people met online (this was before I came here), but in the end I think its like trying to read a book through a straw. you get a letter now and then, or a comma, or an exclamation point. But you cannot easily get the full page nor accurately read what its really all about.

This is true of real life, but the internet is even a tinier straw, with a smaller hole, letting in less light.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
there is an instinct when you meet people face to face that helps determine whether you will be friends with them, or not. You can go against that instinct, or your particular instinct that particular day may be wrong, but its something we all unconsciously rely on in face to face dealings that allows us to discriminate those we consider friends from those we do not...right or wrong, we establich these unconscious criteria and use them to tailor who we spend time with.

on the internet, your instincts are more easily fooled. you do not have body language, inflection, input from others, access to the entire personality of the person in various situations. More than face to face, the internet is an even slimmer tip of the iceberg...with even less information to go on than in real life.

Add to that that many people consciously or unconsciously project a very different image of themselves when they than when they talk. You also have the ability to edit a post, whereas in real life you do not. A completely bereft person socially in real life might shine on the internet, and vice versa, because they are either more or less comfortable than face to face dealings.

I once thought it was a good idea to try to be friends with people met online (this was before I came here), but in the end I think its like trying to read a book through a straw. you get a letter now and then, or a comma, or an exclamation point. But you cannot easily get the full page nor accurately read what its really all about.

This is true of real life, but the internet is even a tinier straw, with a smaller hole, letting in less light.

Man of quiet fish speakum truth.

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

I once thought it was a good idea to try to be friends with people met online (this was before I came here), but in the end I think its like trying to read a book through a straw. you get a letter now and then, or a comma, or an exclamation point. But you cannot easily get the full page nor accurately read what its really all about.

Meh. Be that as it may, if you're ever in southern MN, look me up. I suggest you not come in January.

[OwlBoy]

Edit: directed @ Lerk

Well put man!

-Owl

[SOLIDAge]

Originally posted by CMYKid:
you cant really BE friends with people you've not met and don't acquaint with on an ongoing basis...it's easy to feel like you are tho.

what if you talk to this person daily?
i'd beg to differ that you can't be friends with someone that you've not met w/ face to face.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by SOLIDAge:
what if you talk to this person daily?
i'd beg to differ that you can't be friends with someone that you've not met w/ face to face.

Well, yes, but to get back to the topic... "talk" isn't text. I agree that auditory cues can be enough to establish trusting relationships. But most people's "internet relationships" probably lack a consistent audio dimension.


wolfen

[Worst. Episode. Ever.]

I think it's possible to start friendships on the internet, but for those friendships to develop into anything greater than acquaintances, you have spend time with the person(s) in real life.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by boots:
You're lucky if you have three or four good friends in a lifetime.

Most of those you meet (especially on-line) are just acquaintances.

Word.

Buddies you hang out with != friends.

I've noticed, though, that the bar at which you consider people "friends" rises continually with age.

I know a lot of people whom I would have thought of as "friends" ten years ago, but I rather consider them "buddies".

Friendship is a lot more than the occasional heart-to-heart talk.

-s*

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
I've realized something that I've known for a while but that I've realized lately more heavely than before but I think I always knew it... internet friendships are the least reliable of friendships, and friendships themselves while useful, you know how everyone tells you "a really good friend will stick with you through..." they're lying.
I have lots and lots of friends, when we all get together we have to plan for months just to get everyone together, and I know that right now... if I told any of them half the stuff I go through none of them would care...

But yeah I think I'm gona kill most of my internet friendships.

You need less friends.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
Meh. Be that as it may, if you're ever in southern MN, look me up. I suggest you not come in January.

january in Ohio is cold enough!



But I used to live in Chicago. One day, walking several blocks downtown with a windchill of 23 below, I literally thought the flesh on my face had cracked, but it was frozen sweat!

[voyageur]

But most people have problem identifying, and it's particularly true for women.

"Hey this is my best friend whoever!"

You've got to be joking

[daimoni]

.

[boots]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But isn't that a German, or at the very least, a cultural thing?

(Like the difference between a "compul" and a "freund". Sorry if I got the spelling wrong.)


The people online whom I consider "friends", are people I'd consider friends in meat space. They know who they are. And we don't spend much time defining to the nth degree the precise level of "friend" they are (or aren't). Plus, I haven't totally converted to metric yet so it would be difficult to do so even if I tried.

Not saying it isn't possible. Just saying that people use the word friend in different ways. True friends (you know, the one who would be in jail with you, as opposed to those you would cal to get you out) are pretty few and far between. The rest are just nice people. Much different level of intimacy. For me...I don't have that deep a relationship with many people. I can think of about 4 after 30+ years. And that includes the spouse.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by daimoni:
The people online whom I consider "friends", are people I'd consider friends in meat space. They know who they are. And we don't spend much time defining to the nth degree the precise level of "friend" they are (or aren't).

what the hippy said. dunno about the meat part though. blergh.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But isn't that a German, or at the very least, a cultural thing?

(Like the difference between a "compul" and a "freund". Sorry if I got the spelling wrong.)

I don't so much think it's a cultural thing. I know people here who have many "friends".

I think it's a very personal thing, to do with trust.

"Friends" are people I trust blindly.

Originally posted by daimoni:
The people online whom I consider "friends", are people I'd consider friends in meat space. They know who they are. And we don't spend much time defining to the nth degree the precise level of "friend" they are (or aren't). Plus, I haven't totally converted to metric yet so it would be difficult to do so even if I tried.

I don't sit with a list of criteria, adding up points and deal-breakers to determine "friend status".

It just takes an awful lot before I will use the term. When it clicks, it's clear.

-s*

[boots]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I don't so much think it's a cultural thing. I know people here who have many "friends".

I think it's a very personal thing, to do with trust.

"Friends" are people I trust blindly.


I don't sit with a list of criteria, adding up points and deal-breakers to determine "friend status".

It just takes an awful lot before I will use the term. When it clicks, it's clear.

-s*

Bingo. I trust people in general, but only so far. "Friends" have kind of an unconditional trust. Even when they screw up, you don't pass judgement...just shake your head and move on.

[voyageur]

Those who have some people who they can really call friend are lucky.

I have fewer real friends now than I have ever had, although I know many terrific people. We all have "no time", as we work too hard, are busy volunteering in various ways at school or in our community, or are too busy taking the kids to their activities. Just trying to get together with someone requires a major scheduling effort. I guess you could call us over-achievers. It bothers me, but it's reality. I wonder how widespread this is.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Those who have some people who they can really call friend are lucky.

I have fewer real friends now than I have ever had, although I know many terrific people. We all have "no time", as we work too hard, are busy volunteering in various ways at school or in our community, or are too busy taking the kids to their activities. Just trying to get together with someone requires a major scheduling effort. I guess you could call us over-achievers. It bothers me, but it's reality. I wonder how widespread this is.

ditto. Becoming a dad was great, but the non-work related relationships took a huge nosedive, time-wise.

[Superchicken]

I have one friend who some day when I get jailed for preaching something he'll probably guest speak at whatever church I pastor and get arrested the next sunday
Of course my preaching would be better...

And if you don't think people will get jailed for preaching in Canada... you need to pay more attention

[wdlove]

I would like to think that I have made some friends on the Internet. Definitely could not call them close friends. Still need to have that face to face contact. I do think that the support that you can dervive from a forum is very valuable.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Sealobo:
Yes.

But most people have problem identifying, and it's particularly true for women.

"Hey this is my best friend whoever!"

Oh that made me laugh out loud!

True dat.

[yellow no.5]

Any of you have friends that you like in real life but don't like on the internet?

I have one friend that I refuse to talk to via instant messaging because he turns into another person.

I suppose the question is, "Which person is he?" I assume it's the one I deal with in the physical world.

But you never know.

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by philzilla:
what the hippy said. dunno about the meat part though. blergh.

Meat. Not only is it for dinner, but it is also what we are made of.

Confucious says: If man meets woman online, has great sexual relationship, then surely friendship is not impossible.

I am in it for the sex.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
there is an instinct when you meet people face to face that helps determine whether you will be friends with them, or not. You can go against that instinct, or your particular instinct that particular day may be wrong, but its something we all unconsciously rely on in face to face dealings that allows us to discriminate those we consider friends from those we do not...right or wrong, we establich these unconscious criteria and use them to tailor who we spend time with.

on the internet, your instincts are more easily fooled. you do not have body language, inflection, input from others, access to the entire personality of the person in various situations. More than face to face, the internet is an even slimmer tip of the iceberg...with even less information to go on than in real life.

Add to that that many people consciously or unconsciously project a very different image of themselves when they than when they talk. You also have the ability to edit a post, whereas in real life you do not. A completely bereft person socially in real life might shine on the internet, and vice versa, because they are either more or less comfortable than face to face dealings.

I once thought it was a good idea to try to be friends with people met online (this was before I came here), but in the end I think its like trying to read a book through a straw. you get a letter now and then, or a comma, or an exclamation point. But you cannot easily get the full page nor accurately read what its really all about.

This is true of real life, but the internet is even a tinier straw, with a smaller hole, letting in less light.

Totally accurate. You can see the same quality in e.mail communication, even with people you know well -- the medium flattens out all nuances.

[Which is why it is worth being more precise and spending some time with trying for clarity and good spelling -- one has precious little else to work with]

However, Lerk, friend, I wonder about your internet friend conclusion. I agree internet friends cannot be like real friends -- they're "virtual", after all. But it seems to me that just makes them a different category of friend, rather than people ineligible to be friends.

I've met people online that I count as my friends (I'm more loose with the term than, say, boots).

[andi*pandi]

excellent posts lerk, timo.

I agree with the 3-4 true friends in a lifetime thing too--the shirt-off-their-back friends who are there for you, who call when you need them to, who hug you for no reason. Internet friends cannot be there for you at this level, there's just no way.

Then there are friends who fade, and become acquaintances over time and distance, but getting together still is fun. And then, there are those who fade away to memory.

I consider internet friends to be "acquaintances with potential." Some are people I'd like to meet, and I feel pretty certain I know who they are. And some, I just like reading their posts, and laughing, and trying to make them laugh back. There's not enough personal sharing there to give them that official "friend with potential" status--yet there is still potential.

I think you can practice your friend-building skills on the internet just as well as in real-life though--being helpful, being considerate, remembering their kids names, writing in clear sentences, telling funny jokes. Another level.

[boots]

Timo:

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I agree with the 3-4 true friends in a lifetime thing too--the shirt-off-their-back friends who are there for you, who call when you need them to, who hug you for no reason. Internet friends cannot be there for you at this level, there's just no way.

Then there are friends who fade, and become acquaintances over time and distance, but getting together still is fun. And then, there are those who fade away to memory.

I consider internet friends to be "acquaintances with potential." Some are people I'd like to meet, and I feel pretty certain I know who they are. And some, I just like reading their posts, and laughing, and trying to make them laugh back. There's not enough personal sharing there to give them that official "friend with potential" status--yet there is still potential.

I think you can practice your friend-building skills on the internet just as well as in real-life though--being helpful, being considerate, remembering their kids names, writing in clear sentences, telling funny jokes. Another level.

I guess I'm referring to the "shirt off your back" kind. Andi*Pandi does an excellent job of listing the "friend" hierarchy.

[Xeo]

I have 3 good friends now. I know I could rely on any of them for anything and I hope they know the same about me.

I always had one good friend while growing up. Everyone else was in the "buddy" category. I have had my good friends fade off as we got older and eventually parted ways. It's unfortunate.

Anyone on the internet I talk to is just an acquaintance. I wouldn't mind meeting a few in real life but if I never do it won't bother me.

I agree with what most of you say, I think. 3-4 in a lifetime sounds right. But when you say 3-4, do you mean 3-4 that you hang onto forever, or 3-4 over the course of your life? 'Cause if that's the case, I'm up to 5, but 2 from high school have faded. And those were not concurrent. But at the time, each was truly my best friend.

[boots]

Originally posted by Xeo:


I agree with what most of you say, I think. 3-4 in a lifetime sounds right. But when you say 3-4, do you mean 3-4 that you hang onto forever, or 3-4 over the course of your life? 'Cause if that's the case, I'm up to 5, but 2 from high school have faded. And those were not concurrent. But at the time, each was truly my best friend.

I meant that you hang on to. At any time, you could have 4-5 "candidates." Only time can really tell who the life-longers are.

[Timo]

Originally posted by boots:
Timo:



I guess I'm referring to the "shirt off your back" kind. Andi*Pandi does an excellent job of listing the "friend" hierarchy.

Agreed.