Last Friday morning I responded to a Globe and Mail New Media column on Facebook being full of phonies. In the author's response he quoted me by name.
Daniel Allen wrote to say that on the same morning as he read the piece, “one friend changed his status to say he is ‘not a failure, he just looks like one most of the time,' ” prompting other friends to pile on in support. “It might be that the Internet gives us a mask to hide behind,” he noted, “but it does also give us the tools to connect in very honest ways. If we choose to.”
Gee, makes a pretty good theme, don't you think?...
On that note: blah. I'll go and try and connect in honest ways, after breakfast.
Daniel Allen wrote to say that on the same morning as he read the piece, “one friend changed his status to say he is ‘not a failure, he just looks like one most of the time,' ” prompting other friends to pile on in support. “It might be that the Internet gives us a mask to hide behind,” he noted, “but it does also give us the tools to connect in very honest ways. If we choose to.”
Gee, makes a pretty good theme, don't you think?...
On that note: blah. I'll go and try and connect in honest ways, after breakfast.

Comments
(Another advantage to the internet: connecting without sharing germs.)
Once again, a situation where you get out of it what you put into it. The original article smacked of subtle victimization-- look what FB does to people's behaviour! Instead it should have been about what people's behaviour does to FB.
*looking inward at areas I self-victimize*
*pondery* (but not too pondery on the department's time..)
Doesn't mean I can't be an absolute dishonest bastard to someone else, but I won't kid myself about it. :)
Moderation in all.
(Including moderation.)